or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 7

post #241 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Here's what you wrote:

"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."

Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.

Are you psychic or clairvoyant? I know what I wrote and what I meant. I will however rephrase to clarify.

Original

The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.

Rephrased

The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements consider themselves Americans. The hateful talk does convince me. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.

I am not sure that is stated any better, but that was the thought behind the statement.

But once again, I did not call you anything or imply anything except the hateful speech could easily be confused with similar statements made by other groups. that's all.

It was an analysis of the speech and not you personally.
post #242 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I wonder if those making such statements consider themselves Americans.

If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.
post #243 of 654
Well, Naples has a point. The rhetoric really is out of hand, and it's coming from top Democrats such as Terry McCauliffe. Rank and file Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler. Al Gore has been heard screaming "He betrayed this country!". Howard Dean suggested Bush was warned, specifically about 9/11 by the Saudis. John Kerry has called for "regime change" in Washington

What we have here is political hate speech. Some of it borders on treason, even. It's apparently not enough to say "I disagree with the President because of X, Y and Z". Honestly, the polls don't surprise me at this point....given the total assault Bush has endured over the past two months.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #244 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Rank and file Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler.

And rank and file Republicans are comparing various Democrats, including Kerry, to Hitler.

So where's the disparity?
post #245 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.

Ok, cool.

I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?
post #246 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different.

Do you think that?

"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.

I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.

This is what I think:

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions, and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.

I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...

Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
Scientist (including 20 Nobel Laureates) say BUSH admin distorting science
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #247 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.

As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?

I actually believe that if I was told what I wanted to hear, lets say that I can buy the compound I have been trying to synthesize for two months now, I wouldn't think twice before launching into an all out attempt at finding a place I can buy it from, even if the person was lying (even if I knew that they were, furthermore). We can always self delude, but not be delusional. I think they are quite capable of critical thought, but I honestly feel that when anyone is told what they want to hear intellect tends to take a walk. Its not delusion but a facet of human nature...So I am saying that they are human and are fallable, yes. And I still respect their opinions and whatnot. This is further not an indication that it didn't take thought to reach the conclusions they have reached, but that they are less likely to go back on that thought when/if someone outrightly supports it...
I think we are going to simply have to disagree on what the US should do internationally. I say our power can be used for the betterment of the human species (of course, as always, rationally defending our citizens first, and world citizens second, at least at this point). We are a member of an international community and we can serve the role of leader or follower. I think our history tends to give us a better perspective on leadership in all things, and this includes human rights issues, environmental policies etc etc...
post #248 of 654
The whole premise this thread was started on was sarcasm. It was just like a sign saying "Come In - Bash Bush... Again"

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.

It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.

It is very ... well incestuous.
post #249 of 654
We essentially pulled out of Afghanistan to go after Saddam...

Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.

Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.

We should of never let up on him.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #250 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.

Well-said!

If anyone wants to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."

Quote:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.
-Edward R. Murrow

Quote:
My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober.
-G. K. Chesterton

Quote:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
-H.L. Mencken

Quote:
I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
-James Baldwin

Quote:
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
-Henry Steele Commager

Quote:
The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
-Mark Twain

Quote:
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.
-Sydney J. Harris

Quote:
Patriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least.
-Wendy Kaminer

Quote:
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
-Barbara Ehrenreich

Quote:
The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."
-Carl Schurz
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #251 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.

I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.

This is what I think:



I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...

Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
Scientist (including 20 Nobel Laureates) say BUSH admin distorting science

Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?

You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.

He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.

If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry.
post #252 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
NaplesX: If you want to live where criticism of the government is limited, then you have many choices, but the United States of America is NOT one of them.

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt (quoted below), your position "is morally treasonable to the American public."

I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.

I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.

Please quit trying to impress me with your quotes that have nothing to do with anything relevant here. I do not disagree with any of those statement, i don't think.

What is your point?

My brain is actually aching, or maybe you've given me an aneurism.

Oww, mommy...
post #253 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?

You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.

He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.

If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry. [/B]

I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.

As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.

Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #254 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.

As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.

Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)

Here we go...

You have proven my point completely thank you.

ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.

So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice
post #255 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The whole premise this thread was started on was sarcasm. It was just like a sign saying "Come In - Bash Bush... Again"

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.

It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.

It is very ... well incestuous.

What you seem to be missing is that the "Bush Bashing" is coming from all sides. Moogs, the starter of this thread, can hardly be described as a liberal or progressive generally speaking. In fact, I think his views are much more moderate. So hey, rail against "Bush Bashing" all you want. Your side is slowly leaking supporters.
post #256 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am getting sick of you fact twisters putting words in my mouth.

I never said or implied that you should not criticize this president or anybody.

Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:

Quote:
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US

And your reply was:

Quote:
Ok, cool.

I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?

I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".

What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #257 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:



And your reply was:



I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".

What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?

Please do not address anymore posts to me, as you are clearly unable to understand the language I am using. (Someone that is fluent in leftist spin please translate this to him)

Thank you.
post #258 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmmm... let's see... giant posted the following:



And your reply was:



I did not put those words in your mouth. Unless I missed a major burst of sarcasm, you were saying that according to giant you would be considered public enemy #1, because you did indeed "seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government".

What did I miss? What words did I put in your mouth?

Oh by the way you did miss the sarcasm there. The post by giant was totally retarded to start with IMO. (Translate for him please)
post #259 of 654
Way to go duder, this thread is toast now. \


*puts fingers in ears*
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #260 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Way to go duder, this thread is toast now. \


*puts fingers in ears*

I am sick of the spin, I mean am I the only one getting dizzy?

I say "The ball is red"

They say "So you hate red ball do you? You red ballist"

I say "no you just need to identify the ball as being red"

they say "Bush lied about WMD and you are clearly misinformed"

What a crock this thread needs to be locked.
post #261 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am sick of the spin, I mean am I the only one getting dizzy?

I say "The ball is red"

They say "So you hate red ball do you? You red ballist"

I say "no you just need to identify the ball as being red"

they say "Bush lied about WMD and you are clearly misinformed"

What a crock this thread needs to be locked.

they see things differently, or else none of this would happen, whose spin is correct? eh?
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #262 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
ABB huh? So it is now OK to put a man in office that would betray his fellow soldiers and his country and lie about atrocities that he says were a regular occurrence and known up and down the command structure? Many vet's were branded as drugged out murderers because of his testimony.

This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]

No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.

The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....

Quote:
So your position is not based on truth or right or wrong, but rather ABB. Nice.

My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....

Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #263 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?

Looking at your web 'design,' I'd say above.
post #264 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please do not address anymore posts to me, as you are clearly unable to understand the language I am using.



That's rich coming from a guy who uses a Poison lyric as his sig.

It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #265 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.

As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.


Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.

I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.

People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.

Just ask Bill Clinton.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #266 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This from someone accusing me of putting words in your mouth? [insert your favorite pot & kettle reference here]

No, my position is that Kerry only betrayed the fellow soldiers that were guilty of the war crimes he spoke about, and those that participated in them up.

The ones who went along with the coverup were the truly "patriotic" ones in your viewpoint apparently. I noticed you completely avoided my question about your take on atrocities in Vietnam....



My position is that whatever mistakes Kerry may have made in presenting his observations in such a way as to not create the impression (among the especially impressionable?) that "vet's were ... drugged out murderers", are much less damaging to this country than what BushCo has "accomplished" in its first "term" (marketing campaign). Not even remotely close....

Don't get me wrong with the ABB reference - I'm perfectly willing to vote for Bush (or not vote for Kerry, more likely) if I see anything that convinces me that Kerry would be worse for the country than four more years of BushCo.

You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications. He and his campaign all but admit that. So in the case of Kerry, the ends justify the means?
post #267 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's put forth a little scenario:

Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.

What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?

I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.

Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?

The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.

And 10 years before that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #268 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]You need to research that whole thing a bit. His claims have been shot down many times, and been found to be fabrications.

Can we please see the links to YOUR research, if that's what you have concluded?

What I'm finding is stuff like this:

Quote:
Historian Douglas Brinkley, the author of the recently published "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War," calls Kerry's atrocity comments "greatly exaggerated" and "the weak link" in his Senate testimony. But he adds that the context was an extremely tempestuous period for the nation in general and veterans in particular. "He's very emotional at this point. (Lt. William) Calley is on the cover of Time magazine. You have My Lai in the news (an atrocity Calley was convicted of leading). You have veterans telling these stories at the Winter Soldier Investigation."

Kerry, in fact, was a moderating influence in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that had a radical faction, Brinkley said. "He was a dedicated, nonviolent organizer. He got permits (for the Washington protest). He went and stopped confrontations. He went to the State Department. He was not really a street radical. Kerry was this preppy blue-blood who was keeping a lid on guys who were whack."
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #269 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but what if 10 years from now the middle east still hasn't recovered from what they see as our intrusion into their part of the world? Terrorism is on the rise as payback? Also because of what we did nobody trusts us?

The most likely scenerio however is that not much will have changed. Petty dictators and religious leaders will still be spawning violence in the middle east much the same as they did 10 years ago.

And 10 years before that.

If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.

Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.

You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.

Oh what's the use...

Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.
post #270 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by 709


That's rich coming from a guy who uses a Poison lyric as his sig.


I am not sure what that means. But you are the first to recognize the who the lyrics were from. Well done.
post #271 of 654
giant:


Quote:
And rank and file Republicans are comparing various Democrats, including Kerry, to Hitler.

So where's the disparity?

Who is doing that? I've not once heard that comparison.


lurker:



Quote:
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.

I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.

There's no evidence of that. We've not seen any intelligence that says "Saddam didn't have WMD". You might suspect, but you have absolutely no proof that the Bush Administration misrepresented anything. Whatever was presented to Congress must have been pretty convincing, no?

chu_bakka:

Quote:
We essentially pulled out of Afghanistan to go after Saddam...

Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaida... our military is stretached thin because of Iraq... where we'll have tens of thousands of troops for many years to come. And that endeavour hurt our global standing, cooperation is much harder to come by... which is essential in combatting terrorism.

Well over 2 years after 9/11 we're again talking about getting Osama.

We should of never let up on him.

We didn't pull out of Afghanistan. Cooperation is not harder to come by. Cooperation from who? France? The Germans? This action was no unilateral in any sense of the word. The US is continuing to work with nations around the world, especially in situations like North Korea (where a decidely multi-lateral approach is being used).

As for Al-Qaeda and Iraq, you're probably right in terms of a direct connection. However, there is no question that Saddam at least tolerated terrorism....in fact he funded famlies of Palestinian suicide bombers. He DID have terror ties. He was at least pursuing WMD...even if he didn't actually have any. He also had unquestionable hatred of ths United States. This man openly praised 9/11, even as other "less than friendly" dictators expressed sorrow (i.e. Libya) This is where we differ: In the post 9/11 age, we could not afford to take the risk of a madman and mass murderer like Saddam helping a terrorist network arm itself with WMD.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #272 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you support Kerry/ Is he your man?

You see Kerry testified in front of congress, that soldiers were regularly committing disgusting atrocities.

He and his campaign have backed away from that whole thing, with some lame thing like "that was just an angry young man trying to stop a war." crap.

If you are supporting Kerry you are supporting the very cherry-picking you decry.

That's all going to come out. Not only that, but Kerry has talked about PARTICIPATING in war crimes. It's actually on record.



Quote:
I'm firmly in the ABB camp, and if Kerry is our only chance to get Bush out of office, then so be it.

As far as Kerry and his past in Vietnam - he had the guts to speak out about what he saw (are you saying there were no atrocities commited by American soldiers in Vietnam?). As you might note above, I have great respect for Americans who exercise their patriotism by questioning the policies and actions of their elected officials.

Regarding cherry-picking, I should probably remind you which candidate completely REFUSES to discuss his past alcoholism, drug use, DUI, etc. (hint - it's not Kerry)

Well...see my above statement re: Kerry. And BTW, I'd have to disagree anyway. Kery didn't just reluctantly talk about his experiences. He was part of a radical anti-war group while we had soldiers in battle. There may have been atrocities, but Kerry made it seem as if they were commonplace. He did this, again, with soldiers dying on the battlefield.

As for Bush, you're simply wrong. Bush HAS talked about his past experiences with alcohol. He's told the story many times. Whether or not he was an actual alcoholic is in much dispute. He also talked about his DUI....he admitted it plainly, the day the story broke (by the way, that attack was personally ordered by Gore).

ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush? If so, why? What will he do differently? How will he "create jobs" and "have a strategy to win the WOT"? (his words). Why would you support him?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #273 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well to be quite frank he's the president. He is responsible for many things. So I'd guess the criticism would flow into many areas. With his job you just can't get away from that. You know " The buck stops here " and all that.

I'm sorry if this bothers you but I did warn you a year and a half ago that once this starts to unravel it won't be pretty.

People seem to get down right angry when they sense that their president has done something wrong.

Just ask Bill Clinton.

You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.

I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #274 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Who is doing that? I've not once heard that comparison.

Big surprise.
post #275 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
ABB: That concept amazes me. Do you honestly believe Kerry would make a better President than Bush?

Yes.

Quote:
If so, why?

Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...

It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #276 of 654
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.

Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.

SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.
post #277 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.

Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.
post #278 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.

Well OK that is your revised version. But at least you admit that you hate him. At least you are being somewhat honest.
post #279 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.

Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.

SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals � maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.

Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally, which makes me suspect your republican claim, but I guess that is neither here nor there. I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss. Kerry has already brought it up in a campaign speech in florida. Studies have shown that bush would have won no matter how many times they would have recounted. I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go". I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.

I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.

So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it.
post #280 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Yes.



Because I believe Bush is the worst president we've had in the last half-century, and I find it highly unlikely that Kerry could be worse. Heck, I think even Nader would be better...

It's the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario that our electoral system is so good at presenting to us.

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree. It's amazing that you don't think Clinton was worse than Bush. He's the man who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, refused to go after Al-Qaeda, tried to nationalize healthcare, raised taxes on the middle class by the largest percentage in history, cut military spending and went on TV to directly and unquestionably lie to American public.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.