or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief" - Page 3

post #81 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone disagrees with that. A short-term use of the military doesn't require a congressional war declaration (though most presidents would inform congressional leadership). What I and I think others disagree with is the view that the president can do anything with the military he wants, without any congressional approval, because he's commander-in-chief.

I think Bush thinks that. However he's a president and not a king. There are safeguards against a president going off half cocked.

However yes the " We're only going in for a short time " is a loophole to get past 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 #82 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think Bush thinks that. However he's a president and not a king. There are safeguards against a president going off half cocked.

However yes the " We're only going in for a short time " is a loophole to get past that.

Hold on. Stop. So Bush is "going off half-cocked" and considers himself a king? Is that what you are saying?
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 #83 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hold on. Stop. So Bush is "going off half-cocked" and considers himself a king? Is that what you are saying?

Far too mild, nowhere near covering the facts - I'd have to call it a God complex. I've only just started reading up on psychoanalysis but this is clearly a textbook case of someone teetering on the edge of clinical insanity.

Still, with his finger on the button and the increasing likelihood he will launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on civilian populations it is a small comfort to know that he may well have to face justice.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #84 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Far too mild, nowhere near covering the facts - I'd have to call it a God complex. I've only just started reading up on psychoanalysis but this is clearly a textbook case of someone teetering on the edge of clinical insanity.

Still, with his finger on the button and the increasing likelihood he will launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on civilian populations it is a small comfort to know that he may well have to face justice.

For quite some time I have noticed views like yours are very common on the extreme left wing. It's funny too...you consistently use the term "winger" or "right wing" and yet your own perspective is extreme-left. Interesting.

I, for one, have to just point out how I see views like yours with respect to this President. I find that these views go far, far beyond disagreement, strong disagreement, strenuous disagreement or even extreme "personal dislike."

The perception is that the Left truly hates this man in every sense of the word. He's a war monger. A fascist. A racist. A moron. He's obsessed with power. He's empire-buidling. He's evil. He's...in a word...Satan.

I have long wondered where this all comes from. It seems unlikely that all of this could have come from the decision to invade Iraq, though I wonder if that had not happened...would things be the same? I think they might be. I also think that views like yours may have become sort of a self-reinforcing phenomena, as if the more Bush is hated, the easier it is to hate him. It's been suspected and even pointed out that hating Bush has become chique in a sense...it's the thing to do in many circles, the way to be.

Of course, Bush-Hating has another benefit for those who disagree with him. By portraying him as Evil Incarnate, a caricacure is created. It's much easier to argue for your position when you characterize your ideological oppostion in this fashion. We see this on AI all the time, as you yourself engage in it. Once you can create a perception (or even just hold the perception) that your opponent is just completely, well, insane...you really have the high ground, or so it seems.

I realize the irony in that last statement, because after all, I did call you a winger in your own right. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and I have tried to do so. However, in recent posts the evidence would seem to be completely overwhelming. There comes a point where one realizes your view will simply not change: "Bush is the Devil, Iran is no different than Western democracy, Israel has no inherent right to exist as a nation-state," etc. Once you express these positions, debating you point by point would seem to be a futile exercise.

Perhaps the ultimate irony, though is found in this one fact: In the end, I (the winger!) am far less sure of my own POV's "accuracy" than you seem to be of yours.

Chew on that for a while.
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 #85 of 125
The reality is that much of the world... truly hates this man in every sense of the word. He's a war monger. A fascist. A racist. A moron. He's obsessed with power. He's empire-buidling. He's evil. He's...in a word...Satan.

Couldn't have said it better.

Problem is, I don't actively hate him. He is not worth wasting that much energy over. I do however actively oppose him as I believe he is bringing a lot of suffering to the world due to his incompetence and low-self-image.

"Chew on that for a while"? Wow. Getting a bit edgy?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #86 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Far too mild, nowhere near covering the facts - I'd have to call it a God complex. I've only just started reading up on psychoanalysis but this is clearly a textbook case of someone teetering on the edge of clinical insanity.

Still, with his finger on the button and the increasing likelihood he will launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on civilian populations it is a small comfort to know that he may well have to face justice.

Dear Dr. Segovius,

As you have "just started reading up on psychoanalysis" this might be an opportune time for a crash course on a contemporary malady: BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

Originally discovered and clinically defined by Charles Krauthammer (2003) it is "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush. "

Krauthammer, a working clinician in the Washington DC mad house, first noticed the the development of this pathology in Howard Dean, a man with "no visible tics (or) history of involuntary confinement". None the less, he had a sudden onset of paranoia, ranting that "Bush was`suppressing'' the 9/11 report because he knew about 9/11 in advance.

Krauthammer found that the this particular infectious epidemic started with ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney who first broached this idea before her 2002 primary election, later becoming a danger to Capital police when she became violent. This has led to some conjecture that the mental disease is of viral origin.

Krauthammer then noted its increased frequency in the months following Dean's breakdown:

"It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state."

And all the more distressing because:

"Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who ``clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,'' the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert."

While I am not of the old school that believes suggests that "pseudo psychotherapist, heal thyself" , I do think you could be of benefit to others so afflicted on this board. For your own treatment, I suggest continued reading of SDW...

Best Wishes,

Dr. Parrish.


http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...e.asp?ID=11173
post #87 of 125
Citing "Bush hatred" has been a way of defending the indefensible (i.e., Bush's policies) from the beginning. The fact is, the most insane, crazy, Bush-hating whackos were the only ones who were right about the Iraq war: Howard Dean, Michael Moore, etc. The more moderate and respectable people were, the more wrong they were: Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, etc.

Bush's major policies, such as on Iraq or on the federal budget, have been objectively disastrous. Under those conditions, the more vociferously and "insanely" you oppose those policies, the more right you are, and the more moderate you try to be in the face of those policies, the more wrong you are.
post #88 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Citing "Bush hatred" has been a way of defending the indefensible (i.e., Bush's policies) from the beginning. The fact is, the most insane, crazy, Bush-hating whackos were the only ones who were right about the Iraq war: Howard Dean, Michael Moore, etc. The more moderate and respectable people were, the more wrong they were: Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, etc.

Bush's major policies, such as on Iraq or on the federal budget, have been objectively disastrous. Under those conditions, the more vociferously and "insanely" you oppose those policies, the more right you are, and the more moderate you try to be in the face of those policies, the more wrong you are.

Nice try with that one. The fact is that one can disagree with policies Bush has implemented without resorting to the level of irrationality that has been demonstrated by some.
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 #89 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Citing "Bush hatred" has been a way of defending the indefensible (i.e., Bush's policies) from the beginning. The fact is, the most insane, crazy, Bush-hating whackos were the only ones who were right about the Iraq war: Howard Dean, Michael Moore, etc. The more moderate and respectable people were, the more wrong they were: Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, etc.

Bush's major policies, such as on Iraq or on the federal budget, have been objectively disastrous. Under those conditions, the more vociferously and "insanely" you oppose those policies, the more right you are, and the more moderate you try to be in the face of those policies, the more wrong you are.

That Jimmy Carter's policies on the cold war was objectively disastrous does not justify John Birchers who ranted that he was an agent of the Illuminati and the CFR, and the evil incarnate of Satan. Nor does the occasional nugget of "truth" in a pile of disinformation by Moore somehow make him a font of profound wisdom.

This kind of justification is more than weak, it is dishonest. A recent SCI FI movie was a nice little allegory about Bush "oppression", the film trys to justify this sort of neo-truth - In "V" for Vendetta the hero has to explain to a follower that unlike the ruling regime his lies are for "a greater truth"...and we are supposed to nod our head in awe.

A review of Moore's "truths" from the Democratic Leadership Council:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1...ntentid=252483

Quote:
In his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, for example, Moore peddles the absurd notion that terrorists are not really out to get us -- they're practically figments of our imaginations. Except, he adds, the terrorists who are right here at home, in our corporate and political midst. They are the "leaders seeking to terrorize us" and the "corporate mujahadeen" that run America, he writes. Furthermore, globalization -- tee shirts from China? data processing from India? -- is the main cause of terrorism.

These are just a few of the wacky ideas that spring from the fevered mind of Moore. Mixed with truisms, half-truths, and occasional truths, Moore's fulminations are a frothy brew of alarmist conspiracy theories and anti-American rhetoric. They are part of a new entertainment form pioneered by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, refined by such imitators as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, then carried to comedic proportions by left-leaning Al Franken

So this is supposed to excuse BDS?
post #90 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

While I am not of the old school that believes suggests that "pseudo psychotherapist, heal thyself" , I do think you could be of benefit to others so afflicted on this board. For your own treatment, I suggest continued reading of SDW...

Many thanks for the input. I'd like to take your advice and I'm sure it would help but the thing is I cannot continue reading SDW as I never, ever read his posts or those of anyone on the extreme-right.

Instead I use a therapeutic cleansing and re-balancing technique (patented by Psychoanalyst friend); I just close my eyes, imagine I am a winger fixated on Bush and then try to force myself into this mindset.

Of course my rational self rebels and tries to 'gasp for air' but the 'Bush persona' tries to violently suppress it using nonsensical argument (I generally employ Joyceian stream of consciousness for this or - if I'm blocked - Ionesco or something Dadaist).

I note down these nonsensical attempts at rationalization and later (when I have fully recovered) I pretend these are the posts and actual words of a winger I want to reply to and type my answer ad hoc as if they had written the very thing I made up myself.

Strange thing is, it always seems to be correct.

Sometimes one can even have a dialogue. Of sorts.

Curious.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #91 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Perhaps the ultimate irony, though is found in this one fact: In the end, I (the winger!) am far less sure of my own POV's "accuracy" than you seem to be of yours.

That's not irony, that is as it should be.

It is progress when a fanatical flat-earther starts to harbour a scintilla of doubt.

Hey, this might interest you; my readings are progressing and I have realized Freud is passé - I've discovered this chap called Lang.

Apparently, he had this theory that the world is insane and run by madmen - no argument there - and as such the only sane response to this was to go insane....

Not sure about this last bit but I think he might be on to something. I shall brush-up and let you know....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #92 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

That's not irony, that is as it should be.

It is progress when a fanatical flat-earther starts to harbour a scintilla of doubt.

Hey, this might interest you; my readings are progressing and I have realized Freud is passé - I've discovered this chap called Lang.

Apparently, he had this theory that the world is insane and run by madmen - no argument there - and as such the only sane response to this was to go insane....

Not sure about this last bit but I think he might be on to something. I shall brush-up and let you know....

Keep me posted!
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 #93 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Apparently, he had this theory that the world is insane and run by madmen - no argument there - and as such the only sane response to this was to go insane....

cf. Thomas Carlyle:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Carlyle

Liberty, I am told, is a Divine thing. Liberty when it becomes the 'Liberty to die by starvation' is not so divine!

Liberty? The true liberty of a man, you would say, consisted in his finding out, or being forced to find out the right path, and to walk thereon. To learn, or to be taught, what work he actually was able for; and then, by permission, persuasion, and even compulsion, to set about doing of the same! That is his true blessedness, honour, 'liberty' and maximum of wellbeing: if liberty be not that, I for one have small care about liberty. You do not allow a palpable madman to leap over precipices; you violate his liberty, you that are wise; and keep him, were it in strait-waistcoats, away from the precipices! Every stupid, every cowardly and foolish man is but a less palpable madman: his true liberty were that a wiser man, that any and every wiser man, could, by brass collars, or in whatever milder or sharper way, lay hold of him when he was going wrong, and order and compel him to go a little righter. O if thou really art my _Senior,_ Seigneur, my _Elder,_ Presbyter or Priest,--if thou art in very deed my Wiser, may a beneficent instinct lead and impel thee to 'conquer' me, to command me! If thou do know better than I what is good and right, I conjure thee in the name of God, force me to do it; were it by never such brass collars, whips and handcuffs, leave me not to walk over precipices!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #94 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice try with that one. The fact is that one can disagree with policies Bush has implemented without resorting to the level of irrationality that has been demonstrated by some.

Absolute bullshit. The "level of irrationality" has been a product of GOP spinmeisters. And nothing more. The fact that you believe their fucked up talking points is actually more telling of you than of those who were always skeptical and spoke up about it. It was the GOP spinmeisters and willing participants such as yourself who decided the best defense against the truth was impugning people's patriotism. Which is far more disgusting an act that actual dissent of Bush policy.

Oh, and Krauthammer is an asshole. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #95 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

That Jimmy Carter's policies on the cold war was objectively disastrous does not justify John Birchers who ranted that he was an agent of the Illuminati and the CFR, and the evil incarnate of Satan. Nor does the occasional nugget of "truth" in a pile of disinformation by Moore somehow make him a font of profound wisdom.

This kind of justification is more than weak, it is dishonest. A recent SCI FI movie was a nice little allegory about Bush "oppression", the film trys to justify this sort of neo-truth - In "V" for Vendetta the hero has to explain to a follower that unlike the ruling regime his lies are for "a greater truth"...and we are supposed to nod our head in awe.

A review of Moore's "truths" from the Democratic Leadership Council:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1...ntentid=252483



So this is supposed to excuse BDS?

Here we go with Carter again! More from the "Blame America's Ex-Presidents First" crowd.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #96 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Here we go with Carter again! More from the "Blame America's Ex-Presidents First" crowd.

Okay, I take it back, the birchers were right. Is that better?
post #97 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Absolute bullshit. The "level of irrationality" has been a product of GOP spinmeisters. And nothing more. The fact that you believe their fucked up talking points is actually more telling of you than of those who were always skeptical and spoke up about it. It was the GOP spinmeisters and willing participants such as yourself who decided the best defense against the truth was impugning people's patriotism. Which is far more disgusting an act that actual dissent of Bush policy.

Oh, and Krauthammer is an asshole. Just thought I'd throw that in there.


Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. What actually happened is that Democrats offered scathing, inappropriate criticism personally directed at the President and Republicans responded. Is openly calling the President a liar who concocted the entire war solely for political gain unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate! Is it, in the least, iresponsible? Yes. However, I've not heard the GOP us that term. Perhaps you could show me some repeated examples of it happening.

The charge of Republicans questioning patriotism is often repeated and without merit. Take Cheney's recent comments. He said:

Quote:
“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people … try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”

How is that calling someone unpatriotic? He took issue with the position. He thinks they're wrong. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time. You can't criticize or respond to those who savage everything the President does! No no! Then you're calling those people "unpatriotic!"
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 #98 of 125
"Is openly calling the President a liar who concocted the entire war solely for political gain unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate!"

This is a little unclear. Do you mean:

"Is openly calling the President - who (you might wish to add "supposedly" here) concocted the entire war solely for political gain - a liar unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate!"

No, it is not.

Holding the president to the oath of his office is the most patriotic thing an American can do.


Actually, the WH did try leveraging its position during the early part of the war on terror by using patriotism as a theme. I will try to find a few of the quotes to support this but I remember my gut wrenching at some of what was said.

This will do for a starter: 3rd paragraph down...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601853.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #99 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How is that calling someone unpatriotic? He took issue with the position. He thinks they're wrong. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time. You can't criticize or respond to those who savage everything the President does! No no! Then you're calling those people "unpatriotic!"

al-qaeda is currently the highest profile enemy of the u.s., besides maybe bin laden himself, or the more generic "terrorists". the veepee basically said that pelosi and murtha are helping the party we are currently at war with. he didn't use the word "unpatriotic", he used other words. he's not even genuine. i dont think he properly categorized the al-Q strategy; the higher ranks of al-Q are probably delighted to have the Iraqi civil war going on with US involvement, because their troops have increased considerably. the vp has done virtually the same thing you, sdw, have complained about the left; disagreement with an obscene magnitude.
post #100 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links?

“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

Quote:
How is that calling someone unpatriotic? He took issue with the position. He thinks they're wrong. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time. You can't criticize or respond to those who savage everything the President does! No no! Then you're calling those people "unpatriotic!"

It is difficult to fathom what kind of contortions must go on in your brain to read Cheney's statement and not see it as a questioning of Pelosi's patriotism. But that is beside the point. The point, simply, is that Cheney is a complete and utter moron and why anyone gives two shits about what he has to say about anything is, frankly, baffling. Has he been right about anything? At all? I'm deadly serious here. And we are seriously listening to this joker and paying attention?

I am sick to death of not just the ridiculousness of the batshit crazy things that come out of Cheney's mouth, but I am sick to death of the simple fact that anyone pays any attention to him. Or Rice. Or Bush.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #101 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I actually disagree with that entire notion. The War Powers Resolution was an effort to reign in Presidential power. If anything, the President has less authority to wage war now than he did prior to that resolution.

Now, that doesn't mean I disagree with you about declaring war, as I've stated. I just don't think that means the Office of the Presidency has acquired more power. If anything, Congress seems to be exercising more power than it was intended to by the founding fathers (in general). It's exercised it's powers of taxation, oversight and regulation vigorously. It's expanded federal power and the size of the federal government enormously.

Perhaps that's an argument that has no conclusion though.


" If anything, the President has less authority to wage war now than he did prior to that resolution. "

And it's a good thing to! We don't want him going off half cocked again!

Also once again. He's president not king.
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 #102 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice try with that one. The fact is that one can disagree with policies Bush has implemented without resorting to the level of irrationality that has been demonstrated by some.


Hey SDW where's the WMD?

While we're on it. Where's Osama? I mean we got Saddam but they're not even phonetically the same!

And he wants to do more of the same?

Honestly how could anyone be anything short of apopletic about Bush's policies?
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 #103 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey SDW where's the WMD?

I swear to god the wingnuts are saying that these chlorine truck bombs are "WMDs."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #104 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

"Is openly calling the President a liar who concocted the entire war solely for political gain unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate!"

This is a little unclear. Do you mean:

"Is openly calling the President - who (you might wish to add "supposedly" here) concocted the entire war solely for political gain - a liar unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate!"

No, it is not.

Holding the president to the oath of his office is the most patriotic thing an American can do.


Actually, the WH did try leveraging its position during the early part of the war on terror by using patriotism as a theme. I will try to find a few of the quotes to support this but I remember my gut wrenching at some of what was said.

This will do for a starter: 3rd paragraph down...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601853.html

I don't see anything in that article that supports your claim. Secondly, how exactly is making the charge I referenced "holding the President to his oath?" I fail to see how it does anything of the kid, even if it's true in your warped view.
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 #105 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.



It is difficult to fathom what kind of contortions must go on in your brain to read Cheney's statement and not see it as a questioning of Pelosi's patriotism. But that is beside the point. The point, simply, is that Cheney is a complete and utter moron and why anyone gives two shits about what he has to say about anything is, frankly, baffling. Has he been right about anything? At all? I'm deadly serious here. And we are seriously listening to this joker and paying attention?

I am sick to death of not just the ridiculousness of the batshit crazy things that come out of Cheney's mouth, but I am sick to death of the simple fact that anyone pays any attention to him. Or Rice. Or Bush.

That's a very disappointing post coming from you.
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 #106 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey SDW where's the WMD?

While we're on it. Where's Osama? I mean we got Saddam but they're not even phonetically the same!

And he wants to do more of the same?

Honestly how could anyone be anything short of apopletic about Bush's policies?

We didn't find WMDs!

Bush is an idiot!

Everything Bush has done is a failure!

I root for failure for the country!

I post this stupid face whenever we have a setback in Iraq!

The economy is not as good as it should be.


Really, you should hear yourself.
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 #107 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a very disappointing post coming from you.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that we are currently ruled by clowns and children who have fucked up everything they've touchedwith the exception of the economy, which has been especially good for the super-rich, or Bush's "base" as he calls them. Why people listen to any of these jokers on foreign policy is beyond me. And now we're watching them poke Iran with a stickjust like they did Iraqto provoke them into doing something that'll give them a reason to invade another country. We're watching Cheney (and you, too) claim that the Brits are pulling out because things are just peachy where they are, which is demonstrably false, and no one asks why the Brits didn't redeploy to Baghdad to help our 20K+ troops on the way there.

I thought you were tired of carrying their water, SDW. Seriously. These people are jokers and need to be run out of town. Why are you defending them? Why are you not screaming bloody murder about the expansion of government? The TWO mismanaged countries? The possibility of a third, now? Detention camps? Extraordinary rendition? Wire tapping? North Korea lobbing missiles? A 7-fold increase in terrorist activity worldwide (and something like 3-fold EXCLUDING Iraq)? The continual head-fakes in the direction of domestic policy? NCLB? Faith-based initiatives? The massive consolidation of power in the office of the presidency?

Come on, SDW. You were liberated back in November. You said so yourself. Stop carrying water for these children and fools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #108 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We didn't find WMDs!

Bush is an idiot!

Everything Bush has done is a failure!

I root for failure for the country!

I post this stupid face whenever we have a setback in Iraq!

The economy is not as good as it should be.


Really, you should hear yourself.

Well that's 4 out of 6!

I'm pretty sure you don't listen to yourself.
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 #109 of 125
Well I encourage everyone to listen to me: This thread is quickly becoming a childish bickering match. Clean it up, or the thread gets locked.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #110 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. What actually happened is that Democrats offered scathing, inappropriate criticism personally directed at the President and Republicans responded. Is openly calling the President a liar who concocted the entire war solely for political gain unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate! Is it, in the least, iresponsible? Yes. However, I've not heard the GOP us that term. Perhaps you could show me some repeated examples of it happening.

The charge of Republicans questioning patriotism is often repeated and without merit. Take Cheney's recent comments. He said:



How is that calling someone unpatriotic? He took issue with the position. He thinks they're wrong. Yet this is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time. You can't criticize or respond to those who savage everything the President does! No no! Then you're calling those people "unpatriotic!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. "

From your blog :

" I also think such a resolution is not just a bad idea, it's unpatritoic. That's right, unpatriotic. "


http://justanotherblog1.blogspot.com/

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 #111 of 125
Thread Starter 
Mid:

Quote:
Whatever. The fact of the matter is that we are currently ruled by clowns and children who have fucked up everything they've touched—with the exception of the economy, which has been especially good for the super-rich, or Bush's "base" as he calls them.

You sound like you're reading from a DNC talking points memo. The economy has done very well for the last 4-5 years by almost any standard. With regard to fiscal policy...oh look! Can it be? Yes. It seems that tax cuts actually do end up producing more revenue. (Psssst! The deficit is shrinking. Don't tell anyone!).

Quote:
And now we're watching them poke Iran with a stick—just like they did Iraq—to provoke them into doing something that'll give them a reason to invade another country.

Or maybe Iran is doing the poking. They're the ones, to use the phrase again..."giving the finger to the UN."

Quote:
We're watching Cheney (and you, too) claim that the Brits are pulling out because things are just peachy where they are, which is demonstrably false, and no one asks why the Brits didn't redeploy to Baghdad to help our 20K+ troops on the way there.

I haven't claimed anything was peachy. I have agreed that Basra is a difference area with different issues than that of Baghdad. It's more stable. Cheney is right, at least in part. Of course hes spinning it...that's what politicians do. Either way, the Brits leaving is not a disaster. That doesn't fit with the screaming voices of FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE though, now does it?

Quote:
I thought you were tired of carrying their water, SDW. Seriously. These people are jokers and need to be run out of town. Why are you defending them?

I'm not happy with many things "these people" have done. I also think they've actually done some good things. Unlike just about any other left-of-center poster here, I can list where I agree and disagree with the administration, and move on. I also realize that elections are not held in a vacuum. In other words, it's one guy against the other. Where's my alternative?

Quote:
Why are you not screaming bloody murder about the expansion of government?

Oh, I am. It's infuriating. But again...where do I go? Do I vote Democrat, which has proven to be far, far worse for government expansion, particularly of social programs?

[quote]The TWO mismanaged countries? The possibility of a third, now? Detention camps? Extraordinary rendition? Wire tapping? North Korea lobbing missiles? A 7-fold increase in terrorist activity worldwide (and something like 3-fold EXCLUDING Iraq)? The continual head-fakes in the direction of domestic policy? NCLB? Faith-based initiatives? The massive consolidation of power in the office of the presidency?

Come on, SDW. You were liberated back in November. You said so yourself. Stop carrying water for these children and fools.[quote]

Issue by issue:

I agree Iraq's reconstruction has not gone well. I also don't hear much in the way of alternatives, nor have I for the last four years.

I disagree that Afghanistan (I presume that's what country you mean) is quite the same in terms of being a disaster. We have more troops there now than at anytime since invasion. It's going to take a long time to get that country stabilized.

North Korea: Weren't you guys screaming for multilateralism? Isn't that what happened? I don't know if the agreement will work....I have my serious doubts. But what would you have proposed?

Terrorist Activity: So, this all our fault? I guess we should be out "winning hearts and minds" or whatever rhetorical device your fond of this week. The fact is that the US has not been attacked in almost 6 years. I suppose that's some kind of accident.

Domestic Policy: I don't know what you mean by "head fake." I'm not pleased with the lack of domestic agenda in the second term, to be sure.

I've never liked faith-based initiatives due to fiscal, not Constitutional reasons.

THe NCLB: It needs to be revised, but it has done some good in places. It was a bipartisan bill, co-authored by none other than Ted Kennedy. And let me tell you...the problem is not money or the President "full funding the bill." You can take that to the bank, no pun intended.

Consolidation of Power: I would disagree with your characterization that any such consolidation has been "massive." I'm not even sure one can say there has been a consolidation. There are some exceptions, such as the number of signing statements issued and determinations on wiretapping and detainees. But I don't see any "massive expansion" of the powers of the Presidency as you and the radical left claim. What I see are issues on which you disagree with the Administration.
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 #112 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. "

From your blog :

" I also think such a resolution is not just a bad idea, it's unpatritoic. That's right, unpatriotic. "


http://justanotherblog1.blogspot.com/


I think voting for the nonbinding resolution was unpatriotic, true.
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 #113 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think voting for the nonbinding resolution was unpatriotic, true.


Well there you have it folks. In black and white. Or is it grey and black......
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 #114 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well there you have it folks. In black and white. Or is it grey and black......

Except..one problem. I'm not in Congress or the Administration.
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 #115 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Except..one problem. I'm not in Congress or the Administration.


You're a registered republican though aren't you? Or do I need to quote that section for you again?

Just in case you decide to tamper with the evidence :

" Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. What actually happened is that Democrats offered scathing, inappropriate criticism personally directed at the President and Republicans responded. Is openly calling the President a liar who concocted the entire war solely for political gain unpatriotic? I think it might be, Northgate! Is it, in the least, iresponsible? Yes. However, I've not heard the GOP us that term. Perhaps you could show me some repeated examples of it happening. "

As you can see with this paragraph you've brought it down to a personal level.
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 #116 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're a registered republican though aren't you? Or do I need to quote that section for you again?

I think you should read and understand my point in the blog. If they tried to cut off funds, I wouldn't feel that's unpatriotic. I would disagree with it strongly, but at least it would be an honorable position to take.
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 #117 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think you should read and understand my point in the blog. If they tried to cut off funds, I wouldn't feel that's unpatriotic. I would disagree with it strongly, but at least it would be an honorable position to take.

Uh huh! Yeah I think I understood your point of view quite well!
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 #118 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Utter bullshit. Who has questioned patriotism? Do you have links? No...that charge itself has been invented. "

From your blog :

" I also think such a resolution is not just a bad idea, it's unpatritoic. That's right, unpatriotic. "


http://justanotherblog1.blogspot.com/


Haha. SDW has even called political opposition legally treasonous, as have countless conservatives. Those types of charges - that a political argument is not just wrong, but illegitimate because we shouldn't question Our Dear Leader in Times of War - are absolutely central to everything that has happened in the Bush administration.
post #119 of 125
Its pretty funny, when the democrats want to bring home our troops its called cutting and running and surrender but when Blair wants to brings them home its called a success. Cheney is a blatant draft dodging political liar. Its a pattern for him & his party because lets face it the corporations he represents are making billions off the U.S. tax payer and his war.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #120 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora View Post

Its pretty funny, when the democrats want to bring home our troops its called cutting and running and surrender but when Blair wants to brings them home its called a success. Cheney is a blatant draft dodging political liar. Its a pattern for him & his party because lets face it the corporations he represents are making billions off the U.S. tax payer and his war.

Once again, we need the Dems to rescue us! They'll really stick it to those WARMONGERS! Fight the power!
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: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Hi, I'm the Commander-in-Chief"