Bush didn't make this speech. Interesting how you equate being an alcoholic with belonging to the KKK, though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point wasn't that alcoholism and racism are similar but that by latching on something irrelevant to the guy's speech you were finding a handy 'out' to avoid discussing its substance.
I must admit also that I just plain enjoy having a crack at President George Bush. This is probably because he's a short-sighted, foolish, internationally illiterate fist-swinging adolescent dickhead whom the whole planet detests apart from the minority of the American electorate who voted for him and those who saw him on TV with his arm around a fireman when he finally had the guts to face the nation after 9/11 and decided that in a crisis, any short-sighted, foolish, internationally illiterate fist-swinging adolescent dickhead would do.
But this is off topic. Pardon me.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
[quote]<strong>... and those who saw him on TV with his arm around a fireman when he finally had the guts to face the nation after 9/11 ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's more truth to this than you know.
We suffered a tragedy and he came through for us and you guys get your views on him from political cartoons. I think that says a lot.
My point wasn't that alcoholism and racism are similar but that by latching on something irrelevant to the guy's speech you were finding a handy 'out' to avoid discussing its substance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise it's not irrelevant. If he had made a pro-Bush speech, I'm sure your opinion would be different.
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with the validity of his speech. You know it, groverat knows it, scott knows it, everyone here knows it.
"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
From "Rebuilding America's Defenses," author Paul Wolfowitz et al.
You suffered a tragedy. And then Paul Wolfowitz was able to turn to GWB and say, "Now's the time." And now we're ALL in the shit. GWB couldn't have come up with this "doctrine" in a million years.
THIS is what yer man Byrd is talking about. And it's also why the US is going to be as hated as any empire. You can ignore it, say "Well we have to do this stuff in our defence" or whatever the hell you like, but it's a fact. Stick with the man who "Came through for you" and America will be hated. I'm sorry, but it's just one of those things.
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise it's not irrelevant. If he had made a pro-Bush speech, I'm sure your opinion would be different.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, again, this is my point. The next time I'm discussing one of George Bush's speeches I'll be sure to reference his cocaine abuse, driving offences and alcoholism.
They "reflect negatively on him" too.
Whether they actually have anything to do with the matter at hand is another matter, of course, but hey.
Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with the validity of his speech. You know it, groverat knows it, scott knows it, everyone here knows it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if that were true? Come on. Everyone (even you) knows that if Byrd was a pro-Bush Republican you wouldn't be letting him off so lightly.
Well, again, this is my point. The next time I'm discussing one of George Bush's speeches I'll be sure to reference his cocaine abuse, driving offences and alcoholism.
They "reflect negatively on him" too...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, equating racism with alcoholism. Have at it pal. I won't stop you.
Bush's alcoholism and 30-year-old drunk-driving conviction reflect absolutely nothing like being a former member of a hate group and using the phrase "white n*gger" to describe people you don't like even in these times. He's 85-years-old and a bigot.
I think it's funny that because of your extreme bias you'll attempt to draw a parallel between the two.
Whether or not Europe likes my president is pretty far down on my list of concerns.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people of Europe, Africa and Asia hating the "revolutionary doctrine" of which pre-emptive war outside international consensus is but a part. I'm talking about what's beginning to be called the "Bush doctrine," which is perfectly described in the document I quote.
Your President is an utter muppet. Badly travelled, diplomatically leaden and partial. But it's the doctrine I hate, and which is going to cause you problems.
<strong>Fair enough. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people of Europe, Africa and Asia hating the "revolutionary doctrine" of which pre-emptive war outside international consensus is but a part. I'm talking about what's beginning to be called the "Bush doctrine," which is perfectly described in the document I quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any war outside of UN mandate in Iraq will not be the US alone. But the US will recieve international blame, sure, because that's how it works. 500,000 Iraqis die because of UN sanctions but it's the US that catches the heat for it. The US has no rival in the amount of humanitarian aid sent out each year to help people across the globe, but even still it is characterized as a selfish, arrogant and spiteful nation.
I'm not going to beat myself over the head with it. You guys can sit around and get angry about it all you like. Have fun. I realize that the most convenient way of validating one's own existence is by begrudging someone their own, so have fun. I can sit happy with the resolute knowledge that my nation does more for the international good than every person who goes on lengthy diatribes about its evil combined.
I think it's ignorance, this being angry about war outside the UN. No huge protest marches when Clinton dropped bombs on Iraq. No huge protest marches about France being in the Ivory Coast right now. It's political, and that's fine, I know thinking objectively in a nation full of hate is tought.
You guys just hate the US, that's fine, but don't expect me to be concerned about it.
[quote]Your President is an utter muppet. Badly travelled, diplomatically leaden and partial. But it's the doctrine I hate, and which is going to cause you problems.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
But we'll have more sympathy for a mass murderer, war criminal and brutal tyrant. Telling.
If you can name some terrible things that Bush has actually done that'd be great.
<strong>Bush's alcoholism and 30-year-old drunk-driving conviction reflect absolutely nothing like being a former member of a hate group and using the phrase "white n*gger" to describe people you don't like even in these times. He's 85-years-old and a bigot.
I think it's funny that because of your extreme bias you'll attempt to draw a parallel between the two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, my point is that you're avoiding addressing what the guy actually said. I don't give a witches' tit who made the speech. When gelding posted this Byrd's speech he wasn't interested in discussing how much this racist guy had changed, or whether or not your history has a bearing on whether anyone should listen to you, BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH ITSELF.
Comparing racism to alcoholism was INTENDED TO BE SPURIOUS. This was the point of my argument. Do you see? I never intended it to be a serious comparison. Just admit you're pissed off with me for what I said about George. That's OK. Don't try and start getting all moral with me. You're doing too much of that right now. It's annoying.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
Comments
<strong>
And George W. is a recovering coke head and alcoholic. That reflects on his appetites. Is that off topic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush didn't make this speech. Interesting how you equate being an alcoholic with belonging to the KKK, though.
<strong>
Bush didn't make this speech. Interesting how you equate being an alcoholic with belonging to the KKK, though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point wasn't that alcoholism and racism are similar but that by latching on something irrelevant to the guy's speech you were finding a handy 'out' to avoid discussing its substance.
I must admit also that I just plain enjoy having a crack at President George Bush. This is probably because he's a short-sighted, foolish, internationally illiterate fist-swinging adolescent dickhead whom the whole planet detests apart from the minority of the American electorate who voted for him and those who saw him on TV with his arm around a fireman when he finally had the guts to face the nation after 9/11 and decided that in a crisis, any short-sighted, foolish, internationally illiterate fist-swinging adolescent dickhead would do.
But this is off topic. Pardon me.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
There's more truth to this than you know.
We suffered a tragedy and he came through for us and you guys get your views on him from political cartoons. I think that says a lot.
<strong>
My point wasn't that alcoholism and racism are similar but that by latching on something irrelevant to the guy's speech you were finding a handy 'out' to avoid discussing its substance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise it's not irrelevant. If he had made a pro-Bush speech, I'm sure your opinion would be different.
<strong>
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with the validity of his speech. You know it, groverat knows it, scott knows it, everyone here knows it.
From "Rebuilding America's Defenses," author Paul Wolfowitz et al.
You suffered a tragedy. And then Paul Wolfowitz was able to turn to GWB and say, "Now's the time." And now we're ALL in the shit. GWB couldn't have come up with this "doctrine" in a million years.
THIS is what yer man Byrd is talking about. And it's also why the US is going to be as hated as any empire. You can ignore it, say "Well we have to do this stuff in our defence" or whatever the hell you like, but it's a fact. Stick with the man who "Came through for you" and America will be hated. I'm sorry, but it's just one of those things.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>Oh my God, I'm turning into the Anti-Scott.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"turning into"
You've been there for a while.
How does it feel to be a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoonish worldview?
Whether or not Europe likes my president is pretty far down on my list of concerns.
<strong>
Byrd's past membership in the KKK refects negatively on him. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise it's not irrelevant. If he had made a pro-Bush speech, I'm sure your opinion would be different.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, again, this is my point. The next time I'm discussing one of George Bush's speeches I'll be sure to reference his cocaine abuse, driving offences and alcoholism.
They "reflect negatively on him" too.
Whether they actually have anything to do with the matter at hand is another matter, of course, but hey.
<strong>
Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with the validity of his speech. You know it, groverat knows it, scott knows it, everyone here knows it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if that were true? Come on. Everyone (even you) knows that if Byrd was a pro-Bush Republican you wouldn't be letting him off so lightly.
<strong>
Well, again, this is my point. The next time I'm discussing one of George Bush's speeches I'll be sure to reference his cocaine abuse, driving offences and alcoholism.
They "reflect negatively on him" too...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, equating racism with alcoholism. Have at it pal. I won't stop you.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
I think it's funny that because of your extreme bias you'll attempt to draw a parallel between the two.
<strong>
"turning into"
You've been there for a while.
How does it feel to be a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoonish worldview?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Love me, Groverat. You have one of those for a President.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>Harald:
Whether or not Europe likes my president is pretty far down on my list of concerns.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people of Europe, Africa and Asia hating the "revolutionary doctrine" of which pre-emptive war outside international consensus is but a part. I'm talking about what's beginning to be called the "Bush doctrine," which is perfectly described in the document I quote.
Your President is an utter muppet. Badly travelled, diplomatically leaden and partial. But it's the doctrine I hate, and which is going to cause you problems.
<strong>Love me, Groverat. You have one of those for a President.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do, please explain how you come to that conclusion.
<strong>Fair enough. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people of Europe, Africa and Asia hating the "revolutionary doctrine" of which pre-emptive war outside international consensus is but a part. I'm talking about what's beginning to be called the "Bush doctrine," which is perfectly described in the document I quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any war outside of UN mandate in Iraq will not be the US alone. But the US will recieve international blame, sure, because that's how it works. 500,000 Iraqis die because of UN sanctions but it's the US that catches the heat for it. The US has no rival in the amount of humanitarian aid sent out each year to help people across the globe, but even still it is characterized as a selfish, arrogant and spiteful nation.
I'm not going to beat myself over the head with it. You guys can sit around and get angry about it all you like. Have fun. I realize that the most convenient way of validating one's own existence is by begrudging someone their own, so have fun. I can sit happy with the resolute knowledge that my nation does more for the international good than every person who goes on lengthy diatribes about its evil combined.
I think it's ignorance, this being angry about war outside the UN. No huge protest marches when Clinton dropped bombs on Iraq. No huge protest marches about France being in the Ivory Coast right now. It's political, and that's fine, I know thinking objectively in a nation full of hate is tought.
You guys just hate the US, that's fine, but don't expect me to be concerned about it.
[quote]Your President is an utter muppet. Badly travelled, diplomatically leaden and partial. But it's the doctrine I hate, and which is going to cause you problems.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
But we'll have more sympathy for a mass murderer, war criminal and brutal tyrant. Telling.
If you can name some terrible things that Bush has actually done that'd be great.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Bush's alcoholism and 30-year-old drunk-driving conviction reflect absolutely nothing like being a former member of a hate group and using the phrase "white n*gger" to describe people you don't like even in these times. He's 85-years-old and a bigot.
I think it's funny that because of your extreme bias you'll attempt to draw a parallel between the two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, my point is that you're avoiding addressing what the guy actually said. I don't give a witches' tit who made the speech. When gelding posted this Byrd's speech he wasn't interested in discussing how much this racist guy had changed, or whether or not your history has a bearing on whether anyone should listen to you, BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH ITSELF.
Comparing racism to alcoholism was INTENDED TO BE SPURIOUS. This was the point of my argument. Do you see? I never intended it to be a serious comparison. Just admit you're pissed off with me for what I said about George. That's OK. Don't try and start getting all moral with me. You're doing too much of that right now. It's annoying.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>