... Furthermore, the "totality," I guess, of Bush's human rights record seems appalling.
Bush freed two nations from regimes that were among the very worst on this planet. The "totality" of his human rights record is a LOT more favorable than you're willing to concede. That said, Bush is overreaching here. The destruction of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy ranks well ahead of what he has accomplished.
If he really said that, then one of two things is true:
A) He truly does not understand what the phrase "Human Rights" means, in terms of all that it encompasses.
or
He understands and is completely delusional. I mean completely. Granted, he found a way to get Hussein out of power (ends clearly justify the means in his mind) and that can only be good in the long run for Iraq and its people... and maybe the President of Mexico is unwilling to knock Bush in person (saying he was OK with the new immigration proposal)... but more than any President in history?
Obviously, History class itself was not a strong suit of Mr. Bush's.
I disagree. While you may say this thread has little leg to stand on this is not what is killing AO. Its when people sidetrack threads and try to fit everything into political discussion. Its when a thread about Bush visit to Iraq suddenly discuss the reason to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, taxes, his daughters, pollution, Clinton, Dean, Clark, Blix, Turkeys (the bird) aso. And especially when it dereails into discussions of different members cognitive and moral means. THATS when I get sick of this forum.
Threads like this should die due to the lack of content of the first post (no offence Shawn) but instead they usually evolve into what I described above and THATS whats killing AO.
Um. it is called the ebb and flow of a given conversation. And what derails a thread is when people post inflammatory non related statements that require addressing.
Look at the opening post:
"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."
Shocking, yes. What he probably meant was "No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably."
I have debated with shawn and this is an old trick. What do you say to something like that? Or do you just ignore it and hope that everyone else sees it for what it is?
Um. it is called the ebb and flow of a given conversation. And what derails a thread is when people post inflammatory non related statements that require addressing.
Look at the opening post:
"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."
Shocking, yes. What he probably meant was "No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably."
I have debated with shawn and this is an old trick. What do you say to something like that? Or do you just ignore it and hope that everyone else sees it for what it is?
I think it's totally reasonable to start that way. Hence the word " Shocker " in the title. You know ahead of time what you're getting into.
If this bothers you now you're in for a rough ride. This is only the begining. Things are going to get much more dicey for Mr. Bush as the year rolls on.
I think it's totally reasonable to start that way. Hence the word " Shocker " in the title. You know ahead of time what you're getting into.
If this bothers you now you're in for a rough ride. This is only the begining. Things are going to get much more dicey for Mr. Bush as the year rolls on.
jimmy, jimmy, jimmy..... Sigh...
The statement that he made is the "shocker" according to the poster. I understand that you think it is reasonable to slander this president, because you hate him and everything he stands for, and that is your right. But, if you can set aside your odium for a minute, maybe you can see that the follow up comment is just inflammatory.
Those kind of things derail the conversation. Let's discuss the so called "shocking" statement he made without the accusations and rhetoric. I really think it is simple. But you and others can't see to help it. Just refrain a bit and maybe we can keep it civil.
Like I said to you before, I could care less about the politics and wether or not GWB wins again or not. So, yes I can handle it.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
... Furthermore, the "totality," I guess, of Bush's human rights record seems appalling.
Bush freed two nations from regimes that were among the very worst on this planet. The "totality" of his human rights record is a LOT more favorable than you're willing to concede. That said, Bush is overreaching here. The destruction of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy ranks well ahead of what he has accomplished.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The "totality" of his human rights record is a LOT more favorable than you're willing to concede.
No, it's probably worse. But, it's probably more favorable compared to other Presidents. Although, that isn't conceding much ground.
Originally posted by bunge
Why are you here?
Hey's playing the role of bunge.
A) He truly does not understand what the phrase "Human Rights" means, in terms of all that it encompasses.
or
Obviously, History class itself was not a strong suit of Mr. Bush's.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
In what way was Washington responsible for the Constitution? And if that's your standard, Madison wrote the Constitution.
Washington did more to put the country in a position to have a Constitution, and then defend it. And have slaves. Whoops.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
-snip-
, FDR who stopped a war,
-snip-
Out of curiosity, what war was that?
Originally posted by bunge
Washington did more to put the country in a position to have a Constitution, and then defend it. And have slaves. Whoops.
bunge is now slamming his own selections.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge is now slamming his own selections.
Nick
You can't say that he's not being fair that way...
Originally posted by BRussell
Bush is a veritable Gandhi.
He runs a gas station?
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge is now slamming his own selections.
Just being as open and honest as I always am.
Originally posted by bunge
Just being as open and honest as I always am.
You aren't always open and honest. No one on this planet is perfectly open and honest. But you are very funny at times. Smart too when you try.
Nick
He's got STRATEGERIE!
Originally posted by Anders
I disagree. While you may say this thread has little leg to stand on this is not what is killing AO. Its when people sidetrack threads and try to fit everything into political discussion. Its when a thread about Bush visit to Iraq suddenly discuss the reason to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, taxes, his daughters, pollution, Clinton, Dean, Clark, Blix, Turkeys (the bird) aso. And especially when it dereails into discussions of different members cognitive and moral means. THATS when I get sick of this forum.
Threads like this should die due to the lack of content of the first post (no offence Shawn) but instead they usually evolve into what I described above and THATS whats killing AO.
Um. it is called the ebb and flow of a given conversation. And what derails a thread is when people post inflammatory non related statements that require addressing.
Look at the opening post:
"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."
Shocking, yes. What he probably meant was "No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably."
I have debated with shawn and this is an old trick. What do you say to something like that? Or do you just ignore it and hope that everyone else sees it for what it is?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
But I will allow for the possibility that he misspoke. Certainly, he meant he has done more to human rights than any other President...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um. it is called the ebb and flow of a given conversation. And what derails a thread is when people post inflammatory non related statements that require addressing.
Look at the opening post:
"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."
Shocking, yes. What he probably meant was "No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably."
I have debated with shawn and this is an old trick. What do you say to something like that? Or do you just ignore it and hope that everyone else sees it for what it is?
I think it's totally reasonable to start that way. Hence the word " Shocker " in the title. You know ahead of time what you're getting into.
If this bothers you now you're in for a rough ride. This is only the begining. Things are going to get much more dicey for Mr. Bush as the year rolls on.
Originally posted by jimmac
I think it's totally reasonable to start that way. Hence the word " Shocker " in the title. You know ahead of time what you're getting into.
If this bothers you now you're in for a rough ride. This is only the begining. Things are going to get much more dicey for Mr. Bush as the year rolls on.
jimmy, jimmy, jimmy..... Sigh...
The statement that he made is the "shocker" according to the poster. I understand that you think it is reasonable to slander this president, because you hate him and everything he stands for, and that is your right. But, if you can set aside your odium for a minute, maybe you can see that the follow up comment is just inflammatory.
Those kind of things derail the conversation. Let's discuss the so called "shocking" statement he made without the accusations and rhetoric. I really think it is simple. But you and others can't see to help it. Just refrain a bit and maybe we can keep it civil.
Like I said to you before, I could care less about the politics and wether or not GWB wins again or not. So, yes I can handle it.
Start the Investigation!
From Atrios