Bush on AppleInsider

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Anyone else notice the banner?











I found it amusing. Lock away.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    I find it amusing that you see Liberal support ads everywhere in the media but when a Conservative one shows up its some kind of big deal. There are some pretty vocal Liberals here, but if you think this whole site is only frequented by people of that mindset then you're wrong.
  • Reply 2 of 21
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    i think what he found amusing was the "foreign policy that works" line...bush can run on some issues, but foreign policy is not one of them...unless they count having every country in the world thinking less of us as a policy that is working...



    g
  • Reply 3 of 21
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Not that I believe our foreign policy has been very effective, but one doesn't measure the effectiveness of foreign policy based solely on how the world perceives us. That is a weak and cowardly way to conduct foreign policy.
  • Reply 4 of 21
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Yeah, when I saw "America needs a president whose foreign policy works" I expected to see "paid for by the DNC, not the RNC.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Not that I believe our foreign policy has been very effective, but one doesn't measure the effectiveness of foreign policy based solely on how the world perceives us. That is a weak and cowardly way to conduct foreign policy.



    i am not baseing "solely" on how the world perceives us...that would be silly, stupid and dangerous...at the same time, "totally" discounting how the world perceives us would be just as silly, stupid and dangerous...



    right now the world sees us "poorly" and that has many ripple effects...

    just like when the world sees us "positively" that also has many ripple effects...



    some ripple effects are clearly more positive than others (better trade, trust, communication when countries like us...isolation, mistrust, poor communication, intelligence failures, terrorist camps etc when countries don't like us)



    g
  • Reply 6 of 21
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I find it an embarassment.



    Certainly we have some control over the ads used on our own board; yet of late I've seen a few (none worse than this) that indicate there is no effort being made to "pick and choose" the respectable sponsors. Not saying a Kerry banner would be any better (well, maybe just a little bit, since he didn't sleep through his college classes), just saying I wish the mods or whoever controls the banner ads would screen them a bit more judiciously.
  • Reply 7 of 21
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Even though Bush and co. deny certain sections of the population their constitutional rights via various agencies, that doesn't stop the RNC from exercising its own right to place a banner ad on a bulletin board.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Ok maybe my earlier post was misdirected, was heading off into a meeting and read into it more than was intened. Apparenetly he was just reacting to the title not the fact that its a Bush ad on Appleinsider.



    But I do find it funny that some Liberals (sorry for generalizing) on this board seem to equate good Foreign policy with a popularity contest. Boo hoo, France and Germany didn't approve of our actions, they aren't going to invite us to their birthday party! Pffft. But they still want to do business with us don't they.



    I'm glad we had a President that was willing to stand for what he believed in rather than let "the world" (mmm yeah ok) decide what actions we take. Like it or not, strong actions seem to have helped to curb further terrorist actions against us and spurred other countries to take a stand on harboring terrorist factions. Our relationships with opposing countries was perhaps weakened but to what extent? Mostly a lot of huffing and puffing really.



    Point fingers as you will Dems/Liberals, it is an election year after all.
  • Reply 9 of 21
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    And yeah it's a free country. I have to see all the damn hollywood pro-Dem stuff all the time on TV. Plus even if Appleinsider decided to take some political bent with its ads (I urge them not to), most of those things are packages aren't they? Fed in by the aggregator with the site having no control what goes up?
  • Reply 10 of 21
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant



    I'm glad we had a President that was willing to stand for what he believed in rather than let "the world" (mmm yeah ok) decide what actions we take. Like it or not, strong actions seem to have helped to curb further terrorist actions against us and spurred other countries to take a stand on harboring terrorist factions. Our relationships with opposing countries was perhaps weakened but to what extent?



    Thankyou for burying your head in the sand. Since the "war on tourism" started immediately post 9-11, we've had Anthrax, Ricin, cyanide based WMD in Texas and New Jersey, the Maryland sniper, the Ohio sniper etc etc . All of these appear to be domestic terrorist acts. Recent notorious events before 9-11 include the Unabomber, the abortion clinic bombers and snipers, the Olympics bomber and Oklahoma City. What's the odd man out here?... the 1993 WTC bombing, the lone terrorist bombing by an international (muslim) fundamentalist group. How many terrorist acts have been perpetrated by Iraqis on US soil? NONE.



    An inconvenient fact that has been routinely ignored since 9-11 is that terrorist acts on American soil remain very rare events, and the huge majority are perpetrated by domestic groups and individuals. The "WOT" has not enhanced our national security: The following extract from an article in the Guardian includes an assessment from the US Army War College...which doesn't exactly represent "liberal opinion" Take a read:



    Quote:

    The Bush administration's doctrinaire view of the war on terror, which lumped together regimes like Saddam Hussein's and al-Qaida as a single undifferentiated threat, led the US on a dangerous "detour" into an unnecessary war, according to an unusually strong critique from the US army war college.



    "The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," says the study by Jeffrey Record, a visiting scholar at the Strategic Studies Institute.



    The report, endorsed by other scholars at the institute, appeared yesterday at a delicate moment for the White House, which was fending off damaging comments from a former cabinet member on its decision to go to war.



    Mr. Record recommends a total overhaul of the national security strategy and says it must redirect its campaign against global terror from "unrealistic to realistic war aims".



    Although he says that Washington may be able to defeat al-Qaida, he concludes that its war on terror has designated so many fronts and enemies that it is fundamentally unwinnable.



    Meanwhile the war in Iraq has led it into an open-ended conflict that has drained resources from its efforts to secure American soil against another attack by al-Qaida.



  • Reply 11 of 21
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Okay no it time to put a stop to this. We will hear no more critisism of RNC or Bush now that they are official sponsors of this place. Yes by helping Bush we may make the world a less safer place the next four years but it serves a higher end. Remember that on election day.



    If I didn´t make it clear enough let me tell you this: You are either with Appleinsider or against Appleinsider (and with the MOSR) so everybody here is about to make a hard choice
  • Reply 12 of 21
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Thanks for the typical Deflectocrat response Sammi. All finger pointing and criticism but no solution. But hey I guess it is an election year eh?



    If you're post above is trying to display all the adminstrations decisions as over-reaction I don't get it. Most of the events you cite are nowhere near the same scale as 9-11. If you can't see how tougher foreign policy and money put into homeland security likely affected our nations security, then you're really in some serious election year denial. Somehow I doubt Al Queda just called it quits after 9-11, I guess you think they decided to stop after the twin towers? The way Iraq got lumped into the war on terror does strike me as a tiny bit convenient without a good smoking gun, but in the end a cruel and oppressive dictator was ousted so I see that as a good thing. In general I saw our most legitimate reason for going into Iraq as being an enforcement to that last UN resolution Saddam ignored.



    I agree with your quote that the war on terror has too many fronts and isn't what you could call winnable in the strictest sense. But then again neither is preventing common crime on the streets yet we still enforce laws and put people in jail don't we? What I see happening is preventive and discouraging measures. We do what we can. Go after the people immediately responsible for 9-11 and then pressure govt's to be quit harboring such individuals. Strong actions like Iraq displays that the US is serious. This will hopefullly break up some of the more active factions and discourage others.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    In general I saw our most legitimate reason for going into Iraq as being an enforcement to that last UN resolution Saddam ignored.



    bad logic...we can't use the UN resolutions to attack when we didn't get UN approval (actually would have lost a vote, so we withdrew before the vote)...ie., we can't attack because "saddam ignored the UN" when the UN is telling us not to attack...then we would have to attack ourselves for ignoring the UN...all so very confusing....



    g
  • Reply 14 of 21
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    yeah, I don't see the US as really being in a position of claiming to be enforcing UN sanctions when it's not our job to make those decisions. It's a very transparent argument.



    All in all I'm glad Saddam is gone and wouldn't have it any other way. However, the way in which the case was presented was pretty misleading, wether it be intentional or not. And that certainly needs to be taken care of.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Not saying a Kerry banner would be any better (well, maybe just a little bit, since he didn't sleep through his college classes)



    thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever read. falling asleep in a college class somehow renders someone incapable of running a country??? i bet kerry has fallen asleep in a class before, and besides, if that's something that youre actually using to weigh the different candidates and make a vote, then i dont even know why you bother voting. have you been to college? if so, did you ever doze off in an early morning class? well, holy shit... if you did, then our country cant function with you being a part of it. now do you see how ridiculous your statement is?



    p.s. if the language is a problem, i'll go back and fix it.
  • Reply 16 of 21
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Hmmm...



    The banner ad as I post this shows the grim visage of Tom Ridge with the words: "Terror forces us to make a choice. We can be afraid. Or we can be ready."



    That in a nutshell is the Bush strategy, constantly framing the debate as a binary between hand wringing inaction or his administration's policies. You either support invading Iraq or you are playing into the hands of terror. You either support the Patriot Act or you are playing into the hands of terror.



    As far as the law enforcement goes, the appropriate analogy would be: huge increase in home invasion on Main street. Those guys are hard to catch, so the police department sends all of its officers to Elm street across town to bust up an ongoing money laundering operation (which they have known about all along but have seemed content up till now to keep under control with the occassional raid ).



    Even though the evidence indicates that this gang had nothing to do with the criminals from Main street, the cops point to their achievement as somehow making it less likely that your house will be robbed.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever read. falling asleep in a college class somehow renders someone incapable of running a country??? i bet kerry has fallen asleep in a class before, and besides, if that's something that youre actually using to weigh the different candidates and make a vote, then i dont even know why you bother voting. have you been to college? if so, did you ever doze off in an early morning class? well, holy shit... if you did, then our country cant function with you being a part of it. now do you see how ridiculous your statement is?



    p.s. if the language is a problem, i'll go back and fix it.




    I'm pretty sure his point was not nodding off in class per se, but poor academic performance in college generally speaking. The AO audience and mostly everyone else knows that Bush's performance at Yale was hardly exceptional- it was average at best. So I think it's an appropriate metaphor to use.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I'm pretty sure his point was not nodding off in class per se, but poor academic performance in college generally speaking. The AO audience and mostly everyone else knows that Bush's performance at Yale was hardly exceptional- it was average at best. So I think it's an appropriate metaphor to use.



    ok. i have no problem with that statement when its worded like that, and i was pretty sure that thats how it was meant to be read, but i had to say something.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    bad logic...we can't use the UN resolutions to attack when we didn't get UN approval (actually would have lost a vote, so we withdrew before the vote)...



    Bad logic, but right answer in my opinion. A ultimatum was delivered and needed to be enforced. The US and the other countries that supported us were willing to actually give the UN some teeth to deal out consequences. Unfortunately, it wasn't an official UN action so all the Bush-bashers get to point fingers now. I've equated the way that Saddam ignored and pushed the UN to the way small children see much they can get away with before the parents have had enough.
Sign In or Register to comment.