SDW: I'm surprised you have not addressed the MAIN and only point. Who cares if the site is "Pinko Liberal Weekly" or "Coward Neo-con who Never served".....they are talking about an ex CIA analyst and personal friend of Bush Sr. who briefed him on intelligence for a couple of years
Is that the best you can do? Even if ALL members of the Bush Sr. Admin. came forward and said the exact same thing about Wolfowitz and Perle and Feist et al you'd probably just call them "their off-base opinions". You are fanatically in denial dude. Heck, even if Perle and W, etc came out and AGREED with McGovern and the others you'd be in denial.
Love the sig. at the bottom of your posts.
Dismissing me as "in denial" and fanatical may be convenient, but it's not true. If there were many more qualified opinions on the topic I'd certainly listen. But we're talking about ONE person's opinion.
It amazes me that people can actually think the way some of you guy do. you truly, honestly beleive the Bush Administration is hell bent on world domination, and is run by a bunch of extremist nut jobs. It's just totally beyond the pale. It's not enough to disagree, you have to go completely and totally beyond all reasonable discourse.
pfflam:
Quote:
I don't.
And I seem to remember that long agonizing day . .. the length of which I heard nothing from the president of teh United States . . . seems he was chatting in a school even after he got the news . . . then started to fly West then back East then West again . . . . how long was it till he finnally made a public statement anyway?!?!
I seem to remember Guiliani and lots of speculations about where Bush was
. . . then there were rumours after he finally came out and after quite awhile there was an obviously much needed official explanation
But since everybody, and I mean everybody, was kissing Bush's ass after 911 because we needed to stand by our 'leader' the whole missing-in-action was forgotten . . .
. . . IIRC
Absolutely unreasonable. The President was evacuated and kept safe...as he SHOULD have been. The man's safety HAD to be ensured. How was he going to make a statement before he had the facts? Perhaps you don't remember that Bush overruled the Secret Service and returned to Washington over their objection. He was even criticized for his not being concerned with attacks on the White House.....he's on record as saying "if it happens, it happens".
This is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism I'm talking about.
Ray McGovern has been all over the media for the past year or so, so like you said, the source doesn't matter at this point.
The film Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War has a bunch more former CIA analysts in it (as well as McGovern).
And we know your statement is true since former members of the administration have already been speaking out against their former colleagues.
Anyway, this stuff has been hashed out to no end. Anyone can do a search and see that SDW has consistently been dead wrong in just about every statement about Iraq. It's actually pretty funny to go back and check out some of his old posts.
Another fine source presentedf on your part. And btw, what's this about me being wrong about Iraq? Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. Show me what else I've been wrong on. Go ahead.
Dismissing me as "in denial" and fanatical may be convenient, but it's not true. If there were many more qualified opinions on the topic I'd certainly listen. But we're talking about ONE person's opinion.
It amazes me that people can actually think the way some of you guy do. you truly, honestly beleive the Bush Administration is hell bent on world domination, and is run by a bunch of extremist nut jobs. It's just totally beyond the pale. It's not enough to disagree, you have to go completely and totally beyond all reasonable discourse.
Absolutely unreasonable. The President was evacuated and kept safe...as he SHOULD have been. The man's safety HAD to be ensured. How was he going to make a statement before he had the facts? Perhaps you don't remember that Bush overruled the Secret Service and returned to Washington over their objection. He was even criticized for his not being concerned with attacks on the White House.....he's on record as saying "if it happens, it happens".
This is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism I'm talking about.
SDW, I wanted to let you know that I have read this whole thread, and I stand with you here in this liberal haven. I haven't chimed in because you are doing a good job, and this recycled fodder.
I posted a breakdown of Bush support in percentages for the past couple of years. You liberals are in the minority on every major issue according to nationwide polls. The majority of the country loves this president. Calling him a liar and warmonger only solidifies that affection and hardens feeling toward the opposition that is no longer loyal.
Unlike most here I think that even if Kerry does win this next election, the office itself tends to force the occupant to lead and lead responsibly. I think one would have to fight hard or not even try to lead this country in a wrong direction.
I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding.
AO seems to be the place to bash this president and any who does not agree with you at whim and without consideration for decency, fairness, common sense or even courtesy. 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. I have seen this type of discussion ratchet up for some time now and it is actually scary how quickly rhetoric and spin can turn into hatred and odium and only be separated from the sewage of this nation's enemies by only a couple of degrees. You guys need to take a deep breath and examine your actions and the consequences of said actions.
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.
NaplesX,
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want. There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist. Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
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.
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
. . . is about me being wrong about Iraq [ . . ] Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. [ . . . ]
Yeah, I wonder why you would have thought that?!\
Seems to be the crux of the issue: perhaps you thought that because you were fed smoke straight out of the stovepipe?!
and perhaps you still believe it because the last thing that you would ever do is identify with anything remotely resembling our critical perspective on Bush?!
Another fine source presentedf on your part. And btw, what's this about me being wrong about Iraq? Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. Show me what else I've been wrong on. Go ahead.
Well " presented " doesn't have an f at the end of it.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
SDW you are wrong about Iraq. You are aloso foolish to try to rationalize the president's actions in this situation.
The facts are Bush tried to present a scenerio to the world that iraq was this big threat to the US when in fact his weapons couldn't have even reached us. Also it appears now that no such weapons existed. Was he even working on a delivery system that could reach us? It appears not.
So now they fall back on the idea that " Well Saddam needed to be taken out anyway ". Well that's nice and all but according to the original premise he was this big " threat ". If he just said " Well he needs to be taken out " everybody would have said " The sanctions seem to be working I don't think we need a war at this time ". That would have been the end of it. We would have saved ourselves many lives and many dollars. And a responsability that shows no sign of stopping for the foreseeable future.
America was told a giant falsehood, ( intentional or not ) on a very serious issue.
Any way you slice it this is bad.
This is the president of the united states we're talking about. If it was just bad intel and he forced us to to war over it that makes him incompetent at best.
But I remember him saying they were so positive that they had proof they just couldn't reveal their sources lest they endanger them. That sounds like new intel to me.
And no I don't even for one second think that they are going to find this magical cache of weapons " any day now ".
Many people at the time didn't buy this bunk but the president refused to listen.
I know I've said this before but just occasionally I have to take your smug, condescending, deanor, and spin it around and force it to look at the truth. Lest you forget what really happened.
Well " presented " doesn't have an f at the end of it.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
SDW you are wrong about Iraq. You are aloso foolish to try to rationalize the president's actions in this situation.
'also' doesn't have an 'o' in the middle of it
Sorry, couldn't resist
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
1. Foolishness and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. (If you believe that the President is infallible and if you believe the President has done no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary- you're clearly a fool.)
2. "Everybody's wrong" is not a useful description of this thread. (Yes, of course they are, but that doesn't tell us anything about the subject at hand.)
" I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding ".
OWWWW! My head hurts with all this self appointed superor intellect. God you make us sound like the martians in that H.G. Wells novel ( " cold and calculating " )!
The fact is you don't have to be a rocket scientist ( or martian ) to see giant sized holes in the logic Bush presented to country to justify this war.
All you have to do is be paying attention and not fall for the Bush ( Orwellian ) propaganda machine.
I'm going to take an extra stength excedrin as that really took a lot of mental effort!
I can just feel my brow bulging with self appointed superior intellect!
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
For the record I was paying SDW back for a similar comment made by him earlier.
So you're saying we haven't presented any facts and are just accosting him? You haven't been reading!
Besides I like to mix a little humor with my facts. If you can't laugh at this rediculous world of ours you'll be in sorry shape.
For the record I was paying SDW back for a similar, earlier comment.
So you're saying we haven't presented any facts and are just accosting him? You haven't been reading!
Besides I like to mix a little humor with my facts. If you can't laugh at this rediculous world of ours you'll be in sorry shape.
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
oh, and for the record, I laugh at the ridiculous state of the world all the time ....then I cry myself to sleep
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
Yes, well one of the things I've found from this Bush related propaganda machine is that you have to keep repeating the facts or falsehoods tend to become facts.
What happens if you don't is falsehoods start to spread and eventually are accepted as facts among many ( "Saddam and Al Queda were the same thing " ).
No I believe in dragging this out into the light as much as possible.
I wish I could share your optimism, Personally, of all the political discussions I've ever seen online, nothing ever changes, people are always equally stubborn on both sides, and it just gets redundant and old real quick. So forgive me If I have a rather bleak view here, but I honestly don't think anything said here will change SDW's mind.
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want.
I have criticized Clinton, but I have not jumped from he may have done xyz to he definitively did xyz. You do see the difference, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
No, you are right, you can call him what you will. But the venomous and total disrespect for this president is over the line IMO. I don't know about you, but I was brought up to show respect for those that are our elected leaders, regardless of personal opinions. I am hoping that you spew all the garbage that you do, because you can get away with it here, and that you would have some semblance of respect if you met Bush or any powerful person. But the fact that you do show such disrespect shows hatred, once again, IMO.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist.
It is more human to show proper respect to a fellow human being that you have never met and more gentlemanly of you to argue your point with some hint of dignity and civility. Just because you can call someone an idiot, does it mean that you have to? Let me demonstrate:
You're an uber-idiot. Hey but it is just my opinion.
You see, it added nothing to this conversation and just caused a bigger rift.
Besides, I do not care if he is an idiot or not, nor do I intend to counter your goofy accusations that he is this or that. I think we all can make up our minds.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs
Here is a cut and paste of some stuff I posted before. Make up your own mind.
Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.
\t\t\t\t\tPresident\tDetractors
Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)
Overall\t \t\t\t57\t\t36
Just some quick observations.
I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Give me a C! Give me an O! Give me an N! Give me a T! Give me an E! Give me an X! Give me an T! What's that spell?
You've literally become a *\\o/* cheerleader *\\o/* for Bush.
Originally posted by Gilsch
SDW: I'm surprised you have not addressed the MAIN and only point. Who cares if the site is "Pinko Liberal Weekly" or "Coward Neo-con who Never served".....they are talking about an ex CIA analyst and personal friend of Bush Sr. who briefed him on intelligence for a couple of years
Is that the best you can do? Even if ALL members of the Bush Sr. Admin. came forward and said the exact same thing about Wolfowitz and Perle and Feist et al you'd probably just call them "their off-base opinions". You are fanatically in denial dude. Heck, even if Perle and W, etc came out and AGREED with McGovern and the others you'd be in denial.
Love the sig. at the bottom of your posts.
Dismissing me as "in denial" and fanatical may be convenient, but it's not true. If there were many more qualified opinions on the topic I'd certainly listen. But we're talking about ONE person's opinion.
It amazes me that people can actually think the way some of you guy do. you truly, honestly beleive the Bush Administration is hell bent on world domination, and is run by a bunch of extremist nut jobs. It's just totally beyond the pale. It's not enough to disagree, you have to go completely and totally beyond all reasonable discourse.
pfflam:
I don't.
And I seem to remember that long agonizing day . .. the length of which I heard nothing from the president of teh United States . . . seems he was chatting in a school even after he got the news . . . then started to fly West then back East then West again . . . . how long was it till he finnally made a public statement anyway?!?!
I seem to remember Guiliani and lots of speculations about where Bush was
. . . then there were rumours after he finally came out and after quite awhile there was an obviously much needed official explanation
But since everybody, and I mean everybody, was kissing Bush's ass after 911 because we needed to stand by our 'leader' the whole missing-in-action was forgotten . . .
. . . IIRC
Absolutely unreasonable. The President was evacuated and kept safe...as he SHOULD have been. The man's safety HAD to be ensured. How was he going to make a statement before he had the facts? Perhaps you don't remember that Bush overruled the Secret Service and returned to Washington over their objection. He was even criticized for his not being concerned with attacks on the White House.....he's on record as saying "if it happens, it happens".
This is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism I'm talking about.
Originally posted by giant
Ray McGovern has been all over the media for the past year or so, so like you said, the source doesn't matter at this point.
The film Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War has a bunch more former CIA analysts in it (as well as McGovern).
And we know your statement is true since former members of the administration have already been speaking out against their former colleagues.
Anyway, this stuff has been hashed out to no end. Anyone can do a search and see that SDW has consistently been dead wrong in just about every statement about Iraq. It's actually pretty funny to go back and check out some of his old posts.
Another fine source presentedf on your part. And btw, what's this about me being wrong about Iraq? Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. Show me what else I've been wrong on. Go ahead.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You've literally become a *\\o/* cheerleader *\\o/* for Bush.
Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
Perhaps that clears it up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dismissing me as "in denial" and fanatical may be convenient, but it's not true. If there were many more qualified opinions on the topic I'd certainly listen. But we're talking about ONE person's opinion.
It amazes me that people can actually think the way some of you guy do. you truly, honestly beleive the Bush Administration is hell bent on world domination, and is run by a bunch of extremist nut jobs. It's just totally beyond the pale. It's not enough to disagree, you have to go completely and totally beyond all reasonable discourse.
Absolutely unreasonable. The President was evacuated and kept safe...as he SHOULD have been. The man's safety HAD to be ensured. How was he going to make a statement before he had the facts? Perhaps you don't remember that Bush overruled the Secret Service and returned to Washington over their objection. He was even criticized for his not being concerned with attacks on the White House.....he's on record as saying "if it happens, it happens".
This is exactly the kind of unreasonable criticism I'm talking about.
SDW, I wanted to let you know that I have read this whole thread, and I stand with you here in this liberal haven. I haven't chimed in because you are doing a good job, and this recycled fodder.
I posted a breakdown of Bush support in percentages for the past couple of years. You liberals are in the minority on every major issue according to nationwide polls. The majority of the country loves this president. Calling him a liar and warmonger only solidifies that affection and hardens feeling toward the opposition that is no longer loyal.
Unlike most here I think that even if Kerry does win this next election, the office itself tends to force the occupant to lead and lead responsibly. I think one would have to fight hard or not even try to lead this country in a wrong direction.
I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding.
AO seems to be the place to bash this president and any who does not agree with you at whim and without consideration for decency, fairness, common sense or even courtesy. 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. I have seen this type of discussion ratchet up for some time now and it is actually scary how quickly rhetoric and spin can turn into hatred and odium and only be separated from the sewage of this nation's enemies by only a couple of degrees. You guys need to take a deep breath and examine your actions and the consequences of said actions.
Utterly Sad.
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.
NaplesX,
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want. There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist. Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs
Originally posted by NaplesX
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.
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
Originally posted by NaplesX
SDW, I wanted to let you know that I have read this whole thread, and I stand with you here in this liberal haven.
You're like a cute little puppy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
Perhaps that clears it up.
*WHOOSH*
The irony of SDW making a cheerleading joke is indeed lost on him.
Originally posted by SDW2001
. . . is about me being wrong about Iraq [ . . ] Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. [ . . . ]
Yeah, I wonder why you would have thought that?!
Seems to be the crux of the issue: perhaps you thought that because you were fed smoke straight out of the stovepipe?!
and perhaps you still believe it because the last thing that you would ever do is identify with anything remotely resembling our critical perspective on Bush?!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Give me a C! Give me an O! Give me an N! Give me a T! Give me an E! Give me an X! Give me an T! What's that spell?
You've literally become a *\\o/* cheerleader *\\o/* for Bush.
That's pretty funny.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Another fine source presentedf on your part. And btw, what's this about me being wrong about Iraq? Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that. Show me what else I've been wrong on. Go ahead.
Well " presented " doesn't have an f at the end of it.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
SDW you are wrong about Iraq. You are aloso foolish to try to rationalize the president's actions in this situation.
The facts are Bush tried to present a scenerio to the world that iraq was this big threat to the US when in fact his weapons couldn't have even reached us. Also it appears now that no such weapons existed. Was he even working on a delivery system that could reach us? It appears not.
So now they fall back on the idea that " Well Saddam needed to be taken out anyway ". Well that's nice and all but according to the original premise he was this big " threat ". If he just said " Well he needs to be taken out " everybody would have said " The sanctions seem to be working I don't think we need a war at this time ". That would have been the end of it. We would have saved ourselves many lives and many dollars. And a responsability that shows no sign of stopping for the foreseeable future.
America was told a giant falsehood, ( intentional or not ) on a very serious issue.
Any way you slice it this is bad.
This is the president of the united states we're talking about. If it was just bad intel and he forced us to to war over it that makes him incompetent at best.
But I remember him saying they were so positive that they had proof they just couldn't reveal their sources lest they endanger them. That sounds like new intel to me.
And no I don't even for one second think that they are going to find this magical cache of weapons " any day now ".
Many people at the time didn't buy this bunk but the president refused to listen.
I know I've said this before but just occasionally I have to take your smug, condescending, deanor, and spin it around and force it to look at the truth. Lest you forget what really happened.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well " presented " doesn't have an f at the end of it.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
SDW you are wrong about Iraq. You are aloso foolish to try to rationalize the president's actions in this situation.
'also' doesn't have an 'o' in the middle of it
Sorry, couldn't resist
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
'also' doesn't have an 'o' in the middle of it
Sorry, couldn't resist
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
1. Foolishness and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. (If you believe that the President is infallible and if you believe the President has done no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary- you're clearly a fool.)
2. "Everybody's wrong" is not a useful description of this thread. (Yes, of course they are, but that doesn't tell us anything about the subject at hand.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
" I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding ".
-----------------------------------------------------------
OWWWW! My head hurts with all this self appointed superor intellect. God you make us sound like the martians in that H.G. Wells novel ( " cold and calculating " )!
The fact is you don't have to be a rocket scientist ( or martian ) to see giant sized holes in the logic Bush presented to country to justify this war.
All you have to do is be paying attention and not fall for the Bush ( Orwellian ) propaganda machine.
I'm going to take an extra stength excedrin as that really took a lot of mental effort!
I can just feel my brow bulging with self appointed superior intellect!
Where's my heat ray!
Owwwww!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
'also' doesn't have an 'o' in the middle of it
Sorry, couldn't resist
seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.
is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.
Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.
For the record I was paying SDW back for a similar comment made by him earlier.
So you're saying we haven't presented any facts and are just accosting him? You haven't been reading!
Besides I like to mix a little humor with my facts. If you can't laugh at this rediculous world of ours you'll be in sorry shape.
Originally posted by jimmac
For the record I was paying SDW back for a similar, earlier comment.
So you're saying we haven't presented any facts and are just accosting him? You haven't been reading!
Besides I like to mix a little humor with my facts. If you can't laugh at this rediculous world of ours you'll be in sorry shape.
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
oh, and for the record, I laugh at the ridiculous state of the world all the time
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
Yes, well one of the things I've found from this Bush related propaganda machine is that you have to keep repeating the facts or falsehoods tend to become facts.
What happens if you don't is falsehoods start to spread and eventually are accepted as facts among many ( "Saddam and Al Queda were the same thing " ).
No I believe in dragging this out into the light as much as possible.
Originally posted by billybobsky
NaplesX,
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want.
I have criticized Clinton, but I have not jumped from he may have done xyz to he definitively did xyz. You do see the difference, right?
Originally posted by billybobsky
There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
No, you are right, you can call him what you will. But the venomous and total disrespect for this president is over the line IMO. I don't know about you, but I was brought up to show respect for those that are our elected leaders, regardless of personal opinions. I am hoping that you spew all the garbage that you do, because you can get away with it here, and that you would have some semblance of respect if you met Bush or any powerful person. But the fact that you do show such disrespect shows hatred, once again, IMO.
Originally posted by billybobsky
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist.
It is more human to show proper respect to a fellow human being that you have never met and more gentlemanly of you to argue your point with some hint of dignity and civility. Just because you can call someone an idiot, does it mean that you have to? Let me demonstrate:
You're an uber-idiot. Hey but it is just my opinion.
You see, it added nothing to this conversation and just caused a bigger rift.
Besides, I do not care if he is an idiot or not, nor do I intend to counter your goofy accusations that he is this or that. I think we all can make up our minds.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs
Here is a cut and paste of some stuff I posted before. Make up your own mind.
Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.
\t\t\t\t\tPresident\tDetractors
Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)
Overall\t \t\t\t57\t\t36
Just some quick observations.
I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.