Jimmac, when you say Hitler and Bush are not alike and the only thing you follow it up with is the difference in their intelligence then you are in the level of arguments saying that the only thing that differenciate them their intelligence. If you are saying that you have definetly left the planet.
A small intellectual exercise for you: In what other ways, if any, do Hitler and Bush differenciate eachother?
Sigh.
Geez Anders you sound like a teacher in high school.
There are of course a lot of differences between Bush and Hitler. One openly believes in a master race, and is coming in at the right place and the right time to take advantage of that. He also wrote a book " Mein Kampf " which outlined his twisted beliefs.
He did believe in a one world government ( with only whites as the rulers ). Where Bush seems to be only concerned with the U.S.
Bush counter to Hitler doesn't seem to have much direction, Clearly isn't an itellectual, and only believes in the right wing for supremacy.
One curious simliarity between the two is they both seem to think god is on their side.
Geez Anders you sound like a teacher in high school.
There are of course a lot of differences between Bush and Hitler. One openly believes in a master race, and is coming in at the right place and the right time to take advantage of that. He also wrote a book.
One of his main sources for battle tactice inspirations were children's adventure novels written about coboys and indians and written by a man who had never left Germany:
In a last moment memoranda to soldiers on teh eastern front he said, 'you must hide behind bushes and when the enemy passes by, you must leap out and pounce on them and get them by surprise"
Power is no measure of intelligence. A famous and highly respected English man (who's name excapes me right now in a mental glitsch) met the 'inner-circle' during the Nuremburg trials, his only remark was not about their 'evilness' but rather how surprisingly DUMB they all were! Complete idiots apparently.
I would agree that though Nazism is called National Socialism, it has nothing to do with Socialism . . . except that for Nazism the State was All: but rather than having the state as one mediator between individuals, profit motives and the collective, the State was the apparatus for the consolidation of corporate power and yet was also the goal of the people's aspirations: Mussalinni knew what he was talking about when he called Fascism state-corporatism.
One of his main sources for battle tactice inspirations were children's adventure novels written about coboys and indians and written by a man who had never left Germany:
In a last moment memoranda to soldiers on teh eastern front he said, 'you must hide behind bushes and when the enemy passes by, you must leap out and pounce on them and get them by surprise"
Power is no measure of intelligence. A famous and highly respected English man (who's name excapes me right now in a mental glitsch) met the 'inner-circle' during the Nuremburg trials, his only remark was not about their 'evilness' but rather how surprisingly DUMB they all were! Complete idiots apparently.
I would agree that though Nazism is called National Socialism, it has nothing to do with Socialism . . . except that for Nazism the State was All: but rather than having the state as one mediator between individuals, profit motives and the collective, the State was the apparatus for the consolidation of corporate power and yet was also the goal of the people's aspirations: Mussalinni knew what he was talking about when he called Fascism state-corporatism.
" Hitler was a crazy, but intelligent man, (at least intelligent enough to use France to try and take over Britain). Hitler's strike on Britain failed, (later called the Battle of Britain). "
You really don´t see a problem with a statement (and yes I prarfrase here) like this:"Hitler and Bush is not alike; Hitler was an intelligent man"?
And Bush has given very clear examples that he isn't. Yes it was a knock against Bush but it's also the truth.
Both are opportunists. One was clever enough to work his way into everybody blindly believing in him. One makes mistakes so obvious that they never will ( thank god for small favours ).
And to quote not paraphrase :
" Well if it's any consolation I don't think Bush is like Hitler per say. Hitler despite his being just basically wrong about certain concepts and ethics was a intelligent man. Yes he was a monster but he was an intelligent one. ".
And Bush clearly isn't. Bush is a bit of a monster of a different breed.
So what are you getting at?
So tell me Anders. Do you feel Bush is intelligent? I know you're an moderator and supposed to moderate but what do you think about the man?
No, it's not "very, very" close to "treason." Not at all. Nowhere near it. People who even SUGGEST that criticizing Bush = treason seriously need to think about what they're saying.
Aside: If having troops on the ground means that people can't criticize the president, then you'd better call for the heads of everyone who said Clinton bombed this or that to distract attention from Monica-gate.
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
I know you didn't bother to read my links above so I'll cut and paste for you.
The Constitution of the United States
Article III
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What you're thinking of is constructive treason i.e. disparaging words against the leader are to be considered treasonous. No where in our constiturion is there a cluase dealing with constructive treason thus allowing M.Moore to say things against the president even when in times of war.
I have to hand it to you though SDW. Like Bush wrong or right you stick to your guns. In the face of evidence you turn a blind eye... I admire that kind of thoughtless stick-too-it-ness.
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
Obviously the words in the constitution mean something very different to SDW. I've noticed it in the way he talks about things. It sounds like he thinks protection = police state. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to pick on SDW but it's clear his view of freedom ( and why we elect a president and don't have a monarch ) is vastly different.
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
Shawn:
What Gore has done is entirely different. His speech is picked up by worldwide media outlets. It could foster further American hatred and undermine the war effort. It's content and tone were totally inappropriate. What's more disturbing is that I do not for a second believe that Gore actaully believes what he's saying. Even the more liberal minded posters here were asking "Who is Al Gore?" during the 200 election. This man is not rooted in any sense of the word. I have every reason to suspect that this speech was made for political expendiency.
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
My interpretations and beliefs are well thought out and based on as many hard facts as I can find. When I disagree with Bush, and I do on many things, I say so. You, by contrast, cannot give credit Bush for anything and apparently believe every crackpot theory you hear. If the media tells you that Bush loves the rich and hates the poor, you believe it. If the media tell you Bush has been bad for the environment, you believe it. If the media tells you Bush is taking away your freedoms, you believe it.
Concerning who is "right or wrong", well that's another issue. I can't argue every issue with you at once, so if you'd like to pick one, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Obviously the words in the constitution mean something very different to SDW. I've noticed it in the way he talks about things. It sounds like he thinks protection = police state. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to pick on SDW but it's clear his view of freedom ( and why we elect a president and don't have a monarch ) is vastly different.
jimmac,
You have absolutely no right to pontificate on what "I think". Gore and others have not disagreed on policy. They're making hateful personal attacks during a time of war. Gore has stopped just short of accusing Bush of a crime. "He betrayed this country"? Are you honestly telling me that's just a criticism of policy?
Concerning my positions: I have said many times that each and every position I hold is the result of quite a bit of crtitical thinking and understanding of indisputable facts. I balance this with my moral beliefs and of course, personality. By contrast, you have demonstrated time and time again that what you're interested in is rhetorical statements and "gotcha" politics. Your post above is a prime example. You refuse to take a position on an issue and then argue and support that position.
We can disagree on interpretation of the Constitution. It is my opinion that freedom of speech has its limits. One cannot scream "fire" in a move theater for example. One cannot make threats or engage in slander/libelous behavior. I don't know that Gore should be prosecuted (in fact, I'd argue against it), but I do believe that his statements cross the line of reasonable political discourse.
What Gore has done is entirely different. His speech is picked up by worldwide media outlets. It could foster further American hatred and undermine the war effort. It's content and tone were totally inappropriate. What's more disturbing is that I do not for a second believe that Gore actaully believes what he's saying. Even the more liberal minded posters here were asking "Who is Al Gore?" during the 200 election. This man is not rooted in any sense of the word. I have every reason to suspect that this speech was made for political expendiency.
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
My interpretations and beliefs are well thought out and based on as many hard facts as I can find. When I disagree with Bush, and I do on many things, I say so. You, by contrast, cannot give credit Bush for anything and apparently believe every crackpot theory you hear. If the media tells you that Bush loves the rich and hates the poor, you believe it. If the media tell you Bush has been bad for the environment, you believe it. If the media tells you Bush is taking away your freedoms, you believe it.
Concerning who is "right or wrong", well that's another issue. I can't argue every issue with you at once, so if you'd like to pick one, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Gore is right . . .because Bush has basically betrayed the country: they mislead the country and refuse to acknowledge what becomes clearer everyday: namely, that what they did for whatever ideological, or worse, power-play motivations shows itself as what it is . . . a betrayal of the American trust. . . .and that's not even taking into account the Abu Ghtaib standards destruction and lowering of the US ethical principles by a mile . . . . or Plame, or etc . .
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
Here's what Gore actually said in that speech about Bush betraying our country, as you put it.
Quote:
So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.
There's a series of posts by addabox starting on this page arguing that one of the basic themes of conservative Republicanism right now is the labeling of political opponents as treasonous, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, and the like. Treason, of course, is illegal, and a capital offense. The implication is that it would be OK if we executed liberal Democrats. I'm not sure if I buy it, but he makes a pretty good case, and this line of yours, SDW, seems to fit into that.
When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy.
Try not to throw around legal terms that you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason.
People like you that actually think this is a remotely vaild belief are the biggest threat to this country. Seriously.
Since you are so interested in politics, it would do you a WORLD of good to go to a local university and take some poli-sci courses. Focusing on what has gone on in latin american politics would help a lot.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Jimmac, when you say Hitler and Bush are not alike and the only thing you follow it up with is the difference in their intelligence then you are in the level of arguments saying that the only thing that differenciate them their intelligence. If you are saying that you have definetly left the planet.
A small intellectual exercise for you: In what other ways, if any, do Hitler and Bush differenciate eachother?
Sigh.
Geez Anders you sound like a teacher in high school.
There are of course a lot of differences between Bush and Hitler. One openly believes in a master race, and is coming in at the right place and the right time to take advantage of that. He also wrote a book " Mein Kampf " which outlined his twisted beliefs.
He did believe in a one world government ( with only whites as the rulers ). Where Bush seems to be only concerned with the U.S.
Bush counter to Hitler doesn't seem to have much direction, Clearly isn't an itellectual, and only believes in the right wing for supremacy.
One curious simliarity between the two is they both seem to think god is on their side.
http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/
Originally posted by jimmac
Sigh.
Geez Anders you sound like a teacher in high school.
There are of course a lot of differences between Bush and Hitler. One openly believes in a master race, and is coming in at the right place and the right time to take advantage of that. He also wrote a book.
What about means?
Originally posted by Anders
What about means?
Sorry but you know how this server works and sometimes you lose your link before posting.
Other than this what's your point?
Do you really want to go into a listing of their individual lives? I'm sure many here are familure with both so what purpose would it serve?
If you somehow gathered from my comments that I admire Hitler or in any way agree with his concepts you're very mistaken.
I mearly stated that Hitler was intelligent and Dubbya has given many examples that he's not.
So I ask again Anders what are you trying ask? I mean I'm not going to do a 20 page report for you.
One of his main sources for battle tactice inspirations were children's adventure novels written about coboys and indians and written by a man who had never left Germany:
In a last moment memoranda to soldiers on teh eastern front he said, 'you must hide behind bushes and when the enemy passes by, you must leap out and pounce on them and get them by surprise"
Power is no measure of intelligence. A famous and highly respected English man (who's name excapes me right now in a mental glitsch) met the 'inner-circle' during the Nuremburg trials, his only remark was not about their 'evilness' but rather how surprisingly DUMB they all were! Complete idiots apparently.
I would agree that though Nazism is called National Socialism, it has nothing to do with Socialism . . . except that for Nazism the State was All: but rather than having the state as one mediator between individuals, profit motives and the collective, the State was the apparatus for the consolidation of corporate power and yet was also the goal of the people's aspirations: Mussalinni knew what he was talking about when he called Fascism state-corporatism.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but you know how this server works and sometimes you lose your link before posting.
Other than this what's your point?
Do you really want to go into a listing of their individual lives? I'm sure many here are familure with both so what purpose would it serve?
If you somehow gathered from my comments that I admire Hitler or in any way agree with his concepts you're very mistaken.
I mearly stated that Hitler was intelligent and Dubbya has given many examples that he's not.
So I ask again Anders what are you trying ask? I mean I'm not going to do a 20 page report for you.
You really don´t see a problem with a statement (and yes I prarfrase here) like this:"Hitler and Bush is not alike; Hitler was an intelligent man"?
He also had a failed career behind him.
Originally posted by pfflam
Hitler was not an intelligent man.
One of his main sources for battle tactice inspirations were children's adventure novels written about coboys and indians and written by a man who had never left Germany:
In a last moment memoranda to soldiers on teh eastern front he said, 'you must hide behind bushes and when the enemy passes by, you must leap out and pounce on them and get them by surprise"
Power is no measure of intelligence. A famous and highly respected English man (who's name excapes me right now in a mental glitsch) met the 'inner-circle' during the Nuremburg trials, his only remark was not about their 'evilness' but rather how surprisingly DUMB they all were! Complete idiots apparently.
I would agree that though Nazism is called National Socialism, it has nothing to do with Socialism . . . except that for Nazism the State was All: but rather than having the state as one mediator between individuals, profit motives and the collective, the State was the apparatus for the consolidation of corporate power and yet was also the goal of the people's aspirations: Mussalinni knew what he was talking about when he called Fascism state-corporatism.
It's an observation :
http://www.tesseract.pvt.k12.mn.us/trevopn/Hitler.htm
From the text :
" Hitler was a crazy, but intelligent man, (at least intelligent enough to use France to try and take over Britain). Hitler's strike on Britain failed, (later called the Battle of Britain). "
Here's another about Bush :
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r
Honestly guys I didn't say I liked the man.
Originally posted by Anders
You really don´t see a problem with a statement (and yes I prarfrase here) like this:"Hitler and Bush is not alike; Hitler was an intelligent man"?
And Bush has given very clear examples that he isn't. Yes it was a knock against Bush but it's also the truth.
Both are opportunists. One was clever enough to work his way into everybody blindly believing in him. One makes mistakes so obvious that they never will ( thank god for small favours ).
And to quote not paraphrase :
" Well if it's any consolation I don't think Bush is like Hitler per say. Hitler despite his being just basically wrong about certain concepts and ethics was a intelligent man. Yes he was a monster but he was an intelligent one. ".
And Bush clearly isn't. Bush is a bit of a monster of a different breed.
So what are you getting at?
So tell me Anders. Do you feel Bush is intelligent? I know you're an moderator and supposed to moderate but what do you think about the man?
Originally posted by midwinter
No, it's not "very, very" close to "treason." Not at all. Nowhere near it. People who even SUGGEST that criticizing Bush = treason seriously need to think about what they're saying.
Aside: If having troops on the ground means that people can't criticize the president, then you'd better call for the heads of everyone who said Clinton bombed this or that to distract attention from Monica-gate.
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He's not criticizing him. He's screaming that Bush betrayed the country while we're at war. There is a huge difference.
I know you didn't bother to read my links above so I'll cut and paste for you.
The Constitution of the United States
Article III
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What you're thinking of is constructive treason i.e. disparaging words against the leader are to be considered treasonous. No where in our constiturion is there a cluase dealing with constructive treason thus allowing M.Moore to say things against the president even when in times of war.
I have to hand it to you though SDW. Like Bush wrong or right you stick to your guns. In the face of evidence you turn a blind eye... I admire that kind of thoughtless stick-too-it-ness.
[edit]typos
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
Obviously the words in the constitution mean something very different to SDW. I've noticed it in the way he talks about things. It sounds like he thinks protection = police state. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to pick on SDW but it's clear his view of freedom ( and why we elect a president and don't have a monarch ) is vastly different.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh, come on. Your whole raison d'etre on these boards is to pick on SDW.
Not at all. I am pretty passionate about my beliefs and I will admit from time to time SDW's stubborn viewpoint has gotten under my skin.
If what you say was true then I wouldn't talk to anybody else.
I was just pointing out that SDW's viewpoint and the way he defines things is radically different ( from alot of people I know ).
It's probably why he can think that Bush's actions are ok and why I find them unacceptable.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SDW, it's okay to have different interpretations and beliefs, of course. But most of the time, I find you and a few others are just wrong. Whether you're evaluating someone's measured tone as "foaming at the mouth," or mangling the meaning of criticism so that it fits your ideology-- you're just wrong. It doesn't matter whether I scream it, yell it, write it on the wall, or whisper it in your ear-- It doesn't matter if we're in peacetime, wartime, or during the final episode of American Idol: accusing President Bush of betraying the county is criticism. It doesn't matter where or when or how: it's criticism in all contexts-- and it's protected by our constitution. I hope I get through to you before you advocate subverting it any further.
Shawn:
What Gore has done is entirely different. His speech is picked up by worldwide media outlets. It could foster further American hatred and undermine the war effort. It's content and tone were totally inappropriate. What's more disturbing is that I do not for a second believe that Gore actaully believes what he's saying. Even the more liberal minded posters here were asking "Who is Al Gore?" during the 200 election. This man is not rooted in any sense of the word. I have every reason to suspect that this speech was made for political expendiency.
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
My interpretations and beliefs are well thought out and based on as many hard facts as I can find. When I disagree with Bush, and I do on many things, I say so. You, by contrast, cannot give credit Bush for anything and apparently believe every crackpot theory you hear. If the media tells you that Bush loves the rich and hates the poor, you believe it. If the media tell you Bush has been bad for the environment, you believe it. If the media tells you Bush is taking away your freedoms, you believe it.
Concerning who is "right or wrong", well that's another issue. I can't argue every issue with you at once, so if you'd like to pick one, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Originally posted by jimmac
Obviously the words in the constitution mean something very different to SDW. I've noticed it in the way he talks about things. It sounds like he thinks protection = police state. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to pick on SDW but it's clear his view of freedom ( and why we elect a president and don't have a monarch ) is vastly different.
jimmac,
You have absolutely no right to pontificate on what "I think". Gore and others have not disagreed on policy. They're making hateful personal attacks during a time of war. Gore has stopped just short of accusing Bush of a crime. "He betrayed this country"? Are you honestly telling me that's just a criticism of policy?
Concerning my positions: I have said many times that each and every position I hold is the result of quite a bit of crtitical thinking and understanding of indisputable facts. I balance this with my moral beliefs and of course, personality. By contrast, you have demonstrated time and time again that what you're interested in is rhetorical statements and "gotcha" politics. Your post above is a prime example. You refuse to take a position on an issue and then argue and support that position.
We can disagree on interpretation of the Constitution. It is my opinion that freedom of speech has its limits. One cannot scream "fire" in a move theater for example. One cannot make threats or engage in slander/libelous behavior. I don't know that Gore should be prosecuted (in fact, I'd argue against it), but I do believe that his statements cross the line of reasonable political discourse.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Shawn:
What Gore has done is entirely different. His speech is picked up by worldwide media outlets. It could foster further American hatred and undermine the war effort. It's content and tone were totally inappropriate. What's more disturbing is that I do not for a second believe that Gore actaully believes what he's saying. Even the more liberal minded posters here were asking "Who is Al Gore?" during the 200 election. This man is not rooted in any sense of the word. I have every reason to suspect that this speech was made for political expendiency.
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
My interpretations and beliefs are well thought out and based on as many hard facts as I can find. When I disagree with Bush, and I do on many things, I say so. You, by contrast, cannot give credit Bush for anything and apparently believe every crackpot theory you hear. If the media tells you that Bush loves the rich and hates the poor, you believe it. If the media tell you Bush has been bad for the environment, you believe it. If the media tells you Bush is taking away your freedoms, you believe it.
Concerning who is "right or wrong", well that's another issue. I can't argue every issue with you at once, so if you'd like to pick one, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Gore is right . . .because Bush has basically betrayed the country: they mislead the country and refuse to acknowledge what becomes clearer everyday: namely, that what they did for whatever ideological, or worse, power-play motivations shows itself as what it is . . . a betrayal of the American trust. . . .and that's not even taking into account the Abu Ghtaib standards destruction and lowering of the US ethical principles by a mile . . . . or Plame, or etc . .
Originally posted by SDW2001
Love him or hate him, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military during a time of war. When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy. I have no problem with discussion and open dissent on policy. I have no problem with Gore or anyone else disagreeing with the war. He can say we shoudln't have gone in there (though this would contradict is own previous statements). He can say that failure to find WMD is abhorent. He can say any number of things and I woudn't care. But this is different.
It doesn't end with Gore. We have Kennedy et al openly calling a liar. These people are directly underminding are united effort to win the war on terror by damaging the credibility of the CIC. Policy disgreement is what makes America great. These, however, are personal attacks that are not good for the nation in any sense.
Here's what Gore actually said in that speech about Bush betraying our country, as you put it.
So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.
Here's the full speech.
There's a series of posts by addabox starting on this page arguing that one of the basic themes of conservative Republicanism right now is the labeling of political opponents as treasonous, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, and the like. Treason, of course, is illegal, and a capital offense. The implication is that it would be OK if we executed liberal Democrats. I'm not sure if I buy it, but he makes a pretty good case, and this line of yours, SDW, seems to fit into that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
When we have a former VP screaming that he betrayed the country, it certainly gives Aid and Comfort to the enemy.
Try not to throw around legal terms that you don't understand.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason.
People like you that actually think this is a remotely vaild belief are the biggest threat to this country. Seriously.
Since you are so interested in politics, it would do you a WORLD of good to go to a local university and take some poli-sci courses. Focusing on what has gone on in latin american politics would help a lot.
But I'll start you off with something simple:
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy