I agree that the term anti-american is used too often and 99% of the time it is used incorrectly. HOWEVER, if the term anti-american is to be bandied about, it should be properly applied to those on both sides of the aisle who wish to see America suffer for their own political gain.
Well, why not use it for people that try to reduce criticism of the Bush Admins lies, crimes, wars and radicalism to being just 'partisan politics?'
I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground. I thought he was pretty harmless when he became president... I mean I thought "How much harm can he really do?" he had no huge mandate of public support when he took office... which would hopefully neuter him from doing anything drastic or radical.
But the 9/11 happened... and we all stepped up and supported the president... REMEMBER when the Democrats turned down the chance after his speech to give the other parties opinion? The wanted to show nonpartisan support.
The homeland security bill passed with little scrutiny. Bush got his 2nd tax cut through. The Afghansitan war was supported by both parties.
Then the republican's within months if not weeks were blaming Clinton... and using 9/11 to attack democrats as being soft on terrorism... showing images of Max Cleland (a triple amputee veteran of vietnam) with images of Osama bin Laden. They saw it as an opportunity to win more seats in the Senate and the House.
Bush got a alot of lee way to get it right after 9/11. Everyone wanted him to do the right thing and make us feel safe... catch the bad guys... turn around the economy.
Don't act like this "gross partisanship" has been consistent throughout Bush's presidency... because it hasn't.
Criticizing the president is every citizens RIGHT and responsibility if you think he's doing a bad job. And the way you voice that oppostion is at the ballot.
I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground. I thought he was pretty harmless when he became president... I mean I thought "How much harm can he really do?" he had no huge mandate of public support when he took office... which would hopefully neuter him from doing anything drastic or radical.
But the 9/11 happened... and we all stepped up and supported the president... REMEMBER when the Democrats turned down the chance after his speech to give the other parties opinion? The wanted to show nonpartisan support.
The homeland security bill passed with little scrutiny. Bush got his 2nd tax cut through. The Afghansitan war was supported by both parties.
Then the republican's within months if not weeks were blaming Clinton... and using 9/11 to attack democrats as being soft on terrorism... showing images of Max Cleland (a triple amputee veteran of vietnam) with images of Osama bin Laden. They saw it as an opportunity to win more seats in the Senate and the House.
Bush got a alot of lee way to get it right after 9/11. Everyone wanted him to do the right thing and make us feel safe... catch the bad guys... turn around the economy.
Don't act like this "gross partisanship" has been consistent throughout Bush's presidency... because it hasn't.
Criticizing the president is every citizens RIGHT and responsibility if you think he's doing a bad job. And the way you voice that oppostion is at the ballot.
No, I get it completely. No one on these threads wants anyone to get caught if they haven't done anything wrong. He's saying we're wishing for bad things to happen to Bush. Wrong. He did bad things. Now it's time to pay the piper. Whether WOMD are found or not is insignificant. He lied. If weapons are found, he still lied. If they are not found he still lied. He lied, and we need to tell our future presidents that that's not OK, even if there's a chance their lie may turn into a prophecy.
Agreed.
What BR is saying is that if your political party screws up, admit it! Have the intellectual honesty (and just honesty in general) to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge. So when someone accuses NOW of being anti-women, planned parenthood of being pro-rapist, GWB's tax cut of overwhelmingly helping the middle class, GWB of blowing up a space shuttle or two (lol...mine)... that's not being very honest.
from something i posted a month ago:
Have changing times ushered in a norm of intellectual dishonesty?
Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison to the enterprise of the law. Yet countless examples show intellectual dishonesty has now become a routine, expected part of American discourse. The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
These dishonesties that we have come to accept too easily range from the non-reasoning of Bush v. Gore, to the logic-defying economic rationale for more tax cuts, to the ever-shifting justification of war in Iraq. And they extend to just about every other significant issue of law and policy that affects American life.
Why does this happen? It cannot be because all the people perpetrating these intellectual frauds are bad people. It's been my experience (limited, I admit) that most people who go into government or devote themselves to a life of public policymaking or intellectualism, do so for the best of reasons - because they want to help shape the world for the better.
Then why? I found a partial answer watching, last night, an old clip of Daniel Ellsberg being interviewed by Walter Cronkite, in the wake of Ellsberg's controversial release of the Pentagon Papers. To paraphrase, Ellsberg contended that our society had become so divided, with each side so bent on perpetuating itself in power, that government and the world around it imposed a sustained and terrible pressure on good people to make a choice. They could either leave that world or, far worse, give up the search for truth, in exchange for the search for victory.
That was more than 30 years ago. Has anything much changed?
Let's just repeat that:
To paraphrase, Ellsberg contended that our society had become so divided, with each side so bent on perpetuating itself in power, that government and the world around it imposed a sustained and terrible pressure on good people to make a choice. They could either leave that world or, far worse, give up the search for truth, in exchange for the search for victory.
Unfortunately, people are failing to accurately communicate in this thread.
BR is not saying do not criticize Bush. In fact he is saying you should criticize him. However, one should not secrectly or publicly hope for the failure of a politician from an opposing political party simply because one disagrees with that politicians policies. Rooting for a failed politician is rooting for the decline of our country.
This is not just for the office of the President. It's for Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Judges, District Attorneys... anyone elected to a public office.
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
In the end, what BR is trying to communicate is that it is counterproductive to hope for the worst from someone you do not agree with. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them to task when they do fall short of delivering anything other than excellence, rather it means we should hope the best of all our elected officials and vote out those who fail to deliver. Leave the hate speech and partisianship to those who are truly uninformed, as it serves to expose their ignorance.
Hoping for the President to fvck something up is hoping for America to feel the effects of that fvck-up. I know people that literally become elated when the unemployment figure rises. They hate Bush so much that they want innocent american citizens to suffer with a bad economy that lasts until election day.
I agree that the term anti-american is used too often and 99% of the time it is used incorrectly. HOWEVER, if the term anti-american is to be bandied about, it should be properly applied to those on both sides of the aisle who wish to see America suffer for their own political gain.
Well once again I'm afraid it's you who don't get it. I don't think any reasonable person here wants to have a president that's dishonest or the economy to be in the dumps.
However this is the president after all and if he is guilty of some crime the people need to know. Also I really do believe this needs to be given the focus and attention this kind of situation warrents.
Bush supporters have been very smug in the past ( before he got in trouble ). Like his image of just being a good guy for america. Now we're begining to find out that what the non bush supporters were suspecting all along was true.
This business of portraying the non Bush supporters as people who want things to go bad just so they can win is pure bunk.
I've been pointing out that Bush wouldn't fix the economy in time for the election or any other time for that matter. Not because I want the economy to continue to be bad. I hate this situation! I have to live and work ( and buy food ) in this country also. Why would I want the economy to stay in the negative?
I was pointing it out because I was sure that was the case.
If Bush has screwed up things yes I think America should feel the screw up. So we remember never to elect a person like this again. Because the
the only reason Bush won last time was because the other candidate had even less charisma and the other side was apathetic.
Sorry but I believe we should pay close attention to this situation. After Watergate some 30 odd years ago politicians all of a sudden were being watched closer. It was more difficult for them to get away with things. People had shed the notion that the president was above reproach.
Now however a lot of time has pasted and I think americans have relaxed in this attitude. Perhaps it's time for another wake up call?
No. I think it would be a big mistake to stick our heads in the ground and ignore this. If there is a big media feeding frenzy because of this and the country is more divided as a by product of all of this well Mr. Bush should have thought about this before he acted. Another thing you can thank him for.
This country has lived through divided times before and trust me ( since I'm 50 and have lived through it ) what's going on now is nothing by comparison.
I'm sorry but we need to remember this bad decision for the future ( I'm hoping voter apathy goes down in the next election ) and that usually requires we experience a little pain.
I'm fed up with these pompous self-righteous assholes that are literally PRAYING that no WMDs are found.
I am not sure, but I have the feeling, you are just falling into your own trap here. I am mighty relieved that there were no WoMDs in Iraq. NOT to prove Bush wrong, but because I believe that if they had had them, they would have sold or spread the technical knowledge to other unpleasant countries.
So, if I do understand you correctly, you wish one of the more evil dictators of our times had had access to a kind of weapons that could wipe out the entire human race, just to vindicate a political case?
There's a difference between thinking someone isn't qualified... like Arnold. If Nicolas Cage or Martin Sheen ran for governor I wouldn't automatically think they're qualified either...
There's a difference between hoping somone fails... and just thinking that they probably will because you don't believe their policies work.
By the way this argument is being framed I would think you all would be appalled by the cynical Republican party pushing for an unqualified Arnold just so they can win the Governor's seat.
Bloomberg is a Republican Mayor in a very liberal city... and I thinks he's pretty good... better than Guliani in fact... I would have preferred Mark Green over him but... he's not awful. Wish he'd take it harder to the lame Pataki... who I feel is only trying to protect his standing in the party... and could give a rat's ass about New York City. (whoa sorry for the tangent... really think Pataki is bad for the state)... but anyway... I want Bloomberg to do well because I live here... if he does well... I do well. But if I think he's going to screw things up or is affecting me in some negative way... of course I'm gonna be pissed.
I can be a very partisan liberal... without being irrational... it's really easy actually. I even thought Bush was right about Iraq for a while... and alot of my friends and family thought I was nuts. Now I do think I lost it for a while... I believed their nonsense about large stockpiles of WMD, the nuclear threat and links to terrorists... and now it looks very much like just their case to go into Iraq sooner than later.... and if I let the more cynical side do the talking... I think that they thought it would be a cakewalk and would propell them into a 2nd term... hey rolled the dice... and so far it doesn't look like the gamble paid off.
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
Not true. You keep equating the criticism of the Bush Admin with that of other politicians. No sane American wants there to be another terrorist attack just so they can blame Bush. No sane American wants the US to have to spend billions upon billions of our money to fix screw-ups in Iraq just to blame Bush. No sane American wants to spend the next couple decades paying off a huge deficit just to blame Bush. These are the things being criticized. The center of the issue is much, much bigger than anything you can attempt to equate it to. And just because you speculate that some of your loser friends secretly want these things to happen, it's nowhere near equivalent to the widespread attacks on something as trivial as Clinton's sex life.
Not true. You keep equating the criticism of the Bush Admin with that of other politicians. No sane American wants there to be another terrorist attack just so they can blame Bush. No sane American wants the US to have to spend billions upon billions of our money to fix screw-ups in Iraq just to blame Bush. No sane American wants to spend the next couple decades paying off a huge deficit just to blame Bush. These are the things being criticized.
You are simply not understanding what it is I have to say. Criticism of failed policy is good and should be done. Nowhere did I say criticism was bad.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The center of the issue is much, much bigger than anything you can attempt to equate it to.
You aren't even discussing the same issue I am, so that's an erroneous statement. I am speaking of verbal sniping and political partisainship before problems occur, and you are talking about critism after the fact. Two entirely different subjects.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And just because you speculate that some of your loser friends secretly want these things to happen.
Must you resort to attacking my friends? Is that really necessary? And please point me to the part where I said any of us have friends that feel that way? What I actually said was we all know people who want to see politicians fail. Knowing someone does not make them your friend. And when I say wanting to see them fail, I mean from the minute they take power. Before the politician makes serious mistakes. Again, you assume I am speaking of the criticism of Bush now, after he has made mistakes, when that is simply not what I am talking about at all. Please understand what I say before you attack my friends.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
, it's nowhere near equivalent to the widespread attacks on something as trivial as Clinton's sex life.
The triviality of one situation and the wide spread reach of the other have ZERO to do with what I was talking about. Your attack laced rant simply did not address anything it is I had to say, rather you spun it to make it seem like I was talking of the current criticism [edit]of[/edit] past Bush policy. You were incorrect in assuming that is what I was speaking of.
Ich bin ein Yurrupeen so my opinion is of less uh something here but anyway ...
I'm HALF down with BR and you know what, have to ask myself the odd question about whether my profound feelings about Shrub cause me to do what BR is calling people on ... am I as bad as those that would hang the democrats for the hint of slease but can find a million mitigations for those that would out a CIA op for the sake of malice ...
BR, you're so right: like over in tha UK I don't know who to vote for. Such liars, such creeps. All of them.
BUT: yer man Bush ... and those truly terrifying people that read the papers for him ... I have to say that there is truly something of the night about him. I'm not alone in having profound disquiet about his agenda and where it's taking the world.
I think, with him, this time, there's something different. And I won't be quiet about it.
It's unfortunate Dennis Miller isn't running in California. He's far from your ideal leader, however, I wager he's better informed on the issues than every single candidate named to date. Not an immense challenge in many cases I realize. That he's more intelligent than all the rest, goes without saying IMO. At least, he is based on the commentary and footage I've been unfortunate enough to witness.
I think it would be hilarious to have him in office. Can you imagine the sarcasm in his press conferences? He'd eat the media for lunch. Every time someone asked a stupid question he'd make them feel lower than dirt -- hence they wouldn't be likely to ask more stupid questions, but rather well thought out ones.
His policy stances certainly couldn't be any worse than most of the people already running...
...I'd love to see it, though one term would be more than enough I'm sure.
Unfortunately, people are failing to accurately communicate in this thread.
BR is not saying do not criticize Bush. In fact he is saying you should criticize him. However, one should not secrectly or publicly hope for the failure of a politician from an opposing political party simply because one disagrees with that politicians policies. Rooting for a failed politician is rooting for the decline of our country.
This is not just for the office of the President. It's for Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Judges, District Attorneys... anyone elected to a public office.
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
In the end, what BR is trying to communicate is that it is counterproductive to hope for the worst from someone you do not agree with. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them to task when they do fall short of delivering anything other than excellence, rather it means we should hope the best of all our elected officials and vote out those who fail to deliver. Leave the hate speech and partisianship to those who are truly uninformed, as it serves to expose their ignorance.
Given the magnitude of this situation I can understand how a person could hate Bush. He's already screwed up many american lives. There is a great deal of anger out there.
Yes there are bad democrats just like there are bad republicans. Politicians are after all politicians. I'm registered independant however I find myself agreeing with democratic policy more often than republican.
However it sounds to me like BR was implying that private parties not just politicians are using this opportunity to discredit Bush for the sake of party lines. Hoping things go bad just to win their argument. Once again while I'm sure those people exist I don't see many of them here.
On the other hand while I don't relish the prospect of having a criminal for a president ( once again ) the things Bush has done makes him so self serving and dispicable that if things go bad for him it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
By the way any thinking person knew ahead of time there was no WOMD or imminent threat to be found.
I can't be quiet about this either. It should be focused on.
What I actually said was we all know people who want to see politicians fail.
First, I disn't mean it as a personal attack. I apologize.
But there is a huge difference between wanting to see a politician fail and wanting to see US endeavors fail. The main example used in this thread is of the latter type.
Quote:
The triviality of one situation and the wide spread reach of the other have ZERO to do with what I was talking about.
But this thread is based on the assumption that you can equate the two situations.
Hmm. You know, BR's question begs a similar one: Why even root for our nation or rich nations like us? What about those starving kids in China our mothers always warn us about? Are we not rooting for our own prosperity, largely at the expense of poorer nations? Yes, I think so. Forgive me, but I haven't felt proud to be an American since years before acing the AP US History test in 11th grade.
That's the big one. We have all the money. For Them not to be starving at be richer, We have to be less rich.
BFD in the long run, but youuuuuuuuu just try and raise even a tiny tax and see if you get away with it, let alone redevelop the entire financial system of the planet so people don't starve while the US and EU stuff their fat little ****ing faces and wank over their latest SUV.
Off topic probably. The real debate is about how fundamentally unfair the planet is, which incidentally leads to instability, hatred and terrorism. But no matter who you vote for, the Government gets in, and all this stupid fueding prevents us from doing anything. Bread and circuses.
Having said that, Bush is a dangerous ****.
As you were.
Edit: WOAH. I wrote 'cunt' and the BB didn't censor it. So I did.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I agree that the term anti-american is used too often and 99% of the time it is used incorrectly. HOWEVER, if the term anti-american is to be bandied about, it should be properly applied to those on both sides of the aisle who wish to see America suffer for their own political gain.
Well, why not use it for people that try to reduce criticism of the Bush Admins lies, crimes, wars and radicalism to being just 'partisan politics?'
Originally posted by giant
Well, why not use it for people that try to reduce criticism of the Bush Admins lies, crimes, wars and radicalism to being just 'partisan politics?'
That's exactly what he said should be done when he said "both sides."
But the 9/11 happened... and we all stepped up and supported the president... REMEMBER when the Democrats turned down the chance after his speech to give the other parties opinion? The wanted to show nonpartisan support.
The homeland security bill passed with little scrutiny. Bush got his 2nd tax cut through. The Afghansitan war was supported by both parties.
Then the republican's within months if not weeks were blaming Clinton... and using 9/11 to attack democrats as being soft on terrorism... showing images of Max Cleland (a triple amputee veteran of vietnam) with images of Osama bin Laden. They saw it as an opportunity to win more seats in the Senate and the House.
Bush got a alot of lee way to get it right after 9/11. Everyone wanted him to do the right thing and make us feel safe... catch the bad guys... turn around the economy.
Don't act like this "gross partisanship" has been consistent throughout Bush's presidency... because it hasn't.
Criticizing the president is every citizens RIGHT and responsibility if you think he's doing a bad job. And the way you voice that oppostion is at the ballot.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground. I thought he was pretty harmless when he became president... I mean I thought "How much harm can he really do?" he had no huge mandate of public support when he took office... which would hopefully neuter him from doing anything drastic or radical.
But the 9/11 happened... and we all stepped up and supported the president... REMEMBER when the Democrats turned down the chance after his speech to give the other parties opinion? The wanted to show nonpartisan support.
The homeland security bill passed with little scrutiny. Bush got his 2nd tax cut through. The Afghansitan war was supported by both parties.
Then the republican's within months if not weeks were blaming Clinton... and using 9/11 to attack democrats as being soft on terrorism... showing images of Max Cleland (a triple amputee veteran of vietnam) with images of Osama bin Laden. They saw it as an opportunity to win more seats in the Senate and the House.
Bush got a alot of lee way to get it right after 9/11. Everyone wanted him to do the right thing and make us feel safe... catch the bad guys... turn around the economy.
Don't act like this "gross partisanship" has been consistent throughout Bush's presidency... because it hasn't.
Criticizing the president is every citizens RIGHT and responsibility if you think he's doing a bad job. And the way you voice that oppostion is at the ballot.
Very Well said.
Originally posted by tonton
No, I get it completely. No one on these threads wants anyone to get caught if they haven't done anything wrong. He's saying we're wishing for bad things to happen to Bush. Wrong. He did bad things. Now it's time to pay the piper. Whether WOMD are found or not is insignificant. He lied. If weapons are found, he still lied. If they are not found he still lied. He lied, and we need to tell our future presidents that that's not OK, even if there's a chance their lie may turn into a prophecy.
Agreed.
What BR is saying is that if your political party screws up, admit it! Have the intellectual honesty (and just honesty in general) to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge. So when someone accuses NOW of being anti-women, planned parenthood of being pro-rapist, GWB's tax cut of overwhelmingly helping the middle class, GWB of blowing up a space shuttle or two (lol...mine)... that's not being very honest.
from something i posted a month ago:
Have changing times ushered in a norm of intellectual dishonesty?
From a FindLaw Legal Commentary article
Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison to the enterprise of the law. Yet countless examples show intellectual dishonesty has now become a routine, expected part of American discourse. The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
These dishonesties that we have come to accept too easily range from the non-reasoning of Bush v. Gore, to the logic-defying economic rationale for more tax cuts, to the ever-shifting justification of war in Iraq. And they extend to just about every other significant issue of law and policy that affects American life.
Why does this happen? It cannot be because all the people perpetrating these intellectual frauds are bad people. It's been my experience (limited, I admit) that most people who go into government or devote themselves to a life of public policymaking or intellectualism, do so for the best of reasons - because they want to help shape the world for the better.
Then why? I found a partial answer watching, last night, an old clip of Daniel Ellsberg being interviewed by Walter Cronkite, in the wake of Ellsberg's controversial release of the Pentagon Papers. To paraphrase, Ellsberg contended that our society had become so divided, with each side so bent on perpetuating itself in power, that government and the world around it imposed a sustained and terrible pressure on good people to make a choice. They could either leave that world or, far worse, give up the search for truth, in exchange for the search for victory.
That was more than 30 years ago. Has anything much changed?
Let's just repeat that:
To paraphrase, Ellsberg contended that our society had become so divided, with each side so bent on perpetuating itself in power, that government and the world around it imposed a sustained and terrible pressure on good people to make a choice. They could either leave that world or, far worse, give up the search for truth, in exchange for the search for victory.
BR is not saying do not criticize Bush. In fact he is saying you should criticize him. However, one should not secrectly or publicly hope for the failure of a politician from an opposing political party simply because one disagrees with that politicians policies. Rooting for a failed politician is rooting for the decline of our country.
This is not just for the office of the President. It's for Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Judges, District Attorneys... anyone elected to a public office.
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
In the end, what BR is trying to communicate is that it is counterproductive to hope for the worst from someone you do not agree with. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them to task when they do fall short of delivering anything other than excellence, rather it means we should hope the best of all our elected officials and vote out those who fail to deliver. Leave the hate speech and partisianship to those who are truly uninformed, as it serves to expose their ignorance.
Originally posted by BR
Hoping for the President to fvck something up is hoping for America to feel the effects of that fvck-up. I know people that literally become elated when the unemployment figure rises. They hate Bush so much that they want innocent american citizens to suffer with a bad economy that lasts until election day.
I agree that the term anti-american is used too often and 99% of the time it is used incorrectly. HOWEVER, if the term anti-american is to be bandied about, it should be properly applied to those on both sides of the aisle who wish to see America suffer for their own political gain.
Well once again I'm afraid it's you who don't get it. I don't think any reasonable person here wants to have a president that's dishonest or the economy to be in the dumps.
However this is the president after all and if he is guilty of some crime the people need to know. Also I really do believe this needs to be given the focus and attention this kind of situation warrents.
Bush supporters have been very smug in the past ( before he got in trouble ). Like his image of just being a good guy for america. Now we're begining to find out that what the non bush supporters were suspecting all along was true.
This business of portraying the non Bush supporters as people who want things to go bad just so they can win is pure bunk.
I've been pointing out that Bush wouldn't fix the economy in time for the election or any other time for that matter. Not because I want the economy to continue to be bad. I hate this situation! I have to live and work ( and buy food ) in this country also. Why would I want the economy to stay in the negative?
I was pointing it out because I was sure that was the case.
If Bush has screwed up things yes I think America should feel the screw up. So we remember never to elect a person like this again. Because the
the only reason Bush won last time was because the other candidate had even less charisma and the other side was apathetic.
Sorry but I believe we should pay close attention to this situation. After Watergate some 30 odd years ago politicians all of a sudden were being watched closer. It was more difficult for them to get away with things. People had shed the notion that the president was above reproach.
Now however a lot of time has pasted and I think americans have relaxed in this attitude. Perhaps it's time for another wake up call?
No. I think it would be a big mistake to stick our heads in the ground and ignore this. If there is a big media feeding frenzy because of this and the country is more divided as a by product of all of this well Mr. Bush should have thought about this before he acted. Another thing you can thank him for.
This country has lived through divided times before and trust me ( since I'm 50 and have lived through it ) what's going on now is nothing by comparison.
I'm sorry but we need to remember this bad decision for the future ( I'm hoping voter apathy goes down in the next election ) and that usually requires we experience a little pain.
Originally posted by BR
I'm fed up with these pompous self-righteous assholes that are literally PRAYING that no WMDs are found.
I am not sure, but I have the feeling, you are just falling into your own trap here. I am mighty relieved that there were no WoMDs in Iraq. NOT to prove Bush wrong, but because I believe that if they had had them, they would have sold or spread the technical knowledge to other unpleasant countries.
So, if I do understand you correctly, you wish one of the more evil dictators of our times had had access to a kind of weapons that could wipe out the entire human race, just to vindicate a political case?
Does sound rather frivolous to me...
There's a difference between hoping somone fails... and just thinking that they probably will because you don't believe their policies work.
By the way this argument is being framed I would think you all would be appalled by the cynical Republican party pushing for an unqualified Arnold just so they can win the Governor's seat.
Bloomberg is a Republican Mayor in a very liberal city... and I thinks he's pretty good... better than Guliani in fact... I would have preferred Mark Green over him but... he's not awful. Wish he'd take it harder to the lame Pataki... who I feel is only trying to protect his standing in the party... and could give a rat's ass about New York City. (whoa sorry for the tangent... really think Pataki is bad for the state)... but anyway... I want Bloomberg to do well because I live here... if he does well... I do well. But if I think he's going to screw things up or is affecting me in some negative way... of course I'm gonna be pissed.
I can be a very partisan liberal... without being irrational... it's really easy actually. I even thought Bush was right about Iraq for a while... and alot of my friends and family thought I was nuts. Now I do think I lost it for a while... I believed their nonsense about large stockpiles of WMD, the nuclear threat and links to terrorists... and now it looks very much like just their case to go into Iraq sooner than later.... and if I let the more cynical side do the talking... I think that they thought it would be a cakewalk and would propell them into a 2nd term... hey rolled the dice... and so far it doesn't look like the gamble paid off.
Originally posted by rageous
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
Not true. You keep equating the criticism of the Bush Admin with that of other politicians. No sane American wants there to be another terrorist attack just so they can blame Bush. No sane American wants the US to have to spend billions upon billions of our money to fix screw-ups in Iraq just to blame Bush. No sane American wants to spend the next couple decades paying off a huge deficit just to blame Bush. These are the things being criticized. The center of the issue is much, much bigger than anything you can attempt to equate it to. And just because you speculate that some of your loser friends secretly want these things to happen, it's nowhere near equivalent to the widespread attacks on something as trivial as Clinton's sex life.
Originally posted by giant
Not true. You keep equating the criticism of the Bush Admin with that of other politicians. No sane American wants there to be another terrorist attack just so they can blame Bush. No sane American wants the US to have to spend billions upon billions of our money to fix screw-ups in Iraq just to blame Bush. No sane American wants to spend the next couple decades paying off a huge deficit just to blame Bush. These are the things being criticized.
You are simply not understanding what it is I have to say. Criticism of failed policy is good and should be done. Nowhere did I say criticism was bad.
Originally posted by giant
The center of the issue is much, much bigger than anything you can attempt to equate it to.
You aren't even discussing the same issue I am, so that's an erroneous statement. I am speaking of verbal sniping and political partisainship before problems occur, and you are talking about critism after the fact. Two entirely different subjects.
Originally posted by giant
And just because you speculate that some of your loser friends secretly want these things to happen.
Must you resort to attacking my friends? Is that really necessary? And please point me to the part where I said any of us have friends that feel that way? What I actually said was we all know people who want to see politicians fail. Knowing someone does not make them your friend. And when I say wanting to see them fail, I mean from the minute they take power. Before the politician makes serious mistakes. Again, you assume I am speaking of the criticism of Bush now, after he has made mistakes, when that is simply not what I am talking about at all. Please understand what I say before you attack my friends.
Originally posted by giant
, it's nowhere near equivalent to the widespread attacks on something as trivial as Clinton's sex life.
The triviality of one situation and the wide spread reach of the other have ZERO to do with what I was talking about. Your attack laced rant simply did not address anything it is I had to say, rather you spun it to make it seem like I was talking of the current criticism [edit]of[/edit] past Bush policy. You were incorrect in assuming that is what I was speaking of.
originally posted by BR
yes.
I'm HALF down with BR and you know what, have to ask myself the odd question about whether my profound feelings about Shrub cause me to do what BR is calling people on ... am I as bad as those that would hang the democrats for the hint of slease but can find a million mitigations for those that would out a CIA op for the sake of malice ...
BR, you're so right: like over in tha UK I don't know who to vote for. Such liars, such creeps. All of them.
BUT: yer man Bush ... and those truly terrifying people that read the papers for him ... I have to say that there is truly something of the night about him. I'm not alone in having profound disquiet about his agenda and where it's taking the world.
I think, with him, this time, there's something different. And I won't be quiet about it.
I think it would be hilarious to have him in office. Can you imagine the sarcasm in his press conferences? He'd eat the media for lunch. Every time someone asked a stupid question he'd make them feel lower than dirt -- hence they wouldn't be likely to ask more stupid questions, but rather well thought out ones.
His policy stances certainly couldn't be any worse than most of the people already running...
...I'd love to see it, though one term would be more than enough I'm sure.
And I would LOVE to see Dennis miller run for some kind of office. just watching the debates would be a hoot!
Originally posted by rageous
Unfortunately, people are failing to accurately communicate in this thread.
BR is not saying do not criticize Bush. In fact he is saying you should criticize him. However, one should not secrectly or publicly hope for the failure of a politician from an opposing political party simply because one disagrees with that politicians policies. Rooting for a failed politician is rooting for the decline of our country.
This is not just for the office of the President. It's for Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Judges, District Attorneys... anyone elected to a public office.
To claim "I don't know of anyone who was wishing that Bush would not find WMD. I don't know anyone that was hoping Bush would run the economy into the ground" only shows naivete. I don't think you're naive, and I'm sure if you gave it a little thought you'd find you know plenty of people who hope Bush fails miserably. Just as you'll find people who hope Hillary is a failure, or Dean is a failure, or Arnold is a failure. We all know people like this.
In the end, what BR is trying to communicate is that it is counterproductive to hope for the worst from someone you do not agree with. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them to task when they do fall short of delivering anything other than excellence, rather it means we should hope the best of all our elected officials and vote out those who fail to deliver. Leave the hate speech and partisianship to those who are truly uninformed, as it serves to expose their ignorance.
Given the magnitude of this situation I can understand how a person could hate Bush. He's already screwed up many american lives. There is a great deal of anger out there.
Yes there are bad democrats just like there are bad republicans. Politicians are after all politicians. I'm registered independant however I find myself agreeing with democratic policy more often than republican.
However it sounds to me like BR was implying that private parties not just politicians are using this opportunity to discredit Bush for the sake of party lines. Hoping things go bad just to win their argument. Once again while I'm sure those people exist I don't see many of them here.
On the other hand while I don't relish the prospect of having a criminal for a president ( once again ) the things Bush has done makes him so self serving and dispicable that if things go bad for him it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
By the way any thinking person knew ahead of time there was no WOMD or imminent threat to be found.
I can't be quiet about this either. It should be focused on.
Originally posted by rageous
What I actually said was we all know people who want to see politicians fail.
First, I disn't mean it as a personal attack. I apologize.
But there is a huge difference between wanting to see a politician fail and wanting to see US endeavors fail. The main example used in this thread is of the latter type.
The triviality of one situation and the wide spread reach of the other have ZERO to do with what I was talking about.
But this thread is based on the assumption that you can equate the two situations.
famine victims in Ethiopia, refugees everywhere, UNFAIR trade, massively indebted poorer nations.
Yeah, "Go Team America!" It's funny....unlike political parties, our nation is actually represented by sports teams....
BFD in the long run, but youuuuuuuuu just try and raise even a tiny tax and see if you get away with it, let alone redevelop the entire financial system of the planet so people don't starve while the US and EU stuff their fat little ****ing faces and wank over their latest SUV.
Off topic probably. The real debate is about how fundamentally unfair the planet is, which incidentally leads to instability, hatred and terrorism. But no matter who you vote for, the Government gets in, and all this stupid fueding prevents us from doing anything. Bread and circuses.
Having said that, Bush is a dangerous ****.
As you were.
Edit: WOAH. I wrote 'cunt' and the BB didn't censor it. So I did.
Originally posted by BR
GO TEAM!
I'm afraid you just don't get it. It's not partisan when a liberal disagrees with a conservative.