In which I pit blind, bigoted hatred....

[Clothahump]

I'm frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at George Bush. There isn't a forum on the web these days that doesn't have at least one asswipe show up in it to spew venom.

I am going to wrap all of the people who do that up into one bag and call them liberals, because they are the vast majority of people doing it. The liberals have had their collective shorts in a wad ever since the 2000 elections (which, like it or not, Bush won - deal with it) and they have been getting more vicious and more bitter as time goes on. All because Algore lost. The libs started throwing temper tantrums and haven't stopped yet, like a bunch of spoiled brats.

All you can read these days is how Bush has lied about this or lied about that or lied about something else. Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar. I'm tired of hearing this crap from the libs.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done or not done. But I swear I'm gonna vote for him if for no other reason than to be able to cast a vote against the bigotry and hatred puked out on a daily basis by the libs.

Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the libs will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.

My $0.02 worth....

[GorillaMan]

All because Algore lost.
I thought it was partly due to a little illegal war that happened recently.....my mistake....

Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar.
Saying something that isn't true, on the other hand....

[fluiddruid]

II am going to wrap all of the people who do that up into one bag and call them liberals, because they are the vast majority of people doing it. The liberals have had their collective shorts in a wad ever since the 2000 elections (which, like it or not, Bush won - deal with it)

Well, I deal with it in the sense that I am critical of why he was given the election. I don't understand those who say "it's the way it is, deal with it". Why should we just accept it because it has happened?

It does concern me that a) he did lose the popular election and b) I understand that some analysts are claiming that he should not have won Florida. The right to vote and have proper elections is incredibly important to America.

This does not mean that I cry "Hail to the Thief" whenever Bush comes on TV. He is, for better or for worse, the president. I know Gore was politicking just as much over it. I just wonder if it was truly just chance and honestly would like to have seen more inquiry over it. Corruption is something we should look for in our electoral system.

and they have been getting more vicious and more bitter as time goes on. All because Algore lost. The libs started throwing temper tantrums and haven't stopped yet, like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Ah, yes... I recall those high days of the Clinton presidency, where conservatives around the country held hands and said "By hook or by crook, Clinton is out president and God Bless America!" What unity, what glory...

...what bullshit. No offense to reasonable conservatives, but at the very least we're criticizing Bush on the basis of his presidency, rather than his personal life.

Come on, there are always whiners. That's the fun in a democracy! We can speak our minds.

All you can read these days is how Bush has lied about this or lied about that or lied about something else. Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar. I'm tired of hearing this crap from the libs.

Perhaps we are not saying that we disagree with him -- perhaps we mean what we say and call him a liar.

Saying that there was definitive proof of an imminent threat on the US by Iraq via WMDs was, well, a lie. It may not have been Bush's lie -- Bush may not have known, though I suspect he was not sure of its whole truth -- but it is a lie. This is important. We went to war on the basis of a lie.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done or not done. But I swear I'm gonna vote for him if for no other reason than to be able to cast a vote against the bigotry and hatred puked out on a daily basis by the libs.

Look, both sides have jerks. Yes, there is irrational hatred and frothing-at-the-mouth when Bush's name is spoken. I think he's a poor president, but I don't wet myself over it. A lot of other liberals are the same way.

I am sure that you can see how odd I feel it is do label us with such a broad brush and accuse us of bigotry and hatred -- look at the vitriole in your own post. Let's get over the childish name calling and move toward a position where we can criticize and watch the government without being maligned and where both parties can express ideas rather than soundbytes. I'm all for that.

[Revtim]

Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar. I'm tired of hearing this crap from the libs.Here's another newsflash for you. If someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them blind, bigoted, haters. It goes both ways, you know.

[Early Out]

I think you may be misunderstanding something. I can only speak for myself, but I suspect others feel the same way. I have no personal animosity towards George Bush at all. I'm sure he'd be a great guy to go on a fishing trip with.

I just happen to think that he's the worst President we've ever had. I believe that almost every action he has taken as President has been detrimental to the well-being of this country and to the stability and future prospects for the rest of the world. I'm frankly amazed at how this administration gets it wrong so consistently. I'm not basing this belief upon some sort of blind hatred. I'm basing it on how I perceive the actions Mr. Bush and his administration have taken, on their policies, and on their goals.

No one that I know of is accusing Mr. Bush of lying because he has said things that he disagrees with. Those who accuse Mr. Bush of lying do so because he has said things that are demonstrably untrue, things that are factually incorrect. Of course, here's where we get into a slippery area, because one can argue that, even if Mr. Bush has said things that have turned out to be untrue, he genuinely believed that he was stating the truth, and is therefore not a liar. Given the frequency with which this has happened, however, one can only assume either that he knew the truth, and was, therefore, lying, or that he didn't know the truth, and is, therefore, incompetent.

[cmason32]

It must be so hard to be a conservative. I can only imagine the pain of coming to a message board, only to see threads about Bush. None of that pain can be quelled by impeaching Clinton, Fox News, or owning the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.

[tomndebb]

Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar. On the other hand claiming that we had conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD was a lie;
claiming that Saddam Hussein was about to become an imminent threat to the U.S. was a lie;
claiming that there were material connections between Hussein and bin Laden was a lie;
implying (Cheney continues to repeat it) that Iraq had a hand in the WTC/Pentagon attacks is a lie.

Beyond the actual lies he has told, there are a number of issues that cause me to oppose him, including:

His "faith based initiatives" plan is a serious violation of the separation of church and state.
He claimed that California had created its own energy problems when it has now been revealed that his buddies at Enron staged the shortages. (This one might not be on his head--if I had been Ken Lay, I would not have trusted Bush enough to let him in on the plot.)
He has led the country into an almost insupportable level of debt.
He claims that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East.

[El Zagna]

How is this different from what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their followers have been doing for over a decade now. Take a deep breath, Clothahump, and reread your OP substituting Clinton for Bush and right wingers for libs. Here, I've done it for you.

I'm frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at Bill Clinton. There isn't a forum on the web these days that doesn't have at least one asswipe show up in it to spew venom.

I am going to wrap all of the people who do that up into one bag and call them right wingers, because they are the vast majority of people doing it. The right wingers have had their collective shorts in a wad ever since the 1992 elections (which, like it or not, Clinton won - deal with it) and they have been getting more vicious and more bitter as time goes on. All because the Republican guy lost. The far right started throwing temper tantrums and haven't stopped yet, like a bunch of spoiled brats.

All you can read these days is how Clinton has lied about this or lied about that or lied about something else. Newsflash here, folks - if someone says something that you disagree with, that does NOT make them a liar. I'm tired of hearing this crap from the right.

I don't agree with everything Clinton has done or not done. But I swear I'm gonna vote for him if for no other reason than to be able to cast a vote against the bigotry and hatred puked out on a daily basis by the right wing.

Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the right wingers will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.

[Brutus]

And I thought the thread was going to be about this. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/449966.html)

[rjung]

Blind hatred of George W. Bush? You mean there are people who say "I hate Bush, but I don't know why!"??? :confused:

Dunno about you, Clothahump, but all the folks I've heard espousing dislike of Bush have done so for solid, fact-based reasons. If you think these folks are dissing Bush for no reason whatsoever, you haven't been paying attention.

[Daisy Mae]

On the other hand claiming that we had conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD was a lie;
claiming that Saddam Hussein was about to become an imminent threat to the U.S. was a lie;
claiming that there were material connections between Hussein and bin Laden was a lie;
implying (Cheney continues to repeat it) that Iraq had a hand in the WTC/Pentagon attacks is a lie.

Beyond the actual lies he has told, there are a number of issues that cause me to oppose him, including:

His "faith based initiatives" plan is a serious violation of the separation of church and state.
He claimed that California had created its own energy problems when it has now been revealed that his buddies at Enron staged the shortages. (This one might not be on his head--if I had been Ken Lay, I would not have trusted Bush enough to let him in on the plot.)
He has led the country into an almost insupportable level of debt.
He claims that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East.


Thank you, thank you, thank you.

And if I may add a few of my own.

--His own prejudiced vision of all things Christian and his obvious desire to push his beliefs on the rest of us. I do not care what his God says about homosexuals and marriage.

--The way he has potrayed stem cell research and cloning as science fiction and his desire to keep medicine from using these tools to improve the lives of all of us.

--I knew I hated him from the time I saw the reporters talking to him about his DUI he forgot (winka winka) to mention when running for President . Does anyone remember the holier than thou attitude he displayed as if to say "How dare YOU questione ME on such a thing??" Well Georgie Boy, if *I* lie on a job application, I get fired. You lied on your "application" to be President by failing to disclose your criminal offense.

--His questionable military record. Wait, let me correct this. If I were a male in the Vietnam era, I probably would want to get out of it too so I can't blame him for that. What I do find disgusting is the cleansing of his records and the length of time it took to produce them.

--Honestly, I dislike the entire clan from the questionable dealings of his Grandfather around the time of WWII to his drug addicted niece who has committed prescription fraud on more than one occasion and still hardly gets her hands slapped.

So I guess that makes me one of the bigots Clothahump can't stand. I have reasons for my contempt though and unfortunately for this Administratoin, I'm not blind.

[Apos]

And I thought this thread was going to be about this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5056152&postcount=87

[TVeblen]

Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the libs will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.



So you've already decided that anyone who believes, on principled, reasoned bases, that GWB has done an inadequate job is automatically a "liberal", and therefore to be dismissed automatically. That's...ridiculous.
I'm an Independent and a moderate who wished strongly for GWB to do a fine job. Like it or not, most people aren't so wrapped up in partisan politics that they want the country to flounder just to make a political point. I agree, those who would--are either "side"--are contemptible.
I strongly disapprove of GWB's performance in office because 1. the country, and world, has suffered under his tenure and 2. he's repeatedly violated conservative principles. Yelling "Liberal conspriracy!" doesn't make his critics liberals, nor GWB an actual conservative. I have news for you. I recently attended a meeting of high-powered investment, lawyer, etc. types. They're rock-ribbed, longtime Republicans--and not a single one of them approved of the job GWB has done.. Not one. There was some pretty bitter joking about how they've never in their lives voted for a Democrat, and don't know if they could bring themselves to do it now, so they were considering just not voting at all. If you think they, or I, are happy about that state of affairs, you're dead wrong. But of course feel free to dismiss that as kneejerk liberal ranting.
I loathe what GWB and the neocons have done to the Republican party. They've made it an increasingly divisive force, ridden by the religious right and badly invasive into the private lives of citizens. That's a far cry from the Republican party of Reagan, Goldwater, etc. But go ahead and dismiss that too.

Veb

[The Flying Dutchman]

He claims that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East.

I hope you can deliver some proof of that, because at the moment I'm ready to call you one big fat liar. After all we are here to stamp out ignorance aren't we?

[SPOOFE]

George W. Bush: Politician.

Apparently, his detractors think he's the only Politician on Earth.

[Muad'Dib]

I am more pissed off over how politicized this whole board has become because of it. This is not as pleasent a place to be as it once was.

[Daisy Mae]

I hope you can deliver some proof of that, because at the moment I'm ready to call you one big fat liar. After all we are here to stamp out ignorance aren't we?

As much as I despise the WAY overused "fighting ignorance" line everyone loves to throw around, I'll respond.

Naturally this is debated but here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

[Muffin]

It is sad to see the demonization of the term "liberal" in the USA.

[Lissa]

I hope you can deliver some proof of that, because at the moment I'm ready to call you one big fat liar. After all we are here to stamp out ignorance aren't we?

I am not much of a supporter of Bush, but I was wondering if anyone has seen confirmation of this as well as the story that John Ashcroft anointed himself with cooking oil after he was appointed Attorney General.

[Aldebaran]

I'm frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at George Bush.

And as an Arab and living in the Middle East
I am sick of your GW Bush the Mass Murderer who invaded a sovereign nation where relativdes of a woman I loved as if she was my own mother still live, and daily lmust undergo and witness the criminal occupation of their nation at the order of this sick criminal murdering lying Bush.
I am sick of it that this criminal not only invaded that sovereign nation, murdered thousands of its citizens and is still murdering them, cause dtorture of citizens of that nation, including children (and not only in prisons, all the thousands on who where wounded, hence were torutured by the weapons used against thme, were hence tortured at his command).
I am sick of it to hear from my dear deceased beloved's relatives that there is no day, no minute, no second that they are not confronted with US soldiers who are in THEIR land at the command of the criminal Bush.
I am sick and tired of it to hear that they feel threatened and huminilated.
I am sick and tired of it tho hear the stories about the sick arrogance and sick rudiness of the US soldiers who are under the lead of the sick criminal Bush in their nation.
I am sick and tired of it that this criminal causes a wave of potential terrorist all over the region where I live. Where my family lives. Where my CHILDREN live.
I'm sick and tired of it that this criminal with his arrogance, an arrogance that can only be born in a sick criminal mind, destabilizes MY REGION OF THE WORLD from which he clearly thinks it is his playground.

I am sick and tired of people like you who DARE to find all of this absolutely normal.

IS THAT CLEAR YOU IRRESPONSIBLE STUPID COW WHO WANT TO THROW AWAY HER VOTE BECAUSE SHE HAS SUCH A GOOD FEELING BY DEFENDING A SICK CRIMINAL MURDERER AND CAN NOT WAIT TO TRY TO GIVE HIM 4 EXTRA YEARS DO GO ON KILLING PEOPLE IN OTHER NATIONS AND MESSING UP MY WORLD.

OR DO YOU NEED A DRAWING!

[Early Out]

...I was wondering if anyone has seen confirmation of ... the story that John Ashcroft anointed himself with cooking oil after he was appointed Attorney General.This has been reported in a number of places, including CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/01/22/son.html) and The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,661458,00.html).

[Early Out]

In fact, according to this source (http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/011101/gen_0111017691.shtml), Ashcroft himself described his anointment upon the commencement of each of his gubernatorial terms, as well as the day he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate.

Actually, upon re-reading, it appears that the "cooking oil" anointment refers to the day he became a Senator. It's not clear what happened when he became the AG, but one would have to assume that he stuck with his "anoint me with oil" routine.

[Early Out]

Another source (http://dispatches.phoblacht.net/archive/dispatch288.htm) states that when Ashcroft became AG, Justice Clarence Thomas was Zadok:

When Mr Ashcroft was in the Senate, the duty was performed by his father, a senior minister in a church specialising in speaking in tongues, the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. When he became attorney general, Clarence Thomas, a supreme court justice, did the honours.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Aldebaran, You are the biggest asshole to have ever posted to this board.

Daisy, sorry but third hand hearsay doesn't qualify as proof.

[Aldebaran]

grienspace, don't start crying next time the USA gets what we have to deal here with THANKS TO THE SICK CRIMINAL YOU ADORE.

[Daisy Mae]

Aldebaran, You are the biggest asshole to have ever posted to this board.

Daisy, sorry but third hand hearsay doesn't qualify as proof.

Naturally, with that statement I can assume that you're not a Christian because translation after translation is how we got THAT story.

I never said it was fact. I wasn't there and I'd wager that no one else on the board was there so I'm thinking that you're not going to get direct proof. Something tells me that if there was proof (better than a translation of the meeting's minutes like mentioned in the article by the Washington Post) that it wouldn't be good enough for you anyway.

[The Flying Dutchman]

grienspace, don't start crying next time the USA gets what we have to deal here with THANKS TO THE SICK CRIMINAL YOU ADORE.

Got news for you. As I've stated before, Bush lost my respect with his support of a constitutional amendment aimed to thwart the aspirations of a constituency under his leadership.

[Carbona Not Glue]

Aldebaran, You are the biggest asshole to have ever posted to this board.

Daisy, sorry but third hand hearsay doesn't qualify as proof.

No, you're an asshole because you can't see out of your blinded jingoistic worldview.

There are thousands of people needlessly suffering in the Middle East for no good reason, or at least no good TRUE reason. Had America gone over to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a danger to his own people, then that would be one thing, and I would applaud the US for it especially if they tried to keep senseless killing and torture to a minimum.

The problem is, they didn't and they haven't.

There are monsters of Saddam's ilk and worse who are wandering around the world unmolested because they happen to support American policy, or because they provide America with advantages. I see we're not bothering with a lot of the volatile African situations, or at least not on a scale that the Iraq War is on, because those poor Africans are so unfortunate not to have oil or anything else we want. So we leave it up to the French to clean up the messes that we (and to be honest, the French and Belgians also) made.

I have seen, in my lurking, Aldebaran get overly (and unjustly, I thought) hostile to Americans. However, he has also made some good points, which he is making now. He may not be in Iraq, but I'm not in Virginia. However, if D.C. was firebombed or smartbombed or whatever, I would get righteously indignant. You know why? My loved ones live there--and furthermore, I love America and I think it has many good things in it. Also, I do not like to see anyone--ANYONE--killed or tortured unjustly, be they American, Iraqi, or Martian. We Americans throw a fit when several thousand of our own are killed gruesomely on September 11, but we dismiss tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children and parents who are killed in this war as "collateral damage." Oops--sorry about that smart bomb, we thought we could actually guide it to where the bad guys are.

Americans are some of the best, smartest, funniest, and kindest people I've ever met--I should know, I am one. Furthermore, my SO would agree with me, and he's not one. But--the fervor with which people are damning innocent Iraqis sickens me. I know some soldiers will not kill unless they're given no other choice--but far too many of them kill at will, whenever it suits. And GWB is the same way--so they're just following their orders and his magnificient example.

I realize I talked a lot here, but this hit a nerve. My SO is part Arabic, and I have Arabic friends, so maybe that's part of it. But it also could be that I cannot stand to see anyone undeserving be hurt on the part of someone else's selfishness.

[fortytwo]

.................... This is not as pleasent a place to be as it once was.

Really? As pleasant as this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245065) for instance?


Quote:
You disgusting, sniveling little cowards. Yeah, capitulating to the monsters that just killed hundreds of your people is the right thing to do. You have played into their hands. You have acted just as they desired. Yes, the terrorists have won, because Spain lacks the fucking balls to stand up for itself.

You are a spineless excuse for human beings, and after an act like this you deserve nothing but the scorn and hatred of any future victims of terrorist slaughter.

*Spits in the face of all those who self-righteously claimed that they were "voting for peace"*

[Early Out]

Daisy, sorry but third hand hearsay doesn't qualify as proof.Other than the quote provided by Daisy, which has been reported in a number of places, of all political stripes, there is this passage from this source (http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/may/0507_bush_prayer.shtml):Gathering in the East Room of the White House, Bush asked Americans to use this day of prayer to remember those involved in the ongoing war on terrorism, including the American soldiers as well as the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

"We cannot be neutral in the face of injustice, or cruelty, or evil," Bush remarked. "God is not on the side of any nation, but He is on the side of justice. And it is the deepest strength of America that from the hour of our founding, we have chosen justice as our goal."

[snip]

With his comments being broadcast nationwide on religious television, Bush boldly proclaimed, "Our calling is to align our hearts and action with God's plan -- insofar as we can know it."Sure sounds to me like he thinks he's doing God's work.

[Brutus]

grienspace, don't start crying next time the USA gets what we have to deal here with THANKS TO THE SICK CRIMINAL YOU ADORE.

Nice. So GW will be the cause of the next terrorist attack by Islamists here in the US. But what caused 9/11? Did your folks just want to get a head-start on our Most Adored Sick Criminal? What caused the first WTC bombing? Did prescient wazirs order those attacks because someday we would elect our Most Adored Sick Criminal? How does the Most Adored Sick Criminal factor into the Achille Lauro or any of the attacks against us?

[Carbona Not Glue]

Nice. So GW will be the cause of the next terrorist attack by Islamists here in the US. But what caused 9/11? Did your folks just want to get a head-start on our Most Adored Sick Criminal? What caused the first WTC bombing? Did prescient wazirs order those attacks because someday we would elect our Most Adored Sick Criminal? How does the Most Adored Sick Criminal factor into the Achille Lauro or any of the attacks against us?

To be fair, Brutus, I don't think Aldebaran is talking about September 11--I think he's trying to say that the Iraq War can and probably will facilitate more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, which, obviously, has never been one of our prime supporters.

Some people are crazy...Hitler, Kim Jong-Il, Hussein, Bin Laden...just absolutely nuts. However, not everyone who endorsed Hilter was insane--just fed up. Similarly, those who subscribe to Bin Laden's worldview are not all insane monsters--some are just fed up. I think classifying all terrorists as inhuman does all of us a great disservice. They're human and they're pissed off about something: more than likely the foreign policy that this administration (and administrations previous--Democrat and Republican) has used.

Should we coddle terrorists? No! But I think we need to take a long hard look about how we're treating peoples worldwide, both our allies (the French and Germans, for example) and our enemies.

[Polycarp]

Clothahump, I would not call you an asshole for protesting blind, unreasoning hatred of George Bush -- I find it obnoxious myself.

People who object to the man for a variety of reasons, from the 2000 election to the War of Aggression on Iraq to the Federal Marriage Amendment, and state their arguments against him, strike me as having a fair amount of sanity behind why they dislike him. You are, of course, entitled to feel otherwise.

Now, to some coherent points:
1. Not all liberals have a blind, unreasoning hatred of Mr. Bush. Some don't hate him at all, they just feel that Mr. Kerry or Mr. Nader would make a better President. Some have grounds (see previous paragraph) for disliking him.
2. These days, not everyone who dislikes Mr. Bush is a liberal. Notice the polls lately?
3. Just for the record, nobody named "Algore" ran in the 2000 election, so far as I know, though there might have been a "Thomas Algore" on the ballot for the Daviess Co., Iowa, Board of Commissioners; I can't be certain of that. That little cutesy reduces you to the level of someone who refers to the President as "Shrub," in case you weren't aware.
4. People who object to electoral theft -- which is arguably what happened, and let's not spend 150 posts arguing about whether it actually did -- are not being "spoiled brats." Either that, or Messrs. Washington, Adams, Hancock, Jefferson, Madison, etc., were spoiled brats who didn't realize how good they had it under Lord North. Does the term "Watergate" ring a bell with you? Americans tend to believe that elections should be honest.
5. If you vote for Bush simply to protest liberals being outspoken, you deserve exactly what you get. And if Mr. Bush should win, I for one will cheerfully remind you of that every time you venture into a thread where political discussions are acceptable. It's not the stupidest reason for casting a vote that I've ever heard, but it ranks quite high on the list.
6. Mr. Bush is entitled to opinions that contradict mine, and he's not a liar for saying what he thinks. But if he knows one thing to be true and says something different for political reasons, you tell me what that makes him.
7. Having concluded this analysis, I find that my initial premise was faulty. Your basic statement appears to be that anyone who objects out loud to your political stance is dishing out bigotry and hatred. And that makes you an asshole.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Early Out , your cite does not support Tom's claim that Bush said "that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East".

[Early Out]

Early Out , your cite does not support Tom's claim that Bush said "that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East".Well, if you're waiting for Mr. Bush to come knock on your front door and say, "God has personally directed my actions regarding the Middle East," I guess it'll be a long wait. And it sounds as if you won't accept a quote from a meeting at which you weren't personally present. I certainly wouldn't accuse tomndebb of being "a big fat liar" based solely upon the lack of a verbatim, first-hand quote. The quotes provided certainly lend credence to the idea that Bush believes that God is on his side, and it would be consistent with what we know of the man and his adminstration.

[glee]

I'm frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at George Bush. There isn't a forum on the web these days that doesn't have at least one asswipe show up in it to spew venom.


I don't like Bush. Because:

- he ignored the UN and invaded Iraq on a false basis (the same criticism applies to Tony Blair, who, interestingly, heads a liberal, socialist party)

- he claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 (oh look, he lied!)

- he authorised the imprisonment and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay, refusing them access to legal advice and their families

This is not blind, unreasoning or bigoted.


I am going to wrap all of the people who do that up into one bag and call them liberals, because they are the vast majority of people doing it. The liberals have had their collective shorts in a wad ever since the 2000 elections (which, like it or not, Bush won - deal with it) and they have been getting more vicious and more bitter as time goes on.

The 2000 elections were certainly embarrassing for the US.
But it's stuff like the US actions in Iraqi jails that appalls me. Doesn't it bother you?


Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the libs will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.

My $0.02 worth....

Actually your post shows you have a blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of anyone who criticises Bush.
I suppose that would also make you an asshole.

[tomndebb]

According to Bob Woodward: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml) Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: “As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either. Spin it however you'd like, grienspace. Bush declined to seek advice from his father who had actually been president and presided over a war with Iraq and declined to seek advice from his own cabinet, declaring that he had appealed to God and saw himself as God's messenger.

[Guinastasia]

Here's another example of the OP's intellect (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5051429&postcount=29).

Hmmm...so apparently starting an unnecessary war based on deceit isn't nearly as bad as getting head.

Gotcha.

:rolleyes:

[The Flying Dutchman]

Tom you said you were opposed to Bush because," He claims that God has personally directed his actions regarding the Middle East."

The implication of that statement would suggest he is a megalomaniac with a direct line to the Almighty and believing that God is in charge of America through him.. In support of that view you present an account by Woodward, which I have no reason to doubt. But Bush's relationship with God in regard to his decision making as reported by Woodward would be what I would expect from any christian president. Nothing here to suggest that God personally directed Bush.

I'd suggest that it is you who is doing the spinning here.

By the way, Clinton told Dan Rather that he prays often to God as well.

[Brutus]

This flash blurb (http://jibjab.com/thisland.html) neatly summarizes the positions of both sides around here.

[monstro]

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm

The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

From http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp

[Frostillicus]

I am not much of a supporter of Bush, but I was wondering if anyone has seen confirmation of this as well as the story that John Ashcroft anointed himself with cooking oil after he was appointed Attorney General.

I heard it was Crisco. :confused:

[tomndebb]

But Bush's relationship with God in regard to his decision making as reported by Woodward would be what I would expect from any christian president. Nothing here to suggest that God personally directed Bush. I have no problem with GWB praying. On the other hand, even a person who prays will usually accept (or, better, seek) assistance from a person who has been in a similar situation--particularly when it was one's own father--and from the very people whom one has hired to provide that assistance.
"He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. . . . There's a higher Father that I appeal to." Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either. These are not the actions or words of a person who includes prayer to help him discern the best advice he has received; they seem to be the words of a man who thinks that prayer will hand him all the answers to the exclusion of other advice.

[Ale]

This flash blurb (http://jibjab.com/thisland.html) neatly summarizes the positions of both sides around here.

That´s hilarious, thanks for the link Brutus

[Guinastasia]

I heard it was Crisco. :confused:

Actually, Crisco makes cooking oil too, I believe.

:)

[Otto]

Algore You lose all credibility as a defender of righteousness when you use a slur coined by the radical right to decry the actions of "liberals."

[vanilla]

I knew he was a slippery character.

[TeaElle]

The problem, as I see it, is not the type of discourse that the OP is decrying, but the invective without support.

If you want to make a reasonable, rationale criticism, even if it's harsh, that's fine. Start a dialogue, make a statement that's more that just namecalling or insults on their face and engage those who wish to refute or discuss what you have to say. When your first comment is "Bush is a (fill in the blank with the pejorative of your choice)." you're only interested in hearing yourself talk (or seeing your words in print) and that gets awfully masturbatory and boring awfully quick.

Constructive criticism doesn't start with a pejorative label, it starts with reasoning.

On another note, why is it in any way important that John Ashcroft begins new endeavors by seeking out another Christian to anoint and pray for him?

[spectrum]

Aldebaran, You are the biggest asshole to have ever posted to this board.

So in other words, all the innocent Iraqi victims of Bush's pointless crusade deserved it for being Muslims. Or being brown. Or just being over there in the first place.

Alderbrand, don't hold your breath for a Bush supporter to acknowledge the mass casualties his evil war has wrought. They just don't care if people like you die. Because in their mind, you're all just one big group, and you all deserve what you get for 9/11. Stupid, but true.

[glee]

If you want to make a reasonable, rationale criticism, even if it's harsh, that's fine. Start a dialogue, make a statement that's more that just namecalling or insults on their face and engage those who wish to refute or discuss what you have to say.
...
Constructive criticism doesn't start with a pejorative label, it starts with reasoning.


Agreed.
Especially on the SDMB.
But the OP doesn't give a single example of what he objects to. :eek:
Instead he describes 'liberals':

- they have blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of Bush
- they are asswipes who spew venom
- they throw temper tantrums like a bunch of spoiled brats
- they puke out bigotry and hatred on a daily basis

Could we apply your calm post above to this?
Isn't the OP guilty of precisely what he claims liberals are guilty of? :smack:
Is he therefore a hypocrite?
What do you think of the OP?


On another note, why is it in any way important that John Ashcroft begins new endeavors by seeking out another Christian to anoint and pray for him?

Well I only know the rituals of the Congregationalist branch of the Church of England, which do not include anointing. Are you saying that it is commonplace for people to be anointed whenever they start a new endeavor? Which branch of the Church is this?

Anoint: The practice of anointing with perfumed oil was common among the Hebrews. (1.) The act of anointing was significant of consecration to a holy or sacred use; hence the anointing of the high priest (Ex. 29:29; Lev. 4:3) and of the sacred vessels (Ex. 30:26). The high priest and the king are thus called "the anointed" (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:20; Ps. 132:10). Anointing a king was equivalent to crowning him (1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 2:4, etc.). Prophets were also anointed (1 Kings 19:16; 1 Chr. 16:22; Ps. 105:15).

Does this make Ashcroft holy? Is he a High Priest, a King or a Prophet?

[Aldebaran]

Alderbrand, don't hold your breath for a Bush supporter to acknowledge the mass casualties his evil war has wrought.

It should be much more worrying for the other people in the US that these Bush supporters find it absolutely normal that their favorit criminal ordered the killing of thousands of people.

They just don't care if people like you die. Because in their mind, you're all just one big group, and you all deserve what you get for 9/11. Stupid, but true.

Of course true, as it is true that they truly believe that everyone who died in the 9/11 events was by definition US citizen and non-Muslim and of course non Middle -Eastern. Leaving out of course the fact that upto this day there is no solid proof whatsoever who was really involved in these attacks (there are still people running around these days who were among the claimed terrorists and who were at the time very surprized to hear themselves to be one. A dead on on top of it).
Well, one of my best friends died in the WTC. He was never found back. He was not a US citizen.
If there would not be restrictions, both by private and outside reasons, I could start to write pages about what I did the month after that date and some eyes would fall open and not only because of what it says about what is behind the raging Bush rethoric " War On Terror". In fact I have written pages about it because that was part of the job I voluntarely took up, at my own expense and sacrifying my own time effort and knowledge while spending more hours in a plane then on the ground.
But people who are the first to scream "9/11 Filthy Arabs" are most often also the last to be able to write one single letter about what they have done to resolve no matter what afterwards.
It is really pathetic to witness all that empty flag waving and US = Number 1 And We Beat The Crap Out Of Those Filthy Muslims on boards like this. As if blindfolded patriotistic flag waving excuses the thousands of people who died thanks to the arrogant blind lunatic power hunger of GW Bush and his Maffia.

Salaam. A

[Apos]

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.

Heck, there was no cause to. If you read the rest of Woodward's book, it seems like Cheney actually made the decision for him.

[TeaElle]

Agreed.
Especially on the SDMB.
But the OP doesn't give a single example of what he objects to.
Right, which is why I noted that my objections were in place of the OP's blanket condemnation of anyone who disagrees with him (and is therefore liberal).

Could we apply your calm post above to this?
Isn't the OP guilty of precisely what he claims liberals are guilty of? :smack:
Is he therefore a hypocrite?
What do you think of the OP?
I think I just said. Yes, he's a hypocrite. I've disregarded the OP. His definitions are so vague as to be void and meaningless on their face. Piffle on the OP.

Well I only know the rituals of the Congregationalist branch of the Church of England, which do not include anointing. Are you saying that it is commonplace for people to be anointed whenever they start a new endeavor? Which branch of the Church is this?
The Assemblies of God takes a broad view of anointing someone with oil when they are prayed for under unique circumstances. One is when a new baby is dedicated -- we do not christen or baptize children -- another is when someone is sick. The last is whenever someone requests special prayer because they are entering into a time when they will be specially challenged, when they may be in danger or when the circumstances of their lives are changing in a very significant way, such as marriage or after the death of a spouse or the undertaking of a new job.

When I was promoted to a vice presidency in my old job, I asked for prayer and my pastor called me up and anointed me and the congregation prayed together. We have five church members whose military units were called up to active duty, and we anointed and prayed for each of them before they left to go and serve. The members of our church who were elected to their city councils (2) and school boards (3) were anointed and prayed for before beginning their terms of office.

It's not about being consecrated into a role of power, it's simply a form of blessing. (Note that having one's head anointed with oil is listed amongst the good done to the psalmist in Psalm 23.) And for the record, the oil isn't Crisco. I'm not sure precisely what it is, but all of the anointing oil I've ever seen has been very light, lighter than baby oil, and richly fragrant, usually like cloves or nutmeg or another heady, earthy spice of that nature. I'm pretty sure that they sell this stuff in church supply centers.

On an entirely other note...

I don't know why I bother, because in more than a half dozen threads, Aldebaran has pointedly ignored questions directed to him such as this but...

It is really pathetic to witness all that empty flag waving and US = Number 1 And We Beat The Crap Out Of Those Filthy Muslims on boards like this.
Aldebaran, produce one quote from any regular poster on this board (not some Stormfront iidiot who stopped by to troll) who has said anything about all Muslims being our enemy or about us beating "filthy Muslims."

[Knorf]

I'm frankly sick of the blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred directed at George Bush.
You misspelled "astute," "informed," "rational," and "opposition."
:D :p

Oh, but you do love your strawmen, don't you?
:wally

[Bryan Ekers]

Much as I don't care about Bush, the thread was entertaining just to see Aldeberan go postal, as I'm sure he's been jumping to do for quite some time. His condescension schtick was getting tiresome.

Peace.

[MEBuckner]

Leaving out of course the fact that upto this day there is no solid proof whatsoever who was really involved in these attacks (there are still people running around these days who were among the claimed terrorists and who were at the time very surprized to hear themselves to be one. A dead on on top of it).
Why, whatever are you talking about? It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the September 11 attacks were the work of a Jewish-CIA-Illuminatist-Bolshevik-White Supremacist conspiracy, personally directed by the revivified Zombie-Cyborg of Lyndon Baines Johnson, with Lee Harvey Oswald flying all the planes by remote control.

Osama bin Laden is just a simple, pious Muslim who has dedicated his life to building wells and providing free healthcare to the people of Afghanistan. Those videotapes where he appears to gloat over having masterminded the September 11 attacks were just misinterpreted by people who don't understand all of the nuances of Middle Eastern culture.



:smack: Og spare me from the people who are more-or-less arguing on my side in any given thread.

[Aldebaran]

MEBuckner

I do hope - for you - that you are joking?

Do you know any historian who has published an in depth study about these events? I don't because there are none, for the simple reason that you can not study an event without having sources.
Maybe in a few decades there shall be some more or less reliable material available to actually start an in depht study on this event. Or maybe not. There are many things that are still very unclear although they happened hundreds of years ago and are documented by a variety of sources and witnesses reporting on it from all sides and all interests possible.

Do you have something against me being a historian and hence not willing to believe anything that I did not research in depth myself and that is not/can not be researched by people I can trust because they are historians themselves with a decent reputation?


Salaam. A

[MEBuckner]

Oh, knock it off. "Historians" aren't the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth.

How do you know that the U.S. has killed any civilians in Iraq? Have any historians produced lengthy, peer-reviewed, footnoted tomes proving that allegation?

[Aldebaran]

Oh, knock it off. "Historians" aren't the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth.

How do you know that the U.S. has killed any civilians in Iraq? Have any historians produced lengthy, peer-reviewed, footnoted tomes proving that allegation?

Historians who respect themselves never claim to write The Truth about anything they write. They come to conclusions about the issues they study on and underscore their studies and writings with references to the sources they used in their research.

And as for the civilians killed in Iraq: I think you just made an allusion that every single news report coming out of their, including filmed material is just madeup by the anti war and probably in your idea exclusively by the anti US crowd?
You are absolutely entitled to clamp on to such a belief.
I am absolutely sure there are civilians murdered by your dear criminal president because
I happen to know at least one child that was not yet seven years old and that is now really completely DEAD. I know that because her relatives told it. I know it because she happens to be burried.
You can of course hold on to your belief that everything an Iraqy sais about what happens to Iraqi family member, friends, neighbours is a lie because you are US citizen and in your brain that means that You Are God.
You can also think that Iraqis are beast who bury their children alive.
I do not think so, but I do hope you are happy with whatever you like to think and believe.

Salaam. A

[Lute Skywatcher]

I don't know why I bother, because in more than a half dozen threads, Aldebaran has pointedly ignored questions directed to him such as this but...It is really pathetic to witness all that empty flag waving and US = Number 1 And We Beat The Crap Out Of Those Filthy Muslims on boards like this.Aldebaran, produce one quote from any regular poster on this board (not some Stormfront iidiot who stopped by to troll) who has said anything about all Muslims being our enemy or about us beating "filthy Muslims."Glad to see I'm not the only one who has a problem with Aldebaran's rhetoric.Leaving out of course the fact that upto this day there is no solid proof whatsoever who was really involved in these attacksNot for everyone, no. This is partially because of our government is inept when it comes to sharing information with itself. Case in point: when the Governor of Kentucky was flying in for Reagan's funeral, his plane nearly got shot down because the FAA did not notify the military that the plane had a broken transponder.

That said, I'm not sure what to think about the hijackers and their [i]possible borrowing identities of others. On the one hand, I can understand wanting to keep their identities secret but on the other, wouldn't they want the world to know who they were?

:on preview: You can of course hold on to your belief that everything an Iraqy sais about what happens to Iraqi family member, friends, neighbours is a lie because you are US citizen and in your brain that means that You Are God.:rolleyes:

[El_Kabong]

It is really pathetic to witness all that empty flag waving and US = Number 1 And We Beat The Crap Out Of Those Filthy Muslims on boards like this.

Link?

[glee]

The Assemblies of God takes a broad view of anointing someone with oil when they are prayed for under unique circumstances. One is when a new baby is dedicated -- we do not christen or baptize children -- another is when someone is sick. The last is whenever someone requests special prayer because they are entering into a time when they will be specially challenged, when they may be in danger or when the circumstances of their lives are changing in a very significant way, such as marriage or after the death of a spouse or the undertaking of a new job.


So is John Ashcroft a member of the Assemblies of God?

I found this website - is it the correct one?

http://www.ag.org/top/

If so, I have some questions (using information at the site)

http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Healings.cfm

"I was healed by the power of God of a brain tumor — more than 30 years ago. As a pastor, when a neighbor’s eye had been pierced by a scissor point, I prayed for her over the phone and she was instantly healed.
…
Encourage those who need a miracle to call out to the Lord first — before consulting a physician."

So this church believes in miracles and also recommends faith healing before medical care?

http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/second_coming.cfm

"As God’s children, our earthly lives will end in one of two ways: by death or via the Rapture..."

And believes in the Rapture?

http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Religions.cfm

"The real question is: On what basis can we claim that Christianity alone brings people into right relationship with God? The answer is simple: Only the gospel provides a true antidote to the problem of sin."

But the Rapture will only save Christians from Hell?

http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/pentecostal-evangel/Life_QA/Hell.cfm

"If God is love, how can people go to hell who have never heard about Christ?
...
Hell was created for the devil and his angels. (See Matthew 25:41.) The whole process of redemption effected on the cross shows that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (See 2 Peter 3:9.) God is also holy and cannot tolerate sin. We condemn ourselves by willfully sinning. By sending His Son to offer up His life, God has provided a way of escape from the just consequences of our sins and has called us to let people know about Jesus Christ and His atoning blood that brings reconciliation between God and man.
If the message of salvation is not communicated to a lost world, it will not be God’s fault, but ours who are charged by Him to relay the message."

And the only way to be saved from Hell is for Christians to tell you about the danger and convert you to their Christianity?

Does all this mean that John Ashcroft believes that all Muslims, Jews etc will go to Hell unless they are converted to Christianity?
And that it is his sacred duty to bring salvation to the World, including the Middle East?

[Clothahump]

Well, I deal with it in the sense that I am critical of why he was given the election. I don't understand those who say "it's the way it is, deal with it". Why should we just accept it because it has happened?

It does concern me that a) he did lose the popular election and b) I understand that some analysts are claiming that he should not have won Florida. The right to vote and have proper elections is incredibly important to America.

Because he wasn't "given" the election. He won it. Every recount showed him winning, and the numbers kept getting bigger. The so-called experts are wrong.


Ah, yes... I recall those high days of the Clinton presidency, where conservatives around the country held hands and said "By hook or by crook, Clinton is out president and God Bless America!" What unity, what glory...

...what bullshit. No offense to reasonable conservatives, but at the very least we're criticizing Bush on the basis of his presidency, rather than his personal life.

Except that Clinton committed a felony while in office, and that is why he was impeached. Everyone seems to overlook that one small detail.

Perhaps we are not saying that we disagree with him -- perhaps we mean what we say and call him a liar.

Saying that there was definitive proof of an imminent threat on the US by Iraq via WMDs was, well, a lie. It may not have been Bush's lie -- Bush may not have known, though I suspect he was not sure of its whole truth -- but it is a lie. This is important. We went to war on the basis of a lie.

Ah, Grasshopper - there we come to a fine point of distinction, and the basis of my post. If someone that you trust tells you something and you tell it to others and act on the basis of what you were told, and then later it is found out that what you were told was incorrect, did you lie when you told others? The answer is NO. You acted in good faith; you did not lie. Same with Bush. He acted in good faith on intelligence that said WMDs. Hell, the entire free world operated on the same intelligence for the ten years following Gulf War 1.

And there it is - he did not lie. At least, as far as I know today, and I have seen absolutely no proof that Bush knew the intel was wrong and acted on it anyway. And was it a matter of the intel being wrong or the intel being deliberately distorted for some reason? That, we don't know. Only time will tell. It looks like we may have done the right thing for the wrong reason, and again - only time will tell.


I am sure that you can see how odd I feel it is do label us with such a broad brush and accuse us of bigotry and hatred -- look at the vitriole in your own post. Let's get over the childish name calling and move toward a position where we can criticize and watch the government without being maligned and where both parties can express ideas rather than soundbytes. I'm all for that.

I made the point that I lumped the entire group I was pitting under the label of liberals because the vast majority of the people doing it are liberals. I'll retract that label - my error. Let's bag them all as spoiled brats and let it go at that.

[glee]

I made the point that I lumped the entire group I was pitting under the label of liberals because the vast majority of the people doing it are liberals. I'll retract that label - my error. Let's bag them all as spoiled brats and let it go at that.

Actually you said about liberals:

- they have blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of Bush
- they are asswipes who spew venom
- they throw temper tantrums like a bunch of spoiled brats
- they puke out bigotry and hatred on a daily basis

You didn't give a single example to back any of this up.

Aren't you therefore guilty of precisely what you 'claimed' liberals are guilty of?
Aren't you therefore a hypocrite?

P.S. Your apology sucks. You're still an asshole.

[Bryan Ekers]

Link?

Aldeberan don't need no stinkin' links.

His post is his cite.

[tomndebb]

He won it. Every recount showed him winning, and the numbers kept getting bigger. The so-called experts are wrong. Y'know, if you continue to submit falsehoods in every post, we are going to get to the point where we don't believe anything you post.

There were several ways in which recounts might have been undertaken in Florida (varying the way that votes were tabulated and recounting or declining to recount various districts) and several of them would have given the Florida vote to Gore. In the interests of avoiding the sort of street riots that plague many other countries when they have elections, I would say that we went through the appropriate channels and, fair or not, we should accept the election results. It is certainly true that the election as it was counted gave Florida to Bush.

The claim that every recount showed Bush winning with successively higher numbers, however, is simply a lie. Among the two or three potential recounts available to Florida, the one that the Republicans prefer to look at (for which I do not blame them) showed Bush increasing his lead over Gore, but that is not "every" recount and at least two possible recounts showed Gore decisively beating Bush. Arguments about which recounts should have been used dominated this Forum along with GD and IMHO for weeks, and it is unlikely that anyone will now change their opinions by rehashing those ancient threads. Boldly declaring a falsehood, however, does not turn it into a truth.

[spectrum]

Thanks, Tom. That's exactly what I was going to say. Except to add that the type of recount that the Bush campaign would have considered "acceptable" (mainly because it was unfeasible in the amount of time available) was a hand-recount of the entire state. That is one of the types of recounts that would have resulted in a narrow Gore victory.

On the other hand, Gore's overly slick and disreputable "just count the counties that voted for me most" tactic would have backfired, and resulted in a larger Bush margin.

Irony, indeed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

IIRC, though, Gore initially asked for a state wide recount and was rebuffed by the Bush side. After that, Gore asked for a count in the disputed counties and was accused of cherry picking.

Bush is the one who balked at a statewide recount, not Gore.

[Clothahump]

Actually you said about liberals:

- they have blind, unreasoning, bigoted hatred of Bush
- they are asswipes who spew venom
- they throw temper tantrums like a bunch of spoiled brats
- they puke out bigotry and hatred on a daily basis

You didn't give a single example to back any of this up.

Aren't you therefore guilty of precisely what you 'claimed' liberals are guilty of?
Aren't you therefore a hypocrite?

P.S. Your apology sucks. You're still an asshole.

Well, first off, I didn't apologize. I just changed the label.

I also said:
Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the libs will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.

Thanks for providing the confirmation.

[ZebraShaSha]

The only thing I would like to add to tonights festivities is that Muad'Dib has made the only point that appeals to me so far.

[MEBuckner]

And as for the civilians killed in Iraq: I think you just made an allusion that every single news report coming out of their, including filmed material is just madeup by the anti war and probably in your idea exclusively by the anti US crowd?
No (with some reservations) I tend to believe what I see and read in the news, at least unless I have some reason to believe otherwise. So, I believe that there were videotapes showing Osama bin Laden gloating over and claiming "credit" for the September 11 attacks; and I also believe that civilians--including children--have been killed and maimed in the American invasion of Iraq and the resulting war against the Iraqi insurgents (or the war against the foreign terrorists in Iraq, or the war against the foreign terrorists in Iraq and Iraqi insurgents, as the case may be).
You can of course hold on to your belief that everything an Iraqy sais about what happens to Iraqi family member, friends, neighbours is a lie because you are US citizen and in your brain that means that You Are God.
You can also think that Iraqis are beast who bury their children alive.
I do not think so, but I do hope you are happy with whatever you like to think and believe.

Salaam. A
You can of course hold on to your belief that everything an American says about the deaths of several thousands of people on September 11, 2001--Americans and also our guests from around the world--is a lie because you are an Arab and a Muslim and in your brain that means we are the Great Satan.

You can also think that Americans are beasts who murder our own countrymen in order to blame it on foreigners, invade their countries, and steal their oil. (Or is it the Israelis who are the monsters and attack their own best allies and murder thousands of innocent people, and we Americans are merely dupes of the cunning Zionist plotters?)

I do not think so, but I don't suppose that will sway your opinions any.

[Liberal]

Oh, knock it off. "Historians" aren't the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth.I agree with you. But haven't you appealed to historians before to help validate your points? For example: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2173165&postcount=14) "Another interesting point about fascist economics: Most historians agree that Nazi Germany actually did a worse job of mobilizing and coordinating its economy for total war than did the Western Allies (notably the USA under Franklin Roosevelt)."

[MEBuckner]

Oddly enough, there is a middle ground between "Historians are the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth" and "Everything historians say is a lie".

Note that I'm not saying in this thread that I reject some viewpoint because it's espoused by historians; I just refuse to reject a claim because historians haven't yet pronounced judgement on it.

When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, he claimed that Poland had actually attacked Germany. Should everyone have waited a few decades to let the professional historians pass judgement on this claim before they acted?

[glee]

Well, first off, I didn't apologize. I just changed the label.


Ah yes, from one unsupported insult to another. I apologise for thinking you had some decency.


I also said:

"Now, I'm quite sure a bunch of the libs will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourselves out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said."

Thanks for providing the confirmation.


The proof you are a hypocrite and an asshole is your first post in this thread, in which you claim a bunch of people have made appalling accusations without any proof.
Your very post villifies these people without any proof.
Can you see the logic yet?

If you need more, here we go:

Clothahump is a vicious lying insulting paedophile hypocrite who was responsible for 9/11.
Now, I'm quite sure he will now jump on board and post about what an asshole I am and stuff like that. Knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that every post like that confirms the accuracy of what I have said.

[Liberal]

Oddly enough, there is a middle ground between "Historians are the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth" and "Everything historians say is a lie".Oh, sure, no one would disagree. But was Aldebaran claiming that "Historians are the Grand Exalted High Priests of the Revealed Truth"? Wasn't your remark really just a red herring? I'm not knocking you for a logical fallacy or anything. I mean, this is the Pit and all, not Great Debates. I'm willing to give you that it was merely a rhetorical vice. But as such, was your response to him really any more compelling than "You have poopie on your head."

[MEBuckner]

What Aldebaran said was that "there is no solid proof whatsoever who was really involved in these attacks"--apparently because no historian has published an "in depth study about these events"; but perhaps in a "few decades" we'll know something about this event--"or maybe not".

I'm not quite sure what we're all supposed to do in the meantime. I guess at this rate we should all be about ready to give those Germans a good talking to about staging the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.