[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
Can I humbly suggest that the buzzword “theocracy” be retired? “We are living in a theocracy,” “Bush is trying to create a theocracy,” etc. is my clue that ridiculous hyperbole lies ahead, and I should probably stop reading. I think I can judge for myself whether the American government constitutes a theocracy, thank you.
Also, the various jokes comparing Bush to a monkey are extremely unbecoming, and a dead giveaway that a poster is interested in bullying, not conversing.
[/QUOTE]
I think the Liberal left is going to be extremely disappointed after Bush leaves office and they realize that the only reason so many people were agreeing with them at all was because they all hated Bush and anything he stood for. As soon as Bush (and the iraq problem) disappears a lot of people are going to go back to not caring what happens in government and politics.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Let’s see if I can paraphrase your position.
When confronting fence-sitters:
DO: Make reasoned and convincing arguments.
DON’T: Babble incoherently and throw cats.
That about right?
Why is this a debate at all?
[/QUOTE]
It appears to be a debate at all because some people behave as though they believe that fence sitters don’t exist.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Exactly how many fence-sitters are still out there? People may be sitting on the fence about some of the subissues (like a timetable for pulling out or if we should stay there until we are so sick of it that we just can’t stand it anymore; whether this administration was lying or if it was just tragically wrong about almost everything it said about Iraq) but there are very few people are still on the fence about whether going into Iraq was a good idea (neocons will always say it was a good and necessary thing to go into Iraq because they believe in some theory that is just slightly north of believing in the Easter Bunny) or whether we are handling things in Iraq competantly (everyone making money in the reconstruction thinks its been handled great).
I don’t think it is necessary to convince people that Bush lied (it is enough that he was just tragically wrong about everything). What exactly are we trying to convince the fence-sitters of?
[/QUOTE]
I may not understand what you mean by fence sitters, but look at what the lates polls say about support for the Iraq war. It’s now 50/50 again (or 49/49 to be exact). If I understand you correctly and you’re saying you think there is near universal agreement that the Iraq war was a mistake, you need to get out more. And surely “neocons” don’t represent half the country… do they?
[QUOTE=col_10022]
I don’t think it is necessary to convince people that Bush lied (it is enough that he was just tragically wrong about everything). What exactly are we trying to convince the fence-sitters of?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, let’s see…
Oppose re-defining terms of the Geneva Convention
Curtail government surveillance of its own citizenry
Come up with a different plan than “stay the course”
Do I need to go on? These “sub-issues” you so readily dismiss are where actions that influence the future of our nation are being taken. If all you’re interested in is harping about what a big meaniehead Bush is, then you’re worse than useless.
And before you go disparaging “fence-sitters”, what I’m really talking about are centrists (like myself) who are not traditional liberals but who can be persuaded to oppose the specific actions of this administration.
Good question. Maybe mrklutz is a DNC plant trying to work the kinks out of his party’s message.
To Merijeek: Separately but on a similar subject why’d you go off on Mace like that? He’s anything but partisan.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
… support for the Iraq war. It’s now 50/50 again (or 49/49 to be exact).
[/QUOTE]
You still laying odds on “boots on the ground” in Iran?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
…It’s now 50/50 again (or 49/49 to be exact). …
[/QUOTE]
A mite thin, cite wise, John. Further down…
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
Approve 41 Disapprove 57
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
Not 56 Was 42
Gotta watch that stuff, could give folks the wrong impression about your relentless even-handedness.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Which rational positions would you like to engage? What reasonable debate is being offered? After three years of death and carnage brought forward under false premises, precisely what “rational discourse” would you like to engage in?
If I am dismissed as a crank by someone who takes the trouble to investigate the facts, I am entirely content. If dismissed by someone who won’t take that trouble, what is lost? True enough, anger is seldom sanctified by truth.
But it happens, and this is just such an occassion.
[/QUOTE]
Hear hear! The Man From Nipples has done it again.
Well said, sir. It is from people such as yourself that I draw the strenght to keep my faith in your once proud nation.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
It is from people such as yourself that I draw the strenght to keep my faith in your once proud nation.
[/QUOTE]
This is the thing I’ve been trying to get across to you all this time: we don’t need your faith. We need action. We need pressure. Now.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
You still laying odds on “boots on the ground” in Iran?
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Are you game?
No, I don’t. The point being brought by that poster was support for invading in the first place, which is what I addressed:
So that is what I addressed. The poster was implying that everyone had pretty much made up his mide that it was a bad idea except the neocons. If you want to claim that 50% of the US electorate are “neocons”, we can have that debate.
I’ve been painting all day and maybe the fumes have gotten to me but I don’t understand what the OP is pitting.
There might be a few posts like that but on the whole, I don’t find that to be true.
In several active pit threads and in GD there are well thought out arguments with cites. I have seen very few posts that just state they flat out hate Bush and don’t give a reason why. The same appears to be true with the pro-Bush crowd.
Sorry, on the whole, I don’t think that’s true about the vast majority of posters.
I’m not speaking about either of the individuals you named, but there are people that voted against Bush because of the war but on the whole seem to agree with most of the rest of the administrations policies. Most of the democrats I know didn’t vote for Bush for a lot of reasons, not just the war. So it’s possible to disagree about a host of other issues.
I just don’t see the flinging as particularly one sided.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I may not understand what you mean by fence sitters, but look at what the lates polls say about support for the Iraq war. It’s now 50/50 again (or 49/49 to be exact). If I understand you correctly and you’re saying you think there is near universal agreement that the Iraq war was a mistake, you need to get out more. And surely “neocons” don’t represent half the country… do they?
[/QUOTE]
WTF, John? I believe I’ve told on many an occassion that you’re one of the few – if not the only one – conservatives that I respect on this board. Clearly that need not amount to a hill of beans to you, but when you pull shit like the above post, I have to wonder if that respect is really earned.
IOW, why post a blatant lie that supports the man you don’t? I mean, you do know that most of us can read, right?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
It has been my experience that even if you are screaming truth, you lose not only the liars but also all those who doing listen to screaming.
[/QUOTE]
In support I refer to the reader the charming riposte offered at the General Assembly by our friend Hugo Chávez: “In this very spot it smells like sulfur still.”
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
This is the thing I’ve been trying to get across to you all this time: we don’t need your faith. We need action. We need pressure. Now.
[/QUOTE]
Og on a stick! I’m likely one of the most reviled international anti-Bush posters on board – not sure what else I can do. I mean, I still speak to my ex in order to get her to vote Dem, and have as much as ordered my nephew, who just started college and has an American passport to do as much.
My son’s sixteen and although not yet allowed to vote, he’ll be there in two years…with bells on!
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
I’ve been called a traitor, both on and offline, by the lying warmongers who are destroying our country. The time for moderation of rhetoric is long over. Those who defend this administration have the blood of tens of thousands on their hands. And if the push towards war with Iran isn’t stopped, that number could go much, much higher, and the consequences defy the imagination.
And I’m supposed to refrain from calling them names, because that would be bad.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you keep the name calling directed at those particular people who called you those names, fine. I don’t think the OP is asking you not to call Karl Rove a Bush apologist. And there are a handful of posters on this board who fit the bill, too. Just make sure that if you call someone a Bush apologist, **they actually are one. ** M’kay? And saying that in GD is nothing more than an ad hominen, even if you’re talking about Karl Rove.
Someone earlier said that he/she has a problem believing anything the Bush administration says about anything. I suspect a lot of people feel that way, and I can understand that. But can you see that some people might not be quite there? And can you see that your position, while perfectly understandable, isn’t much of a position to take in a GD style debate? It adds nothing to the exchange of ideas to say that if Bush says “x” is true, then “x” must be false. Let’s look at what other evidence there is to determine if “x” is true or false.
While I agree that we (meaning Bush haters) need to keep from being confrontational with Bush apologists… what do we do instead?
Reasoned discourse doesn’t work. Impassioned pleas don’t work. Republicans paint everyone who disagrees with them as “soft on crime/terror/drugs”… and, unfortunately, it works on the average voter. The average American apparently doesn’'t respond to logical arguments- he votes out of fear.
By the way, I’ve always claimed that I don’t “hate” Bush, but rather that I fear him. Maybe I vote out of fear, as well.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
I’ve been painting all day and maybe the fumes have gotten to me but I don’t understand what the OP is pitting…
I just don’t see the flinging as particularly one sided.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, sorry. I should clarify. I don’t see the flinging as particularly one-sided either. I just don’t care if people speaking out in support of Bush make jackasses of themselves and alienate people. I said early in the thread that I don’t see non-Bush haters doing it, but really after further reflection, I see it but I just don’t care. I do care if Bush critics do the same, though.
Maybe you’re right and most folks do discuss it rationally. I haven’t stopped to count posts. I just know that the seething irrationality of some of the Bush-bashers has gotten to a level where it really annoys me. I finally decided it was time to say “stop arguing for my side – you’re hurting the argument.” Or at least, argue better.