Cindy Sheehan has lost her ever-loving mind

The BBQ Pit
101

By the way Starving, Bush apologists aren’t (currently) annoying me. It’s just that we live in two different realities. In mine, when someone says “We’re going to distort and invent facts in order to trick people into believing our fiction.” That’s an admission of lying.

In an apologist world, I honestly don’t know what it’d mean, but I do suspect that nothing Bush could do, or say, would register as a blip on the radar of the Faithful.

But ultimately you’re right. Many people in the world will see a clearly stated plan to deceive as a plan to deceive, others will see it as circumstantial evidence, the Librul Meeeedea [sup]tm[/sup], a ploy by Michael Moore, whatever. In a postmodern world where epistemology and ontology seem to shift and slither, I guess it’s no great surprise that others seem obstinantly resistant to conclusions that leap out at me.

It was said once that if there was a commercial interest, the law of gravity would be challenged. Perhaps it should also be said that if there is a political interest, anything can be challenged.

I’m also reminded of a story Gurdjieff wrote about.

A man was traveling through the world with money in his pockets and a desire to drink life deeply. In a small village, he came across a man seeling what looked to be the sweetest red fruits he’d ever seen. Immediately he asked the price, and although it was more than half of the coins he carried in his pocket, he agreed without hesitation.
As he walked, however, he started to nibble on one of the red “fruits”. His eyes watered, his face turned bright red, and his throat threatened to close up. Undaunted, he took a large bite out of the “sweet fruit” and was nearly unable to breathe for a full three minutes.
At just this point a friend of the man’s came walking by, and shouted with concern “My friend! Those are not any type of fruit, for you are trying to eat Fire Peppers! Please my friend, stop eating them before they kill you!”
But the man would not stop and told his friend “I cannot believe these are not sweet fruits, I have paid so much for them! And I will continue to eat them.”

102

Come now, let’s not play games. This is proof, as hard as proof can be without Bush standing up and saying the words himself. Do you dispute the record? Do you claim it is false, doctored, wrong? If not, how on earth do you avoid the conclusion staring you in the face?

Bah. Do you really need me to dig up the history of the ‘yellow cake’ affair? That even after Bush was told it was bullshit, he went and repeated it anyways? There’s another rock solid piece of proof there, but even if we ignore it… the dichotomy you’re setting up is either a man who’s criminal and treasonous in his lies, or so incompetent that he started an entire war when he should’ve known better. It always amazes me when Bush apologists pull out the “Bumbling Moron” card as if that’s a good thing…

103

Apart from the fact that I’ve never been at a denialist, I couldn’t care less about your assessment of me, intellectual or otherwise. I haven’t ever since the time you went scurrying into other threads whining that I was being mean to you. What a wuss!

Do you remember gobear’s post in which he said that Republicans are dicks and Democrats are pussies? His observation was that the dicks need the pussies to keep them in line, and the pussies need the dicks to protect them from the assholes. Well, that’s what we’re doing. (He left out the part about the pussies always complaining about how we protect them. But I guess that’s to be expected, pussies wouldn’t be pussies if they knew how to be protect themselves.)

I already am, pal…I already am.

104

Sorry, Finn, I gotta go now. As one of the other side that I do respect, I apologize for not answering your post, but I suspect that you can envision it anyway.

Regards.

105

It would to me. If you think about it, it would to most people too. Or it should.

Generally, as a veteran of these type of discussions I’ve come to the conclusion that the less hyperbolic and frothful rhetoric I read in a post; the more carefully worded cautious conclusions, the fewer generalizations it contains… then the more worthy it is of careful consideration and thoughtful reply. I find such indicative of the quality of the arguments made.

106

I have no idea what you are talking about, since I don’t think I would ever scurry from a lightweight such as yourself. I do believe I recall you being teary-eyed on occasion, but if you can refresh my memory as to any issue you feel I ever left unresolved, I’ll be happy to resolve it.

You are really just a dim bulb, and have proven repeatedly to be impervious to facts and logic. Even here in this thread, you make an assertion about Bush’s competence, and are provided with his vita, to which you can only meekly give a Bush apology to the effect of (and I am not quoting you directly here) “Well, that sounds kinda bad, but I can’t acknowledge it, and really, I’m sure someone smarter than myself could spin it back in Bush’s favor.”

As to metaphors of being a dick or a pussy, I don’t know. At least I know I’m not letting someone assrape me.

107

What exactly is a Bush apologist?

I mean if somebody says “Bush gives blowjobs to Rhinos?” and I question the veracity of the statement and dismiss and ridicule it in an absence of evidence, then am I an apologist?

I get called an apologist on this board for taking issue with or disputing the accuracy of statements concerning Bush.

If I say “yeah, but Bush only did that to the Rhino to calm it down because it was enraged and about to attack a bunch of schoolchildren,” than I’d be an apologist.

108

Um, would you maybe stop that whole ‘keeping us safe’ thing? See, it’s like I’m trapped in a burning house and some drunken macho ‘hero’ comes and decides that he’s gonna save me, by flooding my home with gasoline. Thanks… but I’ll take my chances.

109

Actually, Buddy, that’s not a bad argument. In fact, I think that’s an argument worthy of respect.

There’s lots of people that argue things they don’t know about. Admitting that you don’t know is a point in your favor in my book. In the face of ignorance on a given subject one should not merely accept one side of the argument. Since those “facts” were obviously garnered and presented to be maximally derogatory to Bush, he would be foolish to accept such as evidence.

He may not know what is wrong with the issues specifically, but he does know that they come from a partisan source prejudiced on the subject. Reasonably he should be loathe to accept them at face value.

110

Oh how I wish I could believe that. I feel like on the occasions I have tried here, it really hasn’t worked. I know that real change will occur for people when they are away from the computer, living their life, and something will connect with something else. For many people, that seems like it was Hurricane Katrina, and that is such an awful price to pay. Somehow, though, mismanagement of the budget and the economy, of the military, of the environment, of the social net, none of these things made a meaningful change.

I know that I look at groups like those that have been running the Democratic Party, like the Democratic Leadership Council, for the past decade, who do try to meet halfway, not rock the boat, agree and say nice things about the Republicans, and all that really happens, as you well know, is that they get fucking lambasted by a rash of bullshit about whether they are a congenital liar or are a war criminal or an incompetent boob who blew himself up with a grenade while going to get a beer (or, in some cases, are a half-crazy former POW misceginator of the races).

I’ve just had enough evidence that people see the Democrats as pussies, see the Democrats respond by turning the other cheek, and as a result, see us as weak. You can offer evidence and logic and gentle answers all you like, but it really can’t change that current perception.

If I believed for a moment it would make a difference, I would pinch off my spleen. But I just have no reason to believe that it would.

111

Come on Scyl, answer that one yourself.

Can’t say if that’s right or wrong, and to be honest I really don’t follow other posters. It’s rare that I recognize a name, and even rarer that I remember a posting history.

I’d say that a rough n’ ready definition of a Bush Apologist is someone who can never, ever, see fault in anything the man does. Someone who’ll ignore evidence in favor of preconceived notions.

Admittedly, some people simply have different values and goals, and although I disagree, I can respect that. Somone who’ll say “Yeah, it sure looks like he lied, but I support my president and believe that if he wanted to go to war, he could and should trick the nation into it.”

I’ll disagree, vehemently, with such a belief, but it’s at least honest.

True, or if you saw a video of it and responded by saying “Well, Clinton once blew a horse!” or “Well… we can’t really be sure that the video is legit, even though we have a dozen copies from different angles and from various sources all of whom are credible. And I mean, just because it looks like George Bush, doesn’t mean it really is. And how do we know that’s a real rhino and not a robot? Also,k how do we know that Bush actually knew what he was doing, and was not brainwashed and coked out at the time? I don’t see Bush making eye contact with the rhino, maybe he thought it was his wife and made an honest mistake. And, while we’re at it, isn’t it odd that the big scary Librul Meeeeedea brought us news of this video first?”

112

Pffffffffffffft!

Don’t put the word facts in quotes, and don’t suggest that facts disapear just because they’re used by someone with bias, that’s an ad hominem fallacy. “Bias” is the watchword of those who cannot attack facts and must instead rely on logical fallacies.

And it is, of course, a fact that Bush’s bussiness ventures failed. Now, we can argue over just where to place the blame, but it’s absurd to claim that he’s a sucessful bussiness man.

113

Have you ever thought of applying for McClellan’s job?

114

Prostitution is legal?!?

:smiley:

115

Here’s my theory, which, for reasons of my own I do not expect you to endorse.

When moderate and respectful language is unfailingly used in opposition to loathsome ideas or actions, and when only the mildest of epithets is used to describe the men who practice and preach those despicable ideas, then such moderated and polite discourse becomes a validation of sorts for the loathsome and the descpicable.

I’m not advocating epithetical abuse in the place of partisan political discourse. Honest disagreement is the foundation of productive debate. But when a man comes to your neighborhood to sell turds painted up as glittering gold, it does a disservice to your friends and family if you fail to call that man a turdmonger.

And if a man smirks at you while he explains how hard it is to send your friends to die while his friends are enriched, it’s not real clever politics to pretend that man is not himself a gold-painted turd.

116

By the way, thanks Starving. I’m also somewhat certain that I can predict your response, though I’m not sure that’s a good thing :wink: I just honestly don’t understand how facts like this can be ignored, and I was for the war when it started.

I try not to get too frustrated with Bush supporters… but as I’m sure you can understand, if one comes to the conclusion that the president is doing the country and the world great harm, it’s hard not to get a bit… perturbed.

117

You are mistaken. It is not. I put “fact” in quotes because I dispute whether or not the things being presented are factually.

Perhaps, but that is not the only way that bias is used. Bias skews results. Any careful statistician is watchful of it. With a selective presentation of the facts one can advance any argument. If you can demonstrate bias you can and should invalidate the results.

No. It is not a “fact.” It is a falsehood.

The Rangers franchise was successful for the investors under Bush’s leadership. Harkens did not fail under Bush’s leadership. Bush’s previous company did not fail but was bought out by Harkens. That is, IIRC without checking 3 out of five that were not failures. So in fact a majority did not fail. To say Bush’s business ventures failed is a falsehood from a factual nonpartisan standpoint.

If you say “only one was particularly successful,” than I would agree with you that you have stated a fact. If you say “Bush received a lot of help from his family and enjoyed success that he would not have had without nepotism,” than I beleive you’ve stated a fact.

But, to say Bush’s business ventures failed is a falsehood.

As for this:

Also false. Bush was in fact a successful business man, as his dealings with the Rangers demonstrates.

118

Kerry said nice things about Republicans?

119

Well, you’re right. I don’t endorse it, though at first glance it seems reasonable.

Here’s why:

  1. Presidency’s and politics in general seem to always evoke the strongest feelings and hyperbole. Name a recent President that wasn’t hated or ridiculed with epithetical abuse. Politics invokes strong feelings and high hyperbole. Seems to me that it would be important to distinguish oneself as a measured and reasonable in an arena where so few are.

  2. You might be wrong and the man in question may not be the “turdmonger” you claim to see. To call a spade a spade is one thing, presenting an opinion as fact is another. Your characterization of Bush is simply opinion and not necessarily spadecalling.

120

I reiterate: Pffffffffffffffffffft!

Spectrum 7, Bush’s pre-Harken company, was failing under his watch. Yes it was bought out, but it was still being run into the ground before it was bought out.

Later, Harken was failing. Under Bush’s watch. And it was using Enron style accounting, (which was praised by Dick Cheny in an Arthur Anderson video) to cook the books.
And it’s not like the Harken stock sale didn’t smell awfully fishy.

Bush didn’t help the Rangers’ owners come together, his investment was meager, although it was upped to 10% through no bussiness decisions of his own. And the Rangers were primarily helped by fleecing the taxpayers for a new stadium and grabbing land from citizens who would later sucessfully sue for 11 million dollars in damages.

At least 11 million in illegal land grabs, not doing much of anything… this is good?

So, I guess in the interest of the most exacting semantics possible “Bush failed in all of his bussiness ventures except the one where he stole land and fleeced the tax payers, which was a sucess.”