Convince my conservative dad to dislike GWB

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
OK technically I can give you this one, but the reality is that if there is a perceived valid threat to your nation, and other allied nations it would be irresponsible not to act.

Again we are not debating if there were WMD’s, just the belief that SH had them justified the war.
[/QUOTE]

Perceived by who? You’re in Dick Cheney 1% Doctrine territory here. To sum it up: A perceived threat, even absent evidence, is justification for action. Do you not see how absurd this is? Just because I think my neighbor might be growing weed in his basement because he bought some potting soil doesn’t make it OK for me to tear down his door and rummage through the house in search of contraband. I’d have to invade every neighbor who ever bought potting soil, because, holy crap, they might be growing & selling pot. Similarly, its ridiculous for the US to act on every perceived threat, especially when you look at the 'well, it could happen’s and who’s in charge of the perceptions. If you want to talk about responsibility in actions, lets look at how many people have died during this whole Iraq operation compared to how many died on September 11, 2001.

182

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Good luck with that. The sixteen words you mention are literally true.
[/QUOTE]

What, these?

No, that was not true.

183

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, that was not true.
[/QUOTE]

I will admit that I’m unclear on the absolute specifics of this (as well as making it VERY clear that I’m no defender of BushCo), but the operative verb in those 16 words is “learned”, not “sought”. It’s a desperate, grasping-at-any-straw, piddle-licking, anal-retentive distinction, but it’s pretty much the kind of thing I’d expect the Bush team to put in the speech for the very reason that it’s logically, if not sensibly, defensible as being true, no matter the actual truth of the second part of the sentence. “Look! It’s not a lie! The British government really DID learn that SH had sought uranium from Nigeria. Yes, it was bad intel, but they really DID learn that. No, they didn’t believe it, but they really did learn it!”

It requires an absolutely literal parsing of the sentence in order to use it as a justification of “not lying” about the yellowcake.

184

[QUOTE=jayjay]
It requires an absolutely literal parsing of the sentence in order to use it as a justification of “not lying” about the yellowcake.
[/QUOTE]

Close enough. “Absolutely literal” in the sense of “yes, that’s what he said” or “what the words would mean if they came from somebody else”.

Well, no, that is not very close to what I am saying. Clinton was guilty, since he was both under oath, and knowingly spoke falsely. Bush is not, because he was neither under oath, nor did he speak falsely.

What I am saying is that the Democrats would have to deal with the consequences of supporting the impeachment of Bush, although he did not do what DanBlather wants to define as a “high crime and misdemeanor”, but having opposed the impeachment of Clinton, who did.

Regards,
Shodan

185

[QUOTE=Shodan]
A Bush-bashing thread. How refreshing.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

He is the president. It used to be Clinton bashing. Did that refresh you?

186

I am pregnant 3 words
You have cancer 3 words
kill the Infidels 3words
I Want a divorce 4 words
16 words are plenty to lie and get us into a war.Repeating endlessly that there were 16 words is a weak attempt to diminish their significance.

187

You have just endorsed the Pearl Harbor attack.

188

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
You have just endorsed the Pearl Harbor attack.
[/QUOTE]
Not the first time this observation has been made on the boards, either. Though it must be said that if a response is made to the point, that would be a first time.

189

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Not the first time this observation has been made on the boards, either. Though it must be said that if a response is made to the point, that would be a first time.
[/QUOTE]
At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the perceived threat from the Japanese point of view was that the US had moved the Pacific Fleed from San Diego to Pearl Harbor and embargoed sales of vital raw materials, such as oil. In addition, after the Japanese entered Indo-China we froze Japanese assets in the US.

All Japan had to do was count the 157000 man US Army to realize they had little to fear from us in a land war. However, we instituted a draft in 1940 and had a fairly substantial army training in Louisiana. Also, the move of the fleet to Pearl Harbor would have looked ominous to them.

We think we know that the US wouldn’t have attacked Japan and all of our moves were in response to Japanese moves in China and Indo-China. But we are talking here about Japanese perceptions of a possible attack on them that are claimed to justify a preemptive strike.

From the Japanese side I can see how this all could add up to a “perceived valid threat.”

Here’s what Pat Buchanan, not exactly an apologist for Japan, has to say about it.

190

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I know - isn’t that beautiful?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was a dumb post. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Scooter first.

[/QUOTE]
You scooter. You brought her.

191

[QUOTE=Shodan]
The first forty-five thousand times? Nothing.
The same thing every political thread is about on the SDMB - unfortunately.

I realize you folks never tire of the endless, circular, repetitious channeling of that voice that seems to be whispering in some posters ears. You’ll have to pardon me if I pop in occasionally and interrupt it.

And if you don’t want to, oh well.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Make you a deal-if Bush stops screwing up, we’ll quit bitching about it.
O.K.?

192

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Make you a deal-if Bush stops screwing up, we’ll quit bitching about it.
O.K.?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please…he’s a Republican!

People around here would bitch about him no matter what he did, and you know it. That’s the primary reason why so much of the complaint around here lacks credibility and why the Dope’s membership at large is so perplexed at the behavior of this country’s voters. Fortunately, most of the people in this country aren’t like the rabid lefties who predominate in most of the discussions around here.

193

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Oh, please…he’s a Republican!
Fortunately, most of the people in this country aren’t like the rabid lefties who predominate in most of the discussions around here.
[/QUOTE]

Got trouble with math, eh.
Here’s the thing: 60% is ‘most of the people’. And they’re down on the Shrub.

194

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Got trouble with math, eh.
Here’s the thing: 60% is ‘most of the people’. And they’re down on the Shrub.
[/QUOTE]
However, they’ve been up on the Shrub enough to have elected him twice to the highest office in the land. Even if one were to admit (which I’m not, as in an election that close, sufficient errors could easily have been made around the country to have swung the election either way) that Gore won an infinitesimally greater percentage of votes than Bush, the electorate was still split 50/50 for all intents and purposes and subsequently voted in clear favor of him in the next election. It’s in this big picture sense that I tend to view the American electorate rather than what last night’s polls might suggest, as poll numbers rise and fall with the concerns of the day and are probative of very little on their own. Further, it’s not only possible but likely that voters who may disapprove of Bush’s actions overall and at this particular time would still vote for him in an election. In other words, poll numbers are relatively meaningless in assessing the overall desirability of having someone in office.

I should also add that your argument is something of a strawman in that a 60% disapproval rating in a poll in no way idicates that 60% of the country are rabid lefties such as I alluded to in my post and which you attempted to refute with your poll numbers.

195

The thing with religious conservatives is that they focus on all of the wrong things. It depends a lot on what type of Christian he is though. Believe it or not, the Christian values that the Republican party state aren’t the only values. Most conservative Christian values tend to focus on the prohibition of certain things. The main issues here are Gay Marriage (Old Testament), chastity until marriage (also Old testament I think) and the separation of church and state, claiming that the Liberals are trying to convert us into a secular society.

Democrats could splinter the Conservative base in a number of ways by putting their values in Christian terms.

About church and state, I’d argue that it is the healthiest thing for both religion and state. Europe is most likely more secular than America because of the detrimental effect of this mixture. If the Catholic Church hadn’t been in cahoots with the corrupt royals of the time, perhaps there wouldn’t have been a backlash against it. Why throw the baby out with the bath-water. I think the state and religion are much stronger if not mixed.

Secondly, what is the point of belief if it is coerced? If we lived in a society where the government saw everything we did, and forced religious norms on us, then would we really be doing it for the right reasons? If I was afraid of adultery because I knew Big Brother would see me and kill me, I can’t say that I’d be avoiding it for the right reasons.

Now, let’s talk about the critical Christian values of charity and universal love and the importance of forgiving. Republicans take a stance that they need to defend the values of Christianity without promoting the most important ones. How is it Christian to say, “Well these people are poor because they don’t help themselves”? How much more Christian is it to say, “It is our obligation to help those who are in need, especially since we are fortunate enough to not have these problems”

The republicans don’t practice what they preach. They say they want to defend Christianity, but they do nothing to promote the good things of it through the government. It’s appropriate to allow people to be charitable if they want to privately, but they don’t want to allow people the choice to do the bad things.

I think this is because the current Republican party is a result of the turn to religious conservatives while still trying to keep the more secular fiscal conservatives. This marriage has allowed the Religious conservatives to take the fiscial message to heart as well. But the fiscal message, is definitely contrary to the ideals of charity.

The problem is that Democrats have been afraid to touch religion as a point in fear of losing their secular base. This shouldn’t be a problem, though, because secular people still have values, and I’d think that most of the party agrees in charity. The Democrats should aim to be the opposite of Republicans on religion, rejecting the legislation of values, while pumping up the religious nature of charity.

John Edwards touched on this point a bit last election. It was a bit sad though, because he didn’t quite make it past the whole Kerry “electability” hoopla. I’m sure he could have competed against Bush on the religious conservative front using these tactics.

196

This simply isn’t true, SA.

I agree with Bush on a couple of policies, namely immigration. I’m all for it, and he is too, although for different reasons. Just because Bush says it doesn’t mean that I’m against it. I’ve really agreed with his ideas on the reduction of dependence on foreign oil, although it’s not as much as I’d like. But this is really facing the inevitable.

Don’t worry, we’ll complain about the things we disagree with, but I would be refreshingly happy to agree with a Bush policy.

Besides it so easy to say, “This isn’t the real world. Out there people simply don’t agree.”

How about you come up with some reasons why the Straight Dope isn’t representative of the population in general before you come up with these baseless accusations? Anecdotal evidence doesn’t suffice.

Let’s start with a few assumptions about dopers that we could all agree on?

Dopers are generally more inquisitive and hungry for knowledge. How else would you find a website without trying to find some info about some arcane subject? There are plenty of ignorant people on both sides.

Internet connection and or computers? There are poor people on both sides.

I’m so sick of hearing this baseless argument used to discount the opinions of an entire side of the political spectrum. Yes, we are all rabid lefties! The SMDB is representative of 5 percent and you represent the other 95 percent!

I’m really sick of this. This is the fucking SDMB, we don’t normally allow baseless claims to go unchecked in GD.

So in the most tradition of GD, I’d like to add… Cite?

197

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Oh, please…he’s a Republican!

People around here would bitch about him no matter what he did, and you know it. That’s the primary reason why so much of the complaint around here lacks credibility and why the Dope’s membership at large is so perplexed at the behavior of this country’s voters. Fortunately, most of the people in this country aren’t like the rabid lefties who predominate in most of the discussions around here.
[/QUOTE]

It always boils down to the old “imaginary justification”, doesn’t it? “Your side would have done the same thing”, “Your side would have complained if he had done it differently”, “It doesn’t matter how bad my side is, if your side gets control, they’ll be even worse”, and all the other variations I’ve seen. If you can defend what Bush has done, do so, but if you want to write speculative fiction there are numerous fantasy magazines out there that you can mail your stories to.

198

These guys are very often found defending their guys’ “character” that way, aren’t they? Here’s another example, from this very thread:

But it never occurs to them that reaching their desired conclusion requires making such things up. And yet they presume to talk about character anyway. I’m beyond being tired of it. As a local sports talk radio host likes to say, “You’re *making * my point!”

199

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
However, they’ve been up on the Shrub enough to have elected him twice to the highest office in the land.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and that’s because a frightening number of people apparently bought the advertising. Bush says ‘I’m a uniter’ and people believe it. He said ‘I’ll keep you safe from the narsty mans who want to KILL YOU ALL’ and they believed it.

The problem is one of psychology and perception and Shrub & Co are masters of manipulation. They know they have a gullible populace and that the old saying about telling a lie often enough will ensure it’s believed is true. They dragged out 9-11 on every possible occasion, knowing that public opinion research has shown that fear is a very great persuader.

They lied over and over and over again and people, wanting to believe the best of their country and their administration, drank the kool-aid. Sadly, Americans took another dose even after the disaster of the first administration, but that’s because Shrub & Co. continued to flog the ‘terrist’ line and, I’m afraid, there are far too many people who bought it. Some still do. Why? Because Dubya and his bunch understand the psychology of sales and played influence and persuasion tricks to the max. And, for too long, people who saw the lies and BS and tried to point it out were vilified, Dixie Chicked (threatened with death), and condemned as ‘unAmerican’.

BTW, all these tactics are the tactics used by dictators to retain power; lie to the people, do the exact opposite of what you say you’re doing, and vilify any opposition. But anyone who pointed that out was also attacked.

Fact is, Rove and his ilk are political strategists who pay homage to Machiavelli (as filtered through Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and other fathers of neocon philosophy). They know that if they were to present their political philosophy truthfully to the public, they’d not have the faintest chance of being elected, so they obfuscate, mislead, and lie their way to power so they can carry out their plans.

And people who think authority, particularly in the person of the President of the USA, should not be questioned, bought it all.

So saying that Dub was the ‘choice’ of Americans may be true, but it wasn’t a truly informed choice. I firmly believe that if Americans understood the truth about the people in the Administration, they would not have elected him, and I am gratified to see how many people are finally listening to the truth of what’s really been going on and therefore turning against Shrub and his cronies. It’s just taken far too long.

You’d have hoped that, after the Nixon fiasco, people would have learned not to put full faith in presidents, but it seems that history teaches few lessons.

200

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
That’s the primary reason why so much of the complaint around here lacks credibility and why the Dope’s membership at large is so perplexed at the behavior of this country’s voters.
[/QUOTE]
Jeez, SA, that’s so 2004. The 2006 mid-terms changed everything; the majority of voters are now perfectly aligned with the politics we espouse. The Pubs are on the outs, and sliding fast.