I tire of stupid people so easily, so I shall simply repeat what I said in the previous thread about this subject…
::ahem::
Osama bin Laden hates America. He doesn’t hate this policy or that policy… he hates America. Kyoto Treaty or no Kyoto Treaty. Ballistic missiles or no ballistic missiles. He hates America. Period. The only thing that would have prevented the WTC tragedy would have been if everyone in American simultaneously began acting, thinking, and believing the same way that Bin Laden does.
Not having huge amounts of time these days to read through the incidents sparking this thread, I’ll leave specifics aside to note that I’ve felt a general chilling against those critical of the US for just about any reason, both IRL and on these boards. This alarms me a great deal, especially in times of such turmoil when the decisions the US makes will have repercussions of unprecedented magnitude.
You’re making a huge leap of illogic over my statements. The specific question I was addressing was not whether Bush provoked the attack, the question was whether Bush could affect the world’s political alliances in only 8 months.
Bush did not CAUSE any attack, but certainly there is ill will dating back to Bush Sr., and Bush Jr’s not exactly pouring oil on troubled waters. I will make a bold prediction: ANY Bush who becomes president will be subject to attacks from Islamic fanatics. As long as there is a Taliban or a Hussein, they’ll be fanatically devoted to attacking President Jenna Bush (or Jeb, Neil, whoever). So that’s what I meant when I made that remark about not wearing a “kick me” sign on your back (which I’m sure you were keeping for your next “rebuttal.”)
Maybe if you asked me what I meant, instead of telling me what I meant, things would be a lot simpler around here. I can’t write a dissertation on every subject.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chas.E *
**
[QUOTEBush did not CAUSE any attack, but certainly there is ill will dating back to Bush Sr., and Bush Jr’s not exactly pouring oil on troubled waters. I will make a bold prediction: ANY Bush who becomes president will be subject to attacks from Islamic fanatics. As long as there is a Taliban or a Hussein, they’ll be fanatically devoted to attacking President Jenna Bush (or Jeb, Neil, whoever). **[/QUOTE]
If this is true, then the terrorist attack was our (the voters) fault!
I wish somebody had told me about this before the election!:rolleyes:
No, how about you writing what you mean. This was a flame war starting with curious george (ptui!) stating very clearly that he believed Bush responsible for the attack
As people here were saying that cg was insane for believing such a thing, chronolicht and you come in with a defense.
‘Oh, sure’ you say ‘8 months of Bush’s policies can destabilize the world, it can be convincingly argued. Here, let me offer up a pretend conversation at Terrorist HQ implying that OBL decided to launch the attack after seeing Bush on CNN.’ What are we supposed to think? That even though you are defending someone who stated ‘It’s Bush’s fault.’ and implied as much in you pretend conversation, that you don’t believe that?
When the people above you have stated ridiculous things that you (apparently) don’t agree with, don’t defend them! Let them defend their stupidity themselves, or very clearly state your disagreement with their ideas right in your first post. Not after 20 people start flaming you, in the first post.
Your rabid hatred of Bush has caused you to defend anyone who also hates Bush. The statements that were made in that thread were as audacious and hideous as any I’ve seen against Bush.
These are the people you are defending, if you are not like them, state so here, and quit supporting their insanity.
Blackclaw to Head Waiter
“Yes, I’d like a table at the conservative-but-not-Quite-afuckin-lunatic section please.”
Head Waiter
“Blackclaw, please. You voted for Gore.”
Blackclaw
“Well, McCain lost in the primaries so I was grumpy.”
Head Waiter
“Sorry. Sir. You do not qualify. We do have seating available in the Lunatics with no real political leanings section.”
Blackclaw
“I’m insulted. First off, I’m a regestered Republican, um even if I don’t always vote that way. Second off, I’m not a lunatic, no matter what that damn llama says. He’s just angry that I interrupeted his little Peruvian coup when I ratted him out to the flying Octopus. Further more…”
Wow, can we institute a new law? Something about the person invoking the Taliban loses? We’ve got one for Nazi’s after all.
That said, I find myself agreeing with him in terms of the handling of the situation by both the media and the government. The administration is clearly doing it’s best to prepare the country for war and has been since early in the game. I, myself, would prefer cold-minded justice to hot-headed vengeance. But I’m the analytical sort.
And anytime the country is building up to such a war frenzy that Sears is playing Sousa marches on their muzak system (No kidding. Heard in in a mall last weekend.) I’ve got to think that we’re operating with our hearts and not our heads.
However, I can still think that he’s got some point yet agree that he’s a loon. And that’s where I am.
Although Ms. Rankin is widely regarded as a pioneer in women’s rights, her solitary vote against declaring war on Japan is her lasting claim to fame. Regardless of her motives, her vote was tantamount to surrendering the U.S. to the Japanese. One has to wonder this: if she had been the deciding vote would she have chosen war or surrender?
Ms. Lee’s vote, even if it were the deciding vote, has far less potential impact on the future of this country. Still, it is disturbing that given bin Laden’s apparent involvement in the ever escalating attacks on the U.S., she prefer’s Bill Clinton’s “get on TV and wag your finger at the bad guy” style of leadership to overt action aimed at ending or severely crippling the ever-growing network of terrorists around the world.
Early terrorists attacks attributed to bin Laden’s organizations killed dozens. Later, this number grew to the hundreds. The latest attack killed thousands and threatened citizens and governments from around the world. Does Ms. Lee propose that we wait to see if his next attack is successful at delivering a nuclear or biological weapon to downtown New York?
Wow. Between you, Mayor Quimby , and Fenris , I think I’m going to have to search the western horizon tomorrow morning to see if the sun is rising there.
And I did this just to show off my brand new direct-to-post linking skills! Composing this took me 30 minutes. Yes folks, I am an incompetent boob.
stoid
PS: My general lack of complaint or criticism about my government is, I assure you, a temporary situation. But I * am * pretty classy, I must confess.
Hell, for all the time I’ve spent in ATMB, I’ve never quite gotten around to figuring out the direct to post linking.
As for you personally, I won’t say that I’m impressed that you’ve avoided the moronic ramblings others have exhibited here, as that would imply that I expected less of you. Whatever disagreements I’ve had with you, and as much as I feel that your hatred of Bush occasionally trumps reason, I know you aren’t a lunatic.
What does impress me is that you have held back from expressing concern about Bush’s ability to handle the situation, even though I’m guessing that it really scares you. There will be a time for that debate, but it’s probably too early still, both due to respect for the tragedy and lack of information about what the reaction will be. When we do get around to it, of course I’m going to have to disagree with everything you say, though.
“Pre-emptory posts” For all those times when you just know ** what some one will post and what you’ll want to say in rebuttle. We can call it “PP” for short. It’ll be great, why, there may not be a further need for whole other forums!
** subtext [sub] this was not picking on waterj2, but I just thought it was a fun idea [/sub]
All I know is John Corrado is my new hero. Anybody who disagrees with him sucks. Period.
[sup]Okay, unless he says something stupid like God doesn’t exist, or Libertarianism is not the perfect political philsophy, or Objectivism doesn’t make sense, or Pepsi is better than Kool Aide, that sort of thing.[/sup]
“Hangin’s too good for 'im! Burnin’s too good for 'im!
He should be chopped into itsy bitsy pieces, AND BURIED ALIVE!”
Chas, I’ve only been here for a month, and I already think you’re an overopinionated twit. I have yet to see you bow gracefully when you’ve been proven wrong…you generally just spout more invective.
**
And you obviously have Bush on the brain. Hussein, Bin Laden, etc, ad nauseum, hate AMERICA. Whether or not Bush is the president has NOTHING to do with it. The reasons are MUCH more politically complex (Janes.com) and some of the other people that may be involved have their own reasons for hating America (Again, Janes.com)
Now, allow me to lead you through some simple math. Bush was officially certified as president on December 11th, 2000. Yet according to Time Magazine:
**
So are you really trying to tell us that they were only planning this IN CASE another Bush got elected to the White House, or that they were willing to hold off UNTIL one was elected?
Chas, I think most of the rest of us are here to broaden our minds in debate and discussion of issues both important and trivial. The essence of debate is providing proof of your point of view. Simply spouting an unfounded opinion is not sufficient for this type of argument.
(And from Dictionary.com, definitions for the terminally uninformed: )
What that means, for the simple-minded, is that if you can’t tell us what you mean, you shouldn’t be posting. It’s not our responsibility to elaborate on your arguments. You either support them, or accept defeat gracefully. Now, when you’re ready to do that, come on back. Until then, pick up your toys, stop whining, and go home.
-Stil
And waiter, could I have a seat in the “liberal-but-not-a-fuckin-lunatic section”…but I want some of that dead animal, too, please.
