Please do. Nothing I enjoy more than watching a Bushbot turn into a pretzel.
I’m trying to figure out what it will take for Bush suckers to recognize that there are some very good reasons to strongly dislike our current administration. If a person accepts the accuracy of gobear’s post–as most of us posting on this thread probably do–then the hatred would be perfectly justified. Calling us irrational doesn’t work, dude.
Translation: I don’t care if the accusations are true or not, but if I call them “ridiculous and silly” I won’t have to think about it.
And 50% of the voters in this country don’t agree with you. And guess which half is growing?
Can you name some?
Haven’t seen you participating in the Padilla thread. I’m curious how a libertarian type like yourself feels about that.
Many Americans Say President’s Tax Policies Favor Rich"
This coming from someone who’s calling most of the posters in this thread “irrational”. :rolleyes:
Since when does simply having an opinion entitle someone to respect? If you show someone proof that the administration is up to no good and all they can think to say is “That’s ridiculous and silly and irrational”, that person deserves scorn. Many people may disagree with the anti-Bush contigent, but that does not mean that many people are intelligent, informed, or respectable.
Some people base their beliefs solely on what many people think. A voter who does this is both stupid and dangerous.
Clearly I am missing a point - are gobear comments both factual and ‘ridiculous and silly’, then?
And Shodan, you keep on repeating the mantra ‘war on terror’ - without defining what this war really is, who the actual enemy is, or when we’ll know that we’ve won or lost. And as far as I can understand it, you include the invasion of Iraq in this ‘war on terror’ because America decided to invade Iraq while fighting the ‘war on terror’, so therefore…whooshes around in circular logic
Yeah, me too. Just to repeat it, Germany declared war on the USA BEFORE the USA declared war on Germany.
Fucking hell. Germany, Japan, and Italy were in a formal military alliance in WWII. Show us some evidence that Iraq under Saddam, Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan have or had such an alliance, or any kind of relationship.
Three days AFTER the USA had declared war on Germany’s ally.
Your detestation for Bush makes you irrational. He gives a harmless speech mentioning WWII and Iraq in seperate paragraphs and we get a pit thread full of screaching about nothing.
Ha!
Whether or not the patriot act erodes civil liberties is an opinion not a fact. Taxes being good or bad for citizens is an opinion, not a fact. Bush being evil is an opinion, not a fact. It’s sad that you cannot grasp this. Many of you are otherwise intelligent people. It’s a shame that you lose grasp of reality with anything concerning Bush.
All that cite proves is that some writers at newsweek are almost as good at bashiing Bush as you are. There is nothing there that proves Rumsfeld gave orders to torture children. This remains a fantasy of yours.
That article requires registration. The efforts to build infrastucture like electricity and water have met with both sucesses and failures. It’s not accurate to say that they have “failed” flatly. Saying that the US forces have lost any credibility or support is simply foolish. For every terrorist harming our troops, many more Iraqi’s are working with the US forces and new government.
As far as victories, we removed Saddam’s regime successfuly and quickly. Saddam and his sons have been captured and killed. Our list of fugitives from the regime is getting shorter and shorter as they are captured. Every day that goes by the Iraqi government is closer to being in power.
Just because you refuse to see them, doesn’t mean there haven’t been successes as well as failures in Iraq.
Yes. I know, I know. You’ve read it and we disagree. This must mean that not only am I incorrect, but also evil and incompentant, just like everyone else who disagrees with you or supports Bush. :rolleyes:
Whoa! Paul Krugman is against tax cuts. Call the presses!
I get it. Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong. They are villians or fools. It must be maddening for you to have to live amongst the millions of foolish villians. Working with us, sitting next to us on the bus. You do well to remain so sane through all of this. 
I wanted to avoid this, since it will accomplish nothing. But since I’m being challeged, I will go through gobears “facts” one by one…
Keep in mind, these are items that gobear is presenting as black and white facts. Not his opinion.
Not a fact. This is your opinion, and a silly one at that. There is no reason to believe that Bush lied about the WMD’s. There is every reason to believe he was listenning to his advisors, intelligence agencies and the intelligence community who all agreed that Saddam did have WMD’s. Clinton and Bush both thought he had them. He did have them, since he used them. Bush may have been incorrect, but this is different from lying.
They went somewhere, and we don’t know where yet. We may never will. However, I a liar this does not make George Bush.
Cite, please.
Not a fact. If there was evidence to prove this then it would be the top news story in the world for a month. That you believe this makes me question your sanity. That you insist this is a fact makes me stop questioning it.
Prove it. For this to be a fact, you will need to prove that homicides occured during interrogations. That means the deaths cannot be accidents, they must be murders with a verdict for this part of your statement alone to be a factual one. Also you will need to prove that Bush has tried to cover them up. Also you will need to prove that these instances were authorized by Rumsfeld. Good luck. If you are successful, I bet they’ll give you a pulitzer.
Cite?
Not a fact. Again, this is your opinion. How do you know the motives of the administration? (Going with the “pick whatever is the most nefarious posibility” method makes it your opinion, and not a fact.)
Cite?
Do you know what a fact is vs what an opinion is?
Although, to be fair, he was finally forced to recant his assertions last November.
Cite
Debaser, using loaded words like “screeching” and making assertions with no factual cites is not a way to win an argument.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between opinion and fact. Facts are true statements about the world. Opinions describe what you think about facts. Bush’s tax cuts favor the rich. That’s a fact. I think that’s bad. That’s an opinion. See how it works?
I’ve already cited Rumsfeld’s approval of torture in intelligence gathering. Here’s a cite for the torture of children, originally reported in The Guardian but unaccessible without a subscription
How about cites? Where are the victories? What I see is an occupation force that is understaffed, undersupplied, and totally out of touch with the people it purports to be helping.
The rest of your post is twaddle in a similar vein.
[quote]
Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong. They are villians or fools. It must be maddening for you to have to live amongst the millions of foolish villians. Working with us, sitting next to us on the bus. You do well to remain so sane through all of this.
[/quotre]
Where did I say this about everyone who disagrees with me? Lots of people disagree with me, bringing cites and information.
I think that you are a fool because you do not have any facts to back up yoour ridiculous statements and I think you are a villain because you blindly support a regime that practices torture.
HARMLESS?!?! This is the guy who chose to start a war over fabricated evidence!!! How can you consider his justification for the ongoing conflict, and of the potential conflicts still to come, as harmless?
Sure, if I were a liberal I would probably dislike Bush also. But, it’s just obvious that this has been taken to an extreme by many people here. Bush’s speech from the OP simply does not deserve the pile on that it got him. For many, no matter what Bush does he will be Pure Evil.
Yes, and that’s fine. The difference is I’m not the one saying that the 50% who disagree with me are all villians or fools. They just have a different opinion than I do.
I’ll try and check it out.
I’m not saying it does. However, someone isn’t deserving disrespect simply for disagreeing with your opinions, IMHO.
I’m not saying this. I was just trying to get through the idea to some of the Bush bashers that everyone who disagrees with them isn’t pure evil. A hopeless challenge, I know.
The funny thing is I don’t even consider myself a Bush supporter. I can think of many things where I disagree with his policies. However, it would seem that me being not in lock step with the hatred many of you feel for him makes me a part of the evil empire that is Bushco.
Do you know something we don’t? Or are you being a little careless with presenting facts? 
I’d have no problem with that statement of Debaser’sif he would just add “respectively” at the end to make it clear who has been captured and who killed.
I’ll try and get to all of it. I might have to do small chunks at a time, and get to others later…
Do you really think my intention is to convince you that George Bush is a good president and get you to vote for him in the next election? Do you hope to do the reverse to me?
I came into this to just try and open your mind the slightest degree that Bush and all people who don’t hate Bush as you do are not pure evil.
You first said:
That the tax cuts are irresponsible and that they are at the expense of the middle class and the poor are opinions.
Bush’s tax cuts benefit everyone in proportion to what they pay in taxes. They bennefit the rich more, because they pay more. Any tax cut, that cuts across the board is going to cut them for the rich more than others.
And that cite is crap. It makes very vague accusations that policies were shifted and claims that these shifts resulted in the situation at the prison. It does not prove, or even come close to proving that Rumsfeld authorized the torture of children.
What do you need a cite for? That the regime was toppled? That Saddam and his sons have been removed? That many Iraqi’s are working with the regime as police officers, military personel, and government figures? Tell me what part you are disputing and I will cite it.
I’ve tried to only state things that are obvious and wouldn’t be disputed. I don’t want to get into a cite war about 100 things. I am not the one here who is posting long lists of “facts” and calling anyone who disagrees a fool.
Right here:
So, everyone who continues to support Bush is debased. Also, everyone voting for Bush is either a villian or a fool.
Yes, but don’t you see that I won’t care? You have already made it clear that you consider anyone a fool simply for disagreeing with you. So it’s not exactly bothersome for me to realize that you consider me a foolish and villainous.
Heh. I said respectively in my head. It just didn’t make it onto the screen. Downfalls of being a fast typist and not proof reading, I guess.
That’s it? Those are our “victories”? Almost 800 of our own dead, thousands maimed, God only knows how many Iraqi civililans. And of course, the money, if you will overlook the obscenity in talking about squandering a gazillion bucks in the same breath as the death of innocent civilians.
Was there some doubt about the war? Was there the slightest question in your mind? No, surely you are not implying there is some grand and courageous victory in this international pimp-slapping. No, you must mean that the removal of the Saddam regime had some intrinsic value.
Did it make us safer? To make that case, don’t you have to present some evidence that he possessed the means to do us dirt? How? With what? His own little two pink patty-paws?
That we would remove the Saddam regime was never in doubt. Somehow “victory” seems too grand a word, unless you are one of those who are enthralled with similar bold mililtary adventures, such as Grenada.
Killing his sons? Was this war a trophy hunt, to provide stuffed Oday-head to hang in the White House den? Between the pictures of dogs playing poker and the dead deer wearing sunglasses? Doubtless the two spawn were foul and useless beings, but spending 800 of our own lives for two of thiers is a fools bargain. Of course, we nailed Saddams grandson, too, though the splendid victory of gunning down a 14-year-old boy us not widely spoken of by the Bushiviks. Such becoming modesty regarding one’s triumphs, no?
These are our victories? Pathetic, shameful, and beneath the dignity of our nation. Or at least, damn sure oughta be.
He’s two separate idiots? :eek:
There’s a lot of Muslims in the Middle East, you say? Wow, that really screws up my argument!
I was contending that not all of the citizens of the countries I mentioned were Islamists, or people who want an Islamic state. Look it up. Also look up the difference between Shia and Sunni, as in your point 3.
If it’s any comfort, some of us who criticize BushII harshly did exactly the same to Clinton. It isn’t all knee-jerk, partisan sniping, even though it might seem like it right now.
Taken from this perspective, it’s healthy to hold chief executives to a constant standard, regardless of their party affiliation. BushII is coming in for drubbing because he occupies the seat of power right now. It comes with the job. Frankly, no sitting President could possibly do anything that would suit everyone.
I don’t like knee-jerk Bush sniping either. Much of it is simply reflexive, and indicative of sloppy thinking, IMO. (Not to mention extremely tiresome.)
But some of us cry “fault” truly based on actions, not preconceived beliefs. I strongly disfavor BushII not because he’s a conservative, but because 1.) he’s demonstrated little competence in leadership, nationally and internationally and 2. ) too many of his actions are directly contrary to so much of what’s valuable in conservatism. I’m not sure what he is, other than ineffective. That’s putting it kindly, and in no way based on his party affiliation.
I for one would be delighted if Republicans could wrench back their party back from the neocons. The current course isn’t serving conservatism well, and it isn’t serving the country–or world–well either. I quite honestly feel rather sorry for many Republicans right now. Too many of my Pubbie friends, rock-bound party loyalists, are expressing distaste and dismay with Dubya. It’s far from a sound statistical sample, but not one of them actually wants him back in office; they’re just struggling with the available options.
Going back to the OP, all the parsing in the world won’t avail much. That speech was carefully crafted in advance. Presidents don’t just talk off the cuff, particularly BushII. Without slamming him, oratory is not his strong suit. Better believe some Peggy Noonan type sweated blood over it, crafting it “just so”. The text wasn’t accidental in relation to the occassion.
I’m disgusted that BushII deflected honors due the WWII vets toward his immediate political needs. Full stop. Nothing more complicated. It was their day, their glory and Dubya made the occassion controversial when it didn’t have to be. It was disrespectful to them. He directed the spotlight away from them, focusing it on his own agenda. That’s tacky, and they deserved much better from their President.
Veb
It could be the description of this planet at any point in the past 500 years. It’s far too vague. The main differences between the War on Terror and WWII are:[ul][li]Nations fought nations in WWII[]The losing parties in WWII were not helped in the saddle by the winning parties. Granted, one could argue Hitler was left alone too long in the 1930’s, when signs of his true nature became apparent. But it’s not like the CIA helped him fast-track though the German military and political ranks. Neither did any intelligence force deploy him as a mercenary against another enemy in the past. Nazi Germany came about on its own volition, and Saddam and Bin Laden are problems at least partially created by poor US intelligence and diplomacy. []The losing parties in WWII clearly provoked the United States directly, either by attacking it, or by being officially allied to those that did. Al Qaeda is a terrorist fraction with a cell structure - not a nation Saddam had official ties with. Hell, as gobear had demonstrated, even the claim that Saddam tangentially helped out Al Qaeda is extremely qestionable at best.[/ul][/li][quote]
The “War on Terror” is equally a descriptive term, rather than a proof of relation between all fighting parties. Therefore your assertion that Bush is claiming that Iraq is responsible for 9/11 is false.
[/quote]
As already demonstrated, Bush has repeatedly tried in obscure and not so obscure ways to link Al Queda to Iraq. But let’s be extremely charitable for a moment, and assume that Bush had no ulterior motives with the comparison between the War on Terror and WWII. That he did not mean it to imply any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Why was he so incredibly vague about it? Why did he leave the door open for such obvious interpretations? Are all people objecting to this comparison idiots, including card-carrying conservatives like gobear (my hat’s off to him for changing his position in light of facts, BTW - living proof that there is such a thing as a conservative who isn’t blinded by partisanship)?
Or could there be something more at play here?
It’s election year. One of the most important factors in deciding the election outcome is the succes of the Iraq war. Up until now, it has been a complete fiasco from a humanitarian point of view, a financial point of view, and certainly a strategic point of view. The American taxpayer is hemmoraging money to subsidise a war that might benefit corporate America, but is lot more likely to make their country unsafer from terrorist than it was on September 12, 2001. And the only wildcard Bush can play in order to get support for that war is to link it to terrorism, since the American people will be in favour of a hard approach towards terrorists no matter what side of the political spectrum they favour. All the previous lies failed, and Bush is now playing his last card.
He’s squirming, and has resorted to propaganda in order to try to regain lost political ground.
Open your eyes.