Heathen!
Let me see if I can state this more clearly: I’m wondering why you chose to argue the particular points you chose to argue. Previous to my first post, you had posted twice. The first was in response to the OP:
The second one, in part, went like this:
Read what you posted again. Who are you arguing with, and are they present in this forum? That’s all I’m curious about. It seems to me that you read a not anti- Bush statement and subsequently applied a conservative brush to what Sampiro posted. I’m merely suggesting that doing so does not get anyone anywhere, especially if you argue points which aren’t being opposed by anyone else. Discussion of Bush’s commercial and relevant history certainly do have a place in this thread. However you didn’t “merely (bring) the instance into the debate.” You treated the OP as if it contained sentiment to the effect that Bush’s commercial was OK, and the mosaic is not. I believe that was counterproductive in the context of what the OP said. No more, no less. I’ve got no bone to pick with you about the war in Iraq. I would just ask that you be more careful about assigning positions, so to speak. That’s what they do… :eek:
I don’t see it as painting the OP in a conservative brush, as I do in painting the Moore instance in a liberal brush.
Here, I am merely pointing out that the context has a lot to do with it - the person who presents the art puts a spin on how the art is perceived. It is not inherently disrespectful - though it is disrespectful when used from a certain viewpoint.
I’m defending the creator and Moore a bit here, but mainly stressing that it is not hypocritical, as Bush had a direct impact on the events, whereas the mosaic is merely social commentary. I don’t see how this is calling the OP a neocon.
As I said, it is not so much an anti-Bush thing as a defense of the mosaic thing. This thread itself and the OP’s comments are an assault on the meanings of the mosaic, and in my opinion, on free speech. I am merely defending that. It so happens that defending it makes one take a somewhat “liberal” viewpoint to contradict the charges, naturally placing the opposition in a more “conservative” light. I don’t see where I called or implied that the OP was a conservative.
I think that this is a bit of a threadjack to be discussing at length, and a bit of a nitpick, given that one of the purposes of debate is to take opposing viewpoints, but so be it.
It’s not that difficult really. I am anti-Bush due to his domestic policies (or, in some instances, lack of), particularly his lack of concern for environmental issues, the potential evils of the PATRIOT Act, his coziness with the religious right (even if I weren’t gay I’d think that proposing an amendment to define marriage- an issue for the states if there ever was one- was the most asinine constitutional meddling since Prohibition), general hypocrisy, complete lack of eloquence (more than a trivial matter in an world leader) and seeming lack of knowledge on key issues of world affairs, income and inheritance tax breaks for the richest Americans, etc etc etc…
As for the war, I do believe that Bush lied about WMDs and that our objectives in Iraq are unclear and that we are not using best intelligence or judgment in many aspects of the war. As to Hussein’s involvement or lack of with bin Laden and September 11, I can see an argue either way, though without sufficient evidence to convince either way.
However, removing the issues of WMDs from the equation altogether, Saddam had given us ample provocation to justify military intervention: his failure to cooperate with weapons inspections, his targeting of American aircraft, his refusal to account for the more than 3,000 tons of weapons grade chemical elements (including 26,000 liters of anthrax) and thousands of rocket launchers, his continual violations of at least a dozen other U.N. sanctions and then the issue of his human rights violations (on par with Stalin and Pol Pot in some regions) all lead to a justification for major military action. For the U.N. to turn a blind eye and say “well, what can you do?” makes it look like the toothless dog it is (why pass sanctions that won’t be enforced if broken? Rather like an indulgent parent who continually threatens to spank a bratty child but never does).
I have no sympathy for Saddam and the war, in and of itself, is in my opinion justified. How its managed once started is a different matter.