Actually I think you will find that there are just many people that have the same independently reached anti-Bush opinion and are voicing it. I can understand that this is not what you want to hear, and that it may be easier for you to cope if you kid yourself that many people are singing the same tune simply for the sake of singing the same tune, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Unless you can meet and face down the actual arguments and facts, expressing the above opinion just makes you look lame.
Fact is, the Bush government has done things recently that have pissed off even many moderates and conservatives. I can think of a number of posters who have said “I’m generally conservative and generally vote Republican but this guy’s lost my vote”.
And when lefties and moderates and some conservatives on these boards have all reached the same view, the remaining conservatives are going to be in the minority. You can continue to kid yourself this is because all those that disagree with you have suddenly become sheep, or you can accept there is a reason why most don’t agree with you.
Yeah, there are people like that. There are also people who are utterly irrational when it comes to Bush, and they’re really freakin’ loud.
In the debates I’ve read, Bricker has shown a superb ability to face down actual arguments and facts. If this was USENET I’d have my newsreader automatically highlighting his posts–this board needs all the sharp, rational conservatives it can get, or our political “debates” are just gonna turn into 7-page long “Bush is a sux0r!!!” circle-jerks.
Being pissed at President Bush doesn’t make it rational to instantly assume that adjustments to the terror warning level are a political ploy.
That ain’t what Bricker said, and implying that he did is disingenuous.
One need not assume villainy, truth be told, I think the current Bushivik crew is too dim for real skullduggery.
Of course the elections are a natural target, this is not news. Since we are given to understand there is no specfic intelligence, it would appear that “chatter” is the most significant indicator.
But surely with an event so obvious as the election, you would naturally assume that rumors of an impending attack would circulate both amongst us and our presumed enemies. Its becomes entirely possible that all we see is rumors being spread amongst otherwise ignorant people, each assuming someone else is doing something.
The election is such an obvious target, it becomes pointless to mention it. But since there is no direct information, there is no urgency, they need not rush to the microphones, they can press release just about any day they like, Monday, Tuesday…well, why not Thursday? Good a day as any, gonna have to do it anyway, might as well get a little political ooomph out of it, no?
If it is nothing but a ploy, it ain’t worth much, they’re hunting grizzly bear with rabbit ammo.
I find that people who I’m arguing with who (as it turns out) are much to my annoyance basically right sound pretty loud in my ears.
Could be. But the subject was Bricker’s “bleating herd” comment, which was lame.
Indeed. This is relevant to what I was saying how, exactly?
Well OK he didn’t say all his opponents are sheep, but he implied the sheep factor was significant (otherwise why bother mentioning it). My comment was basically valid.
Yep, those guys hit us the last time on a really significant day in the USA. Chose one of our biggies, yep, they sure did.
Whatever else one may say about Osama and his boys, they are not stupid. They’re not going to get us on the Fourth of July or Election Day or even Bush’s birthday. IIRC Sept 11 was the anniversary of the Camp David accord. The next time they drop the bomb it’ll be on some equally obscure anniversary.
Gee, maybe this’ll get those twerps in the White House to read up on a little history, ya think? …nah.
You can take any day and find a news story that the administration might want to have drawn attention from. Personally, I think this has been a good week for Bush, and the biggest story in the news yesterday was about how Kerry and Edwards were the richest ticket ever.
KidC, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. If this announcement went out 2 weeks ago (or two weeks from now), the anti-Bush crowd would dig up some other news story that’s being “buried”.
It just seems that, for many of this crowd, outside of giving up the Presidency to Gore (or Kerry) there isn’t a thing Bush could do to please them. Over and over I see things that are ostensibly positive, but immediately get the negative Bush spin. Such as the Ken Lay arrest. I can’t think of a single person who thinks this is not a good thing, but god forbid we just say “thank goodness he’s finally getting charged.” It’s “Bush will pardon him.” :rolleyes: It’s tiring to hear nothing but venom from so many people, and frankly, any arguments they’re trying to make wind up on deaf ears.
No, there really isn’t much he has done to please us. It’s not that presidents make mistakes, it’s the sheer volume of them that Bush has made, and that he continues to be a stubborn fool about them.
If it’s positive, he probably has nothing to do with it, or it’s an accident.
Would you be surprised if he pardoned him? Just asking.
It’s tiring as hell to watch this total fool fuck up our country.
Then you damn well better start supporting your posts with a little reality. You don’t really know Scylla’s reasons for leaving any better than anyone else - he didn’t give us one, not even a “Screw you guys, I’m going home” post. You do recall, though, the thoroughly-deteriorated state his facts-to-insults ration had reached, though, don’t you?
It is certainly true that those diehards still defending this administration’s truthfulness and integrity are having an exponentially increasingly difficult time of it here, but whose responsibility is that?
Then you might reconsider that “bleating herd” crap, pardner. A case based on the predominance of the facts, however thin, is simple intellectual integrity. The opposing case, with no facts but with insults instead, is an example of what this board is intended to fight. Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup, as the dear departed Ann Landers would tell you.
While your belief that the warnings are actually derived from new intelligence is based on what, exactly? Blind faith, that’s all. The little evidence we do have points the other fucking way.
While by comparison Ridge has done what, exactly? Remember that the real subject is the administration’s actions, not some random anonymous poster’s. If you can’t, or would prefer not to, keep on topic, it’s best not to pretend you are - that shit never works here, as you oughta know by now.
Well, he’d still be Bush, which would mean he’d continue to be an unmitigated disaster for America.
No, really, unless you’re a rich person who puts his tax rates ahead of everything else, or unless you’re a member of the religious right who puts a premium value on Bush’s stacking the courts with evangelically correct judges, I’m at a loss to understand who else would think Bush is anything other than a total fuckup, and why they would think it.
That’s simply because you haven’t looked. It was in every paper.
And it’s a complete non-story, at least from what you are trying to spin it as. This is material that was sealed up and left in Iraq by the international nuke commission after the first Iraq war. They removed all the weapons grade stuff and left this stuff. After we came back in, the site was apparently left unsecured, and was looted, leaving the entire area radioactive.
Only this administration could manage to spin their own failure to secure and remove radioactive material for TWO YEARS as some sort of victory or as some sort of WMD find.
Question is: were you duped? And if so, how do you feel about being duped?
Kerry and Edwards were getting all the free publicity front page, eleven o’clock news time. Can’t have that.
So they pulled this shit. They tried playing the one card that some people in the middle still believe - that Bush is doing a good job against Terrorism.
It was pointed out by analysts the day before this shit came up that the Bush Admin would be desperate to try to steal some of Kerry’s free media exposure.
Personally, I would be surprised, but the thing is… Ken Lay being indicted has nothing to do with Bush. Outside of just deciding to take a poke at Bush, what’s the point of such a comment? Really, are you telling us anything other than “I think Bush is evil”? We already know that, most of you told us that 4 years ago.
Something good happens, Bush didn’t help it happen and will find a way to turn it to his evil purposes.
Something bad happens, it must be his fault.
Something is announced, let’s find the REAL reason he announced it now.
I get it, you all think he is evil incarnate, yay you. He’s a complete and total fuckup, the worst president in history and behind only Hitler and Stalin on the scale of evil, give him 4 more years and maybe he’ll get into first place.
It’s not the fact that people don’t like Bush, or think he’s a horrible president, it’s that the dislike reaches pathological levels far beyond what (to me) seems sensible, and all that comes out is hatred.
You think Kerry/Edwards is the reason this announcement was made because you hate Bush. How bout this, is there any evidence that this announcement was decided upon hastily, in response to Kerry? I haven’t seen any, you’re coming to that conclusion because you expect it from Bush, you hate hiim, and that explanation fits right in with your opinion. If there IS evidence that this was a response to Kerry, I’d be more than happy to consider it.l
My problem with Bush is that I actually trusted him once. I think I’m justified to feel that my trust was abused. Abused at a time when our country should have been standing side by side in a righteous cause.
Instead I find myself jaded at anything coming out of this administration. Part of me thinks that the terrorism warning is completely legitimate, but then I look at all the other things this administration has pulled, and that part takes the back seat.
I really wanted Bush to stand up and do the right thing after 9/11. Heck, I even liked Rummy and enjoyed the 60 Minutes segment on his straight forward demeanor. But everything has gone so down hill in those two years. Rummy’s not so straight forward these days. And Bush hasn’t been doing much to convince me he can do the right thing.
And I’ll take a shot at the Crystal Ball. Cheney will have a “mild heart attack” and drop from the ticket. The GOP centrists will implore Bush to select McCain or Powell. He’ll ignore the centrists of his party and pick someone along the lines of Ashcroft.
Yeah, it’s pretty similar to 1992 - 2000 in that respect. Your point?
Besides, all you’re doing is saying, “You guys are just seeing what you want to see” while you’re doing the same.
The Democratic National Convention. Within three days of the convention, we’ll have either terror alerts, something shocking happen in Saddam’s trial, the capture/killing of ObL, or something else the Bush admin can use to say, “Look at me! Look at me!”.
I think you’re suffering from a bit of a delusion. While the pubbies were against Clinton, I don’t personally recall him being compared to the worst presidents in history, or the worst, most heinous world leaders in history. There were a few conspiracy cranks suggesting he committed crimes, the comparable cranks today suggest Bush ordered 9/11. The guys who thought Clinton was a bad president have fellas on the other side today saying Bush is worse than Kim Jong Il and Mugabe. People who thought Clinton disgraced the office can be compared to people today saying Bush was worse than Buchanan, Harding, Jackson, Hoover, or any of the presidents that lead our country to truly awful times. These arguments have been made right here on these boards, I think they’re laughable, but people seem to believe it.
World Eater, you may be right that the rest of america isn’t pissed off enough, but damn dude, running around with a red face, steam coming from your ears isn’t going to convince anyone. Comparing the man to Hitler isn’t going to make me think you have much of a well thought out argument. Not having a single positive thing to say just makes me think you “have it out” for the guy and don’t give a shit WHAT he does, you’re going to keep finding ways to slam him. What I see are people looking at 2 sides and always, always, taking the worst one.
Yeah, I’ll definitely agree with you here. I think what makes it tough to not shout all the time, is the constant stream of fodder he provides us. Yesterday it was the “terror warning”, today it’s the “whoops, the Pentagon’s dog ate my army records”. I’m sure tomorrow he’ll provide us with something new to bitch about.