You know what? I’m not JC, but I’m guessing that he’s saying that maybe, just maybe, the administration believed, based upon the information they had at the time, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. No grand conspiracy, no crusade, no revenge for a failed assisnation attempt on Bush Sr., no attempt to rally all of the gulible Americans into blind support for their policies under the guise of war. You can make your own judgement as to weather they were right or not, of course, but perhaps all of this “Bushies are evil warmongers” crap is nothing more than a political issue with the aim of getting the Democrats back in power.
I’m not taking a stance one way or the other( personally, I believe the invasion of Iraq was justified and the right thing to do, but I am disgusted with how this administration has tried to sell it to the American people. There were more than enough reasons to do it without inventing new ones), but I believe that whoever is elected President will be forced by reality into continuing the same types of policies in Iraq by simple reality, and in a dozen years we will be able to look back on this as the Genesis of policy that severly limits terrorism once and for all. YMMV.
All the negative stuff about Bush is true.
All the negative stuff about Kerry is bullshit.
See? Wasn’t that easy?
I feel your pain, Zev, but this is the Pit after all. You vent. You have every right to. Others vent back. They have the right as well. Some of them, unfortunately, the faaar right. Guess I’m stuck with what’s left.
Essentially, you consider him stupid and a moron because of his beliefs and his refusal to see the error of his ways when you logically expose the error in his argument.
So, you are invalidating the whole premise of this thread, which is, don’t consider people stupid for what they believe.
And, you can say “I’m not condescending towards you because of your politics” all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you are condescending towards him because of his politics, plus his refusal to change his mind after a well-reasoned (you assume) argument on your part.
Isn’t that what happens all the time though? People disagree with others and present (what they think are) well-reasoned arguments, and the other side fails to “see the truth”, so people consider the other side stupid.
Of course, you might say, “but in this particular case, he *is * being stupid”, but that’s what people always feel when people from one side of an argument fail to convince the other side of the “obvious” truth.
My point it that, contrary to the general trend in this thread: “Let’s not think lowly of our opponents because of their beliefs”, it’s near impossible to do so in practice, especially when people feel strongly about the issues.
Maybe I shouldn’t have posted it in the first place. In fact, I’ll apologise now for doing it. But Ghanima had some legitimate fears, and I do think there are whiffs of things that Dr. Britt listed in the air. Unfortunately I didn’t have time to go through and list the things I had problems with regarding this administration (like the “Patriot” Act or how “liberal” has become a dirty word). That’s why I shouldn’t have posted it. That was stupid of me, and again, I apologise. I think you went way overboard on your reply though, considering that I SAID I’m not that far gone (to see fascism around every corner).
Is this what the kind of thing the OP was talking about?
Ack, that’s mighty silly-sounding. Preview was my friend, but I pissed it off.
Most of the people I have problems with, and who have problems with me, don’t agree 70 or 90 or 99%. They’re on the other side of the planet. They’re on the other side of the universe from me. I’d guess 10%, simply because we all like to eat and sleep and not get run over by busses. There’s the occasional 40-50%er, maybe.
I don’t “antagonize” people for reasons that are silly and stupid. Generally, give or take the odd Bush looking like a doofus for 7 minutes in the classroom, it’s about important things, life and death and the future of the country. If I’m bad at expressing myself, and I realize I most certainly am, all I can say is that my heart is in the right place. If it turns black, there’s a reason.
I have a granddaughter who’s growing up in a scary world, and a nephew who’s in the military and who might just have to go to Iraq. I can imagine HER face on the faces of those children. I can imagine HIS face on the faces of those soldiers. My anger may not be an intelligent, productive anger (I highly admire those who can channel in such a way) and I’m not happy with myself because of it, but at least I cared. So many don’t. Too many don’t.
Every day brings at least one new outrage by this administration, sometimes several. It’s very frustrating when I know that any one of these things, in a Democratic administration, would bring howls of rage and calls for heads rolling, yet because it’s a Republican in office, they’re disregarded. Constantly. Relentlessly. Endlessly.
My “credibility” is not at issue here. The truth is at issue, and Bush supporters will do anything to deflect attention off of the issues and that’s another frustrating thing. If the issue is dead Iraqi children (I realize I brought it up), it becomes about my credibility. If the issue is 380 tons of missing explosives that is being used by insurgents to kill our troops, it becomes about something Drudge pulled out of his ass (that was debunked almost immediately). If the issue is about ANYTHING negative regarding Bush, it becomes about how nasty the liberals are.
Wanting to tell others things that are happening is a study in frustration for me. For one, I’m not good at it, and two, nobody’s listening anyway (except those who already share my horror). So in the end, it really doesn’t matter whether I am calm or angry. It’ll either be ignored or I’ll be jumped on for being “hysterical.” It’s a problem that I can’t do much about.
Since it’s so close to the election, I can somewhat imagine what the anti-Nixon people went through in the days before his 2nd election. They were trying to get the word out about the administration, but few were listening, and he got re-elected. Obviously there are massive differences. Far more people died in Vietnam, and he didn’t start it anyway, but he did escalate it. Also, 43’s administration’s corruption makes Nixon’s look like a schoolgirl’s tea party.
I have been trying to temper my temper (which, btw, ONLY rears up when it comes to politics; few would believe how incredibly mellow and laid-back I am at all other times) and I’ll continue to do so. It’s getting easier to keep my wits about me for a few reasons. First, I really do think now that John Kerry will win the election. Second, I’ve come to terms with the fact that he may not. I’ve already said elsewhere what I think will happen if Bush wins. Win or lose, the history books will tell the final story and I have the satisfaction of knowing that they will not be kind to him and his fellow neocons. Even if those history books have to be written and reside in other countries.
(Polerius, thanks.)
And I believe that if it is the right thing to do, then that is how you sell it. We are all adults here.
That is the system. If there is an idea that the ‘right thing to do’ exists in the abstract I’m not buying it. If you believe in your cause then show the courage of your convictions.
I’ve long speculated that a lot of the pro-war rhetoric came from informed people who more or less knew that what the anti-war people were voicing was correct, but went along with the Govt’s line, because that is the way these things are done.
The flipside of this, I think, may be all this muttering about liberal media bias coming out of that mentality. The practical impossiblity of declaring out loud “we had to go invade some middle east country to make America feel better and show those Arabs who’s boss.”
Just curious but it’s hard to tell when reading the lines and in between them too…but Wierddave are you defending Bush or not? It’s kinda hard to tell from some of the things you write.
Sorry Zev… but I got lost in the barrage of mud pies being tossed around the room.
No, he’s not defending Bush. And it is hard to tell sometimes, because neither of us are too hip to Kerry, either. We’re going with the lesser of the two evils. In fact, I already have (I voted absentee) since I won’t be here for the next three weeks.
And thank God for that. People will wish for the civility in this thread after Election Day and every day until the court challenges and the"stolen election" stuff is resolved (in other words, January 19, 2005). I’m so glad that I won’t be around to read it, lest I become tempted to post, which is not an option (at least I don’t think it will be).
I think we just want it to be over so people will shut the hell up.
I know that feeling. If it were only possible. I asked because he made a reference to the “idiot bush”. It seemed a bit out of character.
I hate both the sons o bitches, so I’m just fucked. I’m writing in Cecil Adams.
I experienced Bush first hand in Texas for years…nuff said.
and the biggest impression I ever got from Kerry was when he did that cameo appearance on Cheers many years ago…recall Cliffy and Norm thought he was a Kennedy and asked him for an autograph. They were so disappointed when they learned who he really was, yep me too.
Know what’s funny? I was about to post the exact same thing - only, it was gonna be a joke when I said it! I was about to be all, “Yeah, the political discourse has turned into nothing but namecalling and partisan hatred. And you know whose fault it is? Republicans!” It was going to be a funny funny joke, all ironic because I was going to be engaged in the exact same behavior that I was condemning! It would be absurd!
The thing is, rjung beat me to it. And the really funny part is, he’s serious! It is to laugh!
rjung, a plea. One crazed liberal extremist to another: try to be nice about these things, ok? It’s not always their fault when politics gets ugly.
I don’t normally agree with Shodan, but this, frankly, is true. The Democratic Party - not Democratic voters, but the party machinery itself - seems to have no vision at all anymore. I think a lot of the vitriol coming from my side is actually misdirected rage. It really pisses me off to acknowledge that the guy I’m voting for has nothing going for him besides not being bad. He doesn’t support gay marriage. He’s lukewarm on abortion rights. He hasn’t promised to get us out of Iraq, or send troops to Sudan where there’s real troubles. His health insurance scheme won’t do anything for a lot of the uninsured, and he’s talking up a tax cut for the middle class as though taxes are the biggest problem facing the country right now.
Unfortunately, all us hippie progressive types are stuck voting for Kerry, who doesn’t represent our views in any meaningful way, in the hopes that he’ll turn into a real liberal once he takes office. But instead of admitting it, we scream louder about how bad the other side is (and, frankly, I think we’re right about that) because it’s easier than admitting that our guy is about as exciting as dry toast.
It’s my understanding that songs used to be sung about how ugly Abe Lincoln was. This was done as a campaign tactic. I’ve never heard evidence suggesting that politics were clean in the past.
The fact is that negative campaigning dislodges voters who are close to being undecided and makes them fair game for the positive ads to bring them to another candidate. If you expect a close election, expect a lot of negative campaigning. If you can’t appreciate that aspect of campaign strategy, then I seriously doubt you really are into politics.
Additionally, discussing whether the President and his administration has committed a serious war crime by committing an action that has been proscribed and denounced by the international community since The Caroline incident is a very necessary part of the political process. The idea that such an important question is worth being pitted because of your delicate sensibilities is offensive in the extreme.
If you want to denounce push polling, dishonesty, and unethical behavior, then that’s fine. However, attacking politicians on their weaknesses and engaging in debate on critically important questions, such as Could the President be convicted at the Hague for war crimes?, are not only legitimate, but desirable.
Hang on… I’m bascially on the completely other side of the issue here, and I don’t disagree with much of what you said. I certainly don’t think that Bush’s mindset was “well, I know that this war will be a disaster for America, but it will make me richer… now, how can I fool those poor saps in the American public?”. What I do think is that the motivation to go to war came from a variety of things put together, at least some of which was some combination of bloodthirstiness, a desire to use all those neat military toys we have, a desire for vengeance, etc. And I think once that decision was made, a lot of underhanded and basically dishonest things were done, particularly when it came to describing what the motivations for the war were, and claiming that all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted.
So I don’t think that Bush actively knew that there were no WMDs, and just decided to lie about it out of true cynicism. I do, however, believe that the administration as a whole had decided to go to war, and once it had so decided, it was willing to grab onto motivations and wring far more out of them than was really there. And I can’t forgive that.
The irony is that what the Bush administration did was 100% typical political behavior that is done by everyone, all the time. You have some goal for a variety of reasons, some respectable and some less so, but you more-or-less-fabricate the most reasonable, decent, and benevolent seeming justifications for why you’ve made the decisions you’ve made. Everyone does it. The difference is, the Bush administration wasn’t trying to lower some tarriff or deregulate something, they were Taking The Country To War. That’s why their actions are so inexcusable.
Actually the presidency IS the topic of this thread. That is, the fact that people won’t stop talking about the presidency and the current election, in hateful language. And yes I do see the irony that this happened in this thread.
My point is that what you call vitriol and hatred, others may see as legitimate concerns and issues that need to be discussed. And that works both ways. For example, someone might think that religion is a major issue in this race, and they have legitimate concerns about Kerry’s faith. Opposition immediately attacks this as an irrelevant partisan non-issue. Or, conversely, someone may have concerns that Bush is doing everything possible to make abortion illegal and unavailable to women. But someone else will attack that as an irrelevant partisan non-issue. Both sides get to point at the other and say “they hate christians” or “they hate non-christians” or whatever. I’m saying that what is being called partisan attacks are not all partisan attacks.
I have never seen anyone refer to abortion as an “irrelevant partisan non-issue.”
But the problem is, even what you consider “valid points” are so laced with hyperbole and hysteria that they insist upon not being taken seriously.
You yourself stated
and I have no idea under what scenario you can possibly believe this. The only way I can interpret this statement is to believe that you follow the same logic that Equipose alludes to and others state loudly- that this adminstration is actually a Nazi front, and once they win re-election, they’ll take the unwanted behind the chemical sheds and shoot them. That is not a rational statement. But I cannot see any other way to interpret “death” from your above statement.
But this is the exact kind of demonization and stupid, flawed logic that permeates discussions. Bush is anti-abortion? Then he’s a misogynist who believes that women are things and deserve to stay at home baking cookies. Bush hasn’t pushed for affirmative action? Then he’s a bigot who really wishes for the good old days of segregation and lynching. Bush is against gay marriage? Then he obviously wants to round up the gays and put them in camps, like his idols the Nazis did. The extreme jump between “the President is not furthering my goals” to “The President wants to undo everything that has every been accomplished” just stuns me.
I’m not saying the points are invalid, Ghanima. Abortion rights, tax policies, gay marriage, foreign policy, environmental policy, military funding, welfare spending–these are all “legitimate concerns.” Don’t you see the difference, though, between “I disagree with Bush’s position on the death penalty” and “Bush is a filthy murderer! Look at all the people he killed as Governor of Texas”? The first one is statement of an issue. The second is vitriol (and not even true–he didn’t make the laws, convict the criminals, set the sentences, or flip the switch).
My question (and I think it’s Lev’s, too) is why during this election, people can’t seem to talk about how they feel on a certain issue without screaming obscenities about each other’s candidates.
You gave the example of abortion rights. Why does George W. Bush’s opinion scare you any more than George H.W. Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s did? Or do you disagree that this election is angrier and nastier than the previous ones?
Prove me wrong, then, using the same challenge I gave Airman Doors: tell me who were the left-wing pundit-nuts who were badgering Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush during their terms of office.
