The "Say Something Nice About Bush" Thread

The BBQ Pit
141

I am truely sorry, but I did NOT invite you personally to make a fool of yourself. You did that all by yourself, and blaming me for it doesn’t change it. I can only judge you by what you say to me, and I have NO intention of going back and reading 450 or so posts just to get a feel for your ignorance of lack there of. You are going to have to make a logical argument based on some facts or, quite frankly, you just come off as trying to bash someone because there is nothing else you can contribute to the discussion. It is my main reason for posting what I did here. I am sick of Ignoramuses bashing the President. Ignorant being defined as uninformed in this case.

I am sure you are an intelligent person.

However you and several other posters on this thread are attacking the President because the liberal MEDIA has led you into it. For your edification, I do read a lot and I read opinions from BOTH sides as well as INTERNATIONAL opinions and polls. Because I AM informed, I can make a logical factual argument.
May I remind you that you are bitching about the length of a post???

You can dop better than that now can’t you?

Danae

142

I wish folks would lay off Danae.

Her posts here have been full of INTERESTING verisimilitude, chock full of FACTOIDS which compel one to reexamine one’s fundamental beliefs, and I am very much IMPRESSED by her lengthy screed in this thread, which I will read in depth as soon as I lay in a large supply of ASPIRIN.

143

Jack Batty!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

thank you!!!
danae:)

144

Yeah, here’s one: why do you think writing what you think Clinton did wrong is saying something nice about Bush? If there was thread asking for positive things about Clinton, would you write a bunch of hard-to-read text about the mistakes Bush the Elder and /or Reagan made?

It’s sad when the only good thing you can say about a person is that he isn’t the demonized image of his predecessor.

145

You’re welcome.

You nitwit, you.

146

One word: strategery.

147

That post was longer than my Doctoral Dissertation, and I don’t want to read that either.

Another nice thing about Bush as that what the OP is about.

His supporters are more protective than a rabid mother weasel with cubs, and Paranoid delusional disorder.

148

To set the record straight, the reasons that I am (as you claim) attacking Bush have nothing to do with the fact that the so-called liberal media have lead me to do so. For that matter, as you seem to be so well informed, I invite you to cite just how it is that the media as we experience it has a liberal bias.

That being said, the reasons that I despise our current president have everything to do with his self-professed values. When I don’t find them distasteful, I tend to find them downright repellent. As far as the economy is concerned, I recognize that there are many more factors that one can really account for, and at times I question just how much any administration can really influence the market.

In any event, yes, I was commenting on the length of your post. On that front, all that I can point out is that the whole point of language is communication. If you are using language in such a way as to obscure, rather than reveal your ideas than you are either bullshitting, or commanding the skill ineptly (my apologies right off the bat if English is your second language).

149

Jackmannii -

** WOW!!!**
verisimilitude (n)

truth, credibility, authenticity, reliability, plausibility, likelihood Antonym: falsity

I had to go look that one up! Killer word of the day!!

Yea, Asprin is a must with that one. It is as I mentioned, long. But it is all factual. Facts that I was not fully aware of until I did a lot of indepth reading about just what the Clinton Admin was or wasn’t up to as the case may be. And bin Laden. We can all go into “what if’s” till the cows come home, I just wish that people would turn on the lights and start smelling what the Liberal Media and the Democratic party have stuffed under our noses. It is stinky with out a doubt, and yet, here many posters sit bashing Bush… WAITING for the Democrats to come back in 04 to save them…
No wonder Americans are seen as ignorant in the world.

150

Danae, do you believe everything you read? Do you ever think for yourself?

A good rule of thumb for me is whenever anyone whips out “The Liberal Media” capitalized as such, as an argument, I file it in the “Klinton’s Amerika” file (although you have displayed a quirky use of capitalization, so maybe I oughtn’t read into that … nah).

I.e. - tripe, repeated by rote. Catch phrases of holders of sour grapes.

All your points are so friggin’ murky, they barely make sense, let alone may they be held up as truths.

I know what I’ve seen, and I know my opinions of them. Bush’s economic plan makes no sense. He’s cut taxes, and upped spending and now he seems to have no qualms committing billions of dollars on a needless war. Where’s the money going to come from? His trust fund? I don’t think so.

And just what is he protecting the American people from? Al Queda? Bullshit. I get the feeling that the only reason he’s going after Hussein is because his plan of kicking the shit out of Bin Laden and company proved to be a little too hard up thar in mountains of Afghanistan.

It just doesn’t make sense. One group hits our country hard, and we go after a essentially unrelated group.

And there is his set of morals, which I actually have no problem with if he could discuss them with slapping a bible across my face. Separation of church and state means less than nothing to him and he is a person who has pledge to uphold that very concept.

I think the man is intelligent enough to have run a winning (benefit of the doubt there) presidential campaign, but he is seriously misguided, and power hungry. For the love of Pete, virtually every country on the planet has told him that they disagree with his plan of invasion … and he doesn’t give a shit. He proclaimed publicly that he doesn’t pay any attention to protesters … you know, his constituents.

He is our president, not our dictator – which is what he acts like.

151

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Binarydrone *
**
For that matter, we all know how well numbers under 50% have served Bush before…
QUOTE]

What’s that supposed to mean? Are you talking about the popular vote?..Last I knew, presidential elections were won by the electoral college.

152

So what international law are we talking about?
The U.N. is the one ignoring international law…Resolution 1441 to be exact.

153

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cheepdogg *
**

of course, I didn’t see Bindary denying that, merely pointing out that less than 50% numbers haven’t seemed to hurt him in the past.

(re: your next post, you are aware, aren’t you, that ‘international law’ contains more than merely the Iraqi resolution, aren’t you? I knew that you were… )

154

Yea…but WHAT law are we talking about?

cite?

155

You just leave Danae alone about THAT little habit!!! “Random” words indeed!!!

Psssssssssssst Danae, they’ll pester you to death about capitolizing for emphasis no matter how many other boards you learned in on SDMB is the “be all and end all” of online communities doncha know? :smiley:

156

I’ve seen Nikita Khrushchev emphasize less with a shoe in one hand.

157

well, you certainly must be aware, I would think that Isarael, for example, is also in violation of UN resolutions, that the US on a has, on several occasions ignored international law regarding non citizens’ right to seek assistance from their embassy when accused of crimes (in particular capital crimes), we’ve got a rather bad record on that. Just off the top of my head.

those are two that are fairly well known pieces.

now, if you make me dig up the specifics, I’ll be wanting you to promise in advance to admit that your ‘oh, like the Iraqi’s violation of UN resolution…’ is just that - one example of violations of UN resolutions, and that if the US were really serious about that being the sole legitimizing rationale for the proposed war, that we should be preparing to launch quite a few wars on the UN’s behalf, and against some of our allies as well, (not to mention cleaning up our own little corridor).

okey dokey?

158

I think you really hit a nerve there Danae…:smiley:

They’ve resorted to making fun of capital letters and post length!
Give 'em hell, Danae.

Give 'em hell.
:stuck_out_tongue:

159

Really? Did you happen, by any chance, to actually read SC1441? Or the UN Charter, for that matter? Or are you happy simply to accept the President’s self-serving interpretations?

While it may be rather unseemly to quote one’s own posts, i recently looked at exactly this issue in another thread, and what i said there represents my position fairly well, so i’ll repeat it here:
The information Bush has, or claims to have, is irrelevant to the illegality of attacking Iraq without UN support. So is the question of whether he shares such information with the American public. The UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, expressly forbids the use of force against another nation except in specific circumstances.

From the UN Charter:

Article 2 (4)

The two exceptions to the ban on the use of force are when force is authorized by the UN Security Council, or when a country is acting in self-defence. These exceptions are outlined in:

Article 42

Article 51

While some have argued that Article 51 implicitly includes the right of self-defence against an “imminent threat,” the Article itself makes so mention of this. And even if it did, the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate - to the American people and, more importantly, to the UN Security Council - that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. Nor does UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which Bush constantly referrred to in his recent speech, authorize force as a remedy for its violation. The US needs to get permission from the Security Council if it is to use force in order to punish Iraq’s failure to comply with SC1441. [Nowhere does 1441 compel the Security Council to use force, so the fact that the Security Council is currently opposed to force does not mean that they are “ignoring international law.” - this sentence added for this post.] If Bush goes to war without Security Council approval, it will be a violation of the UN Charter, and an illegal act.

The National Lawyers Guild gives a much more comprehensive overview of SC1441, and analysis of US and UN attitudes to it, here. (note: this is a pdf file)

160

And, to help wring out a bit with evidence for his/her position, this website points out that the current countries in violation of the most UN Security Council resolutions are :

  1. Israel (currently in violation of 32 resolutions)

  2. Turkey (currently in violation of 24 resolutions)

The site also states:

Now, i am fully willing to concede that whether or not to invade a country should be determined by more than the single issue of Security Council violations. And i’m not, by pointing out these figures, saying that i believe the US or UN should invade Israel or Turkey. But, given that the US is making such a big deal about Iraq’s defiance of the international community (in the form of the Security Council), i think it’s reasonable to point out that Iraq is not alone in doing this.

Also, if an administration is concerned about Iraq’s defiance of the Security Council, as the Bush administration seems to be, then why is that same administration making it clear that, if the Security Council doesn’t vote the way the US wants, it will defy the Security Council and make war on Iraq anyway? Does defiance of the UN suiddenly become acceptable when the the UN Security Council opposes the United States?