A. Phil, I thought you were a liberal-leaning libertarian. I apologize if I’ve misapprehended you, but I didn’t think I was “jerking my knee” at a “nonliberal”.
B. I’ve probably put in more time than any other self-identified liberal in GD chastising the folks you mentioned. Go and be “holier-than-thou” with someone else.
C. Unless you’re talking about fiscal or social philosophy, it’s rank foolishness to imply that members of one political camp or another are more prone to partisanship than any other camp. If you did not mean to imply that, then your remark identifying “primarily liberals” as being the culprits was ill-considered, IMO.
D. Partisanship, if presented respectfully, is no more misplaced during a national crisis than at any other time.
[/quote]
Having said the above, I wish to unequivocably deride curious george and Chas.E for their foolish remarks.
Stoid, however, unless I’ve missed something, has been extraordinarily careful to avoid deliberate contentiousness.
Refute the remarks, not the poster. If you can’t come up with anything more serious than “foolish remarks” then obviously you can only fling ad hominem remarks, which is the lowest form of argument.
You could start by refuting my assertions that Bush ignored critical international relations while spending all his time sucking up to weak allies like Mexico. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for your refutation.
W is clearly not the strongest president in terms of foreign relations the country has ever seen. Of course, that honor might well belong to Nixon, and look where he ended up domestically.
That said, I’m not sure I’m ready to dismiss, out of hand, Bush’s interaction with Mexican President Fox recently. There seems to my admittedly amateur eye a great deal of value in gaining cooperation from our neighbor to the south for everything from enforcing drug traffic laws to managing unchecked immigration. Of course, as Chas.E suggests, dealing with Fox isn’t the challenge that Chirac or Schroeder represents – to say nothing of Jiang, for instance.
It also occurs to me that unless a presidential candidiate is a former State Department functionary, or a former Vice-President, he’s unlikely to have vast foreign policy experience when he comes to the job.
So I guess I’m in partial agreement – I think that Bush’s focus on Mexico is a relatively easy warm-up drill for a guy who has little foreign policy experience. But I’m not sure that’s entirely a bad thing.
As to the business about Bush being a child of privilege, and yet affecting Texas, home-spun, “coached” mannerisms… I don’t believe it. If you remove the “coached” allegation, I just might accept that it was possible that he decided to immerse himself in all things Texas, and consciously acquired the accent. Even then, I would ask - what of it? I had a friend who lived in Cambridge for two years and came back sounding like twelve generations of her family were Brits. An affectation, to be sure… but harmless.
Certainly fair game for kidding him and taking shots, though.
Chas.Edon’t ever hold your breath waiting for a post; you might pass out and hit your head.
I was not arguing with you, just deriding your remarks, but since you’ve asked for an argument, here goes:
Foolish remark # 1: “It is at times like this, when Jorge Bush wants to suspend our civil rights…” Now, I don’t disagree that Bush has an agenda which includes setting back a few civil rights, but tell me, Chas, because I missed it in the news, exactly when and how did Bush indicate he wanted to suspend our civil rights? Which ones does he want to suspend? All of 'em, as your statement implies, or just some of 'em? I want specific cites, including the dates and relevant quotations. Otherwise, this is just divisive rhetoric on your part, and a foolish remark.
Foolish remark # 2: “…it is insanely idiotic for a child of privilege, born in Kennebunkport, educated at Yale and Harvard, to pretend he’s a Texan, complete with faked accent and deliberately coached misprononciations.” Please show how a former governor of a particular state should not be considered a resident of that state. Also, please share your inner knowledge of Mr. Bush’s real accent, and the details of his “coaching” in miselocution. Otherwise, this is just divisive rhetoric on your part, and a foolish remark.
Foolish remark # 3: “Perhaps Jorge should have been paying attention to the SERIOUS international relationships instead of goofing around on El Presidente Vincente Fox’s broccoli farm.” Please demonstrate with facts and logic that a) our relationship with Mexico is not a SERIOUS international relationship and that b) Bush’s visit to Mexico’s new president was merely “goofing around”. Otherwise, this is just divisive rhetoric on your part, and a foolish remark.
As for your assertions regarding Bush’s foreign policy mistakes, you’d have to actually make some before I can refute them, instead of spouting off vague, general allegations of incompetence. Hey, I might actually agree with what you say if you can back it up with reason and factual information instead of jingoistic b.s.
xeno, you’re right and I apologize for my remarks. Let me phrase them this way, instead:
There is justifiable criticism to be made concerning former President Clinton’s dealings with terrorism, which were both inconsistent and ineffective. Now, however, is not the time to do so, and anyone who does is lacking in judgement.
Suggesting that President Bush was in some way inviting a terrorist attack, or is pleased that he now gets to engage in a military action that has already cost 5,000 human lives, is as close to evil as I have ever seen on this board, and anyone who suggests such a thing is a complete scum.
Bush & Rumsfeld have secretly been reworking the War Powers Act, Bush has implemented new executive orders regarding official secrets, which makes it easier to suppress public dissent and hold important policy decisions in total secrecy. Civil rights to oversee our government are disappearing. More wiretapping without warrants. The Government wants to ban domestic use of cryptography without secret “back doors” for government spooks. I could go on and on.
Many Texans consider Bush a carpetbagger. I remember the battle between Ann Richards and Bush for Governor, Texans probably do too. Bush was coached early in his campaign to hammer on the Texan “common man” theme even though he’s a New Englander.
Our relationship with Mexico is trivial. Mexico is not a high-maintenance relationship, like Russia or China. To consider Mexico our #1 international relationship just shows Bush’s inexperience at international politics. His handling of the China airplane crisis and his meetings with Putin don’t exactly inspire me either.
Cites, please? How are you privy to secret negotiations between Bush and Rumsfeld? How are civil rights to oversee our government disappearing? I haven’t noticed any Supreme Court decisions overturning the Bill of Rights lately.
How is Dubya not a Texan? He has worked in the “awl bidness” as Molly Ivins puts it, in Midland-Odessa, he co-owned the Rangers, he was governor of the state, for Krishna’s sake.
A. Mexico is a country ** on our border** with political instability (heard of the Zapatistas?), significant economic troubles, and a burgeoning under-30 population that heads to our country to work illegally in ever-increasing numbers. Setting up a guest worker program to help regulate immigration and to keep young workers in Mexico to stabilize its economy may not be #1 priority right now, but it’s certainly not trivial.
No argument there. Putin played Bush like a violin.
Thank you, xenophon; as ever, you can be counted on to see things in general, and me in particular, clearly and fairly. And most importantly, to say so publicly.
Bush has signed 25 executive orders since he took office, beginning with “Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” No. 13198, and ending with “Continuation of Export Control Regulations,” No. 13222.
Which of these 25 executive orders, specifically, do you contend involves official secrets?
Oh come off it. I am not a ruthless murderer terrorist like McVeigh or bin Laden. Or should I say, your efforts to silence my freedom of speech represent
conservatives as well as Hitler represents Germans?
I am sorry if I offended your delicate little mind, pld. Maybe you should only watch G rated Disney movies and stay away from the web. The fact is, history is full
of military and political leaders who have used war to bolster their careers, and have enjoyed doing so.
Look at the posts on this thread from January to March. It’s full of people who correctly predicted Bush would soon involve the USA in a war, probably with terrorists or Mid-eastern countries. We all expected it. Bush=war. Gore=peace. As I said, no, I can’t give a good explanation with evidence for why the terrorists attacked when Bush was in office, but I can offer possible explanations. Bush is a trigger happy cowboy. Some Arabs are made at GW because of his father’s involvement in the Persian war, etc.
BTW, you aren’t supposed to personally attack people in this forum and call them ‘complete scum’. Learn some manners. Obey the rules if you want to debate
people.
What “freedom of speech”? Are you under some perverted misimpression that the United States Constitution’s First Amendment places restraints on the actions of private citizens, the Chicago Reader, or the Straight Dope?
Maybe you should not make assertions which you cannot support, nor should you speak insolently to your betters.
I would reckon that few of them welcomed the unprovoked and deliberate deaths of 5,000 of their innocent civilians as a means to “bolster their careers.”
Except he didn’t. The United States was attacked by terrorists, and the United States is responding. If you have evidence that this was George Bush’s doing, please post it, otherwise please retract this statement.
Right. Because the Clinton administrations efforts against terrorism were so effective that terrorists would have paled at the thought of launching this attack while big bad Al Gore was in office. Do you really think they care who was in the White House right now?
So you admit you’re simply engaging in baseless, obscene speculation? Well, at least you’re capable of introspection. Thank heaven for that.
I didn’t personally attack anyone; I said that any person who performs a certain action is complete scum. If you do, I’m afraid you insult yourself. You certainly don’t need me or anyone else to do it for you.
The very concept of a person who suggests that George Bush welcomes the deaths of 5,000 Americans to give him “the war he wants” telling me to learn manners simply boggles the mind.
When I find a person, I’ll let you know.
(THAT, kiddo, was a personal attack. David and Gaudere, I apologize in advance, but I think it’s important that curious george be capable of recognizing one when it comes.)
What the hell is your damage? The attack was planned for YEARS. They were training with flight simulators before W was elected! You think they were going to keep things on hold for four to eight years if a Democrat took office?
Please explain in what sense Bush is trigger-happy. He campaigned on quasi-isolationist policy and staed explicitly his desire to stay out of any conflicts. And now, a full week after the worst sneak attack in the nations history he has done NOTHING! But to you, that makes him trigger happy.
I’m one of the last person on this board (heck, this planet) to be counted as a George W. Bush supporter, but even I don’t buy this argument. Anyone with a passing knowledge of middle east politics (and the United States’ wacko policy towards the same) knows that the terrorist attacks last week are a culmination of decades of hatred and intolerance and retribution and anger; Dubya just happens to be the guy unlucky enough to be at the post when they struck.
Could Gore have done a better job? Unlikely; he might have a different view towards US policy in the middle east, but he wouldn’t have had anytime to implement any of those policies – and for them to change anti-American terrorists’ minds – before the attacks. And as I’ve said in other threads, the United States really has to reassess its policies vis-a-vis the middle east, to stop this kind of stuff from haunting us well into the next century.
And pldennison’s comments aren’t worth dignifying with a reply. :rolleyes:
I am deeply disappointed that so many people who believe themselves to be poiltically progressive are willing to use filthy, unfounded libels against the President. I voted for Gore myself, but I don’t let my personal antipathy for Dubya make me willing to call him a traitor who collaborated in the slaughter of 5,000 of his fellow citizens for politcal gain.
That charge is monstrous, and anyone who has said that should retract it immediately.
If you can prove that Bush knew about or abetted the WTC and Pentagon attacks, show evidence or shut up.
If you prove that Bush has drafted secret orders to restrict civil rights, show evidence or shut up.
And stop calling him a “trigger-happy cowboy.” That was tired when people said that about Reagan.
On a personal note, Pld, if Peta Tzunami doesn’t mind, I wanna have your babies. You are my posting hero!
You are my posting hero!