moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1568530:date=Sep 30 2006, 12:38 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 30 2006, 12:38 AM) [snapback]1568530[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I love George Bush, and Laura Bush, and his daddy, and his brother Jeb. Republicans FTW, and no - don't bother impeaching him. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? What do you consider to be his successes?
<b>A few of George Bush's successes:</b> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
1. He has successfully rid America of that troubling budget surplus and turned it into a $500 billion deficit.
2. He has successfully helped America's trading partners have the highest trade surplus with us in America's history.
3. He has successfully lowered the taxes for the richest Americans and corporations at the expense of 99% of the American population.
4. He has successfully started another Viet Nam in Iraq after lying to the whole world.
5. He has successfully pushed the price of gas up to the highest level ever here in America.
6. He has successfully allowed American corporations to dramatically increase their pollution.
7. He has successfully thrown about 10% of the population out of work.
8. He has successfully allowed corporations to export our best middle-class jobs.
9. He has successfully divided our country as never before.
10. He has successfully driven our oldest allies away.
11. He has successfully united the terrorists as never before (he said all along he was a uniter, not a divider).
12. He has successfully broken his oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.
13. He has successfully united Democrats (yay!) as they haven't been for years (I told you he was a uniter).
<!--quoteo(post=1568558:date=Sep 30 2006, 06:38 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Sep 30 2006, 06:38 AM) [snapback]1568558[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <b>A few of George Bush's successes:</b> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /> 7. He has successfully thrown about 10% of the population out of work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=Sep 1 2006:name=US Dept of Labor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(US Dept of Labor @ Sep 1 2006)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 128,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, so I'm only jumping on one of 13, but most of them don't rely on factual information anyway--making them hard to prove or disprove. For example, the price of gas: without even mentioning how much the price of gas has dropped recently, the assertion is silly because the president really doesn't have any power over the price of gas to begin with.
3. Any tax break of an across the board nature will aid the top earners more than the bottom. Considering (A) They earn more, there fore each percentage means more to them, and (B) You pay a higher tax rate the more you earn.
4. Point of opinion on the nature of Vietnam and Iraq. We're having much more success in Iraq than was had in Vietnam, and at least this time there won't be hippies and drugged up celebrities to call our soldiers baby killers when they get back... (Although Scumbag Phelps...)
5. Not his responcibility.
6. Kyoto had very, very little in the way of actual effect, and has been a strawman ever since.
7. Check the employment numbers above,
8. So did Clinton.
9. Incorrect, our country has always been divided, even after 9-11 it was still divided, the liberal side just wisely shut up for a while.
10. Such as? And in any case, the next administration will be more than able to repair relations.
11. By actually striking back, and treating them as what they are, a militia, instead of simple criminals.
12. True, however, it's far from a flawless document. And basic rights have been repealed before during times of war. You'll not the media is still publishing anti-govermental propaganda, so you can realise that argument holds no water, as that ability became criminal durning times of war a long, long time ago.
13. Democrats are not united, they can't be united, because they have too many special interest groups with different agendas. Besides, what you really want are the indepentant vote, you can basically count on the mind slaves (affiliated voters) to go with a straight party ticket no matter what... but more folks are registering independant.
As these are also mostly teenagers, they're likely to vote Dem, but the Dems are also seen as very weak on terror.
Also, I've only rarely heard a Dem offer an answer to how they'd do anything they complain about better.
Don't get me wrong, both parties are corrupt, are ruining this country, and need to be abolished.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I don't want this to degrade into a generic, pro/con on President Bush. There are too many issues to discuss in one thread, and there isn't much that people can really come to agreement on since there is so much disinformation out there. If you want to open up a debate on any specific topic, his effect on the economy for instance, open up a thread on it, and I'll be glad to engage.
I think there is some hope though of agreeing that all the evidence we have indicates he did something very illegal, and when the president does something illegal, he should be impeached.
I think there is some hope though of agreeing that all the evidence we have indicates he did something very illegal, and when the president does something illegal, he should be impeached. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This needs qualified. Generally, a president can't get through a term without doing <i>something</i> illegal. It could be as big as starting an unpopular, and therefore somehow illegal, war, or just a few hush-hush special forces missions that conviently disregard political boundries. Or it could be something domestic. When you're running a country, sometimes you gotta do some tough things.
The question we need to ask is, "Did Bush do something illegal <i>enough</i>, and do the ends, whether already or yet to be realised, justify the means?"
The really tough part about it is that we can't know all the variables. Even the president probably doesn't know everything - but he knows as much as any man can know it's safe to say, and he made a judgement call. The single greatest weakness of the Bush administration has been it's inability to keep the public happy and ignorant.
When we know too much about what's going on, we start to get ansy because somebody somewhere isn't going to like it.
It's like the old FDR question. In 21st century P.C. terms, FDR was disabled during most of his presidancy. In WWII era terms, FDR was a cripple. Weak, powerless. The true strength of a leader is that leader's ability to seem immortal; supreme. Like an officer riding gallently down the battle lines, oblivious to the rain of lead coming from the enemy.
Had FDR's secret weakness been leaked to the general public, would we have won WWII? This is not a question you can answer quickly. It requires a mindset we no longer have. When Germany swept across Europe, fear had the whole world in a stranglehold. If you think we're silly being a little afraid of terrorists today, whoa nilly.
All of these things are points you need to consider when deciding whether or not to impeach a president. Clinton's impeachment was ridiculous. Bush's may have more merit, but only because he's not kept us in the dark as to what's really going on. Then again maybe he has, who knows?
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Tale+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tale)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for evading the possible war crimes charges, apparently Bush is trying to ram a bill through the Senate that contains a full pardon for himself and everyone else associated with the 'terrorist' torture still going on, fully breaking the Geneva conventions.
Jesus goddamn christ I hate spin-doctoring, warmongering, Bush-loving republicans. (Republicans who hate Bush get my <3 though, for having at least two brain cells to rub together.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the president may be pardoned on this, the important thing to understand is that if it's taken as a pardon at all, it's a pardon for <b>everyone</b> involved with the torture of detained terrorist agents. He's basically taking care of his subordinates <b>as any good commander would</b>.
Can you imagine what would happen if there was a major outbreak of general court martials in the armed forces going from the high command all the way down the soldiers that were following orders? Number one it would be a mess, number two it would destroy the chain of command in ways no impeachment trial ever could.
Obviously, this is an extreme case, but a blood thirsty witch hunt for torture artists in our military would not, I repeat, NOT, be a good thing.
And would you please stop insulting me? It's not helping your case at all.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited October 2006
FDR was intelligent enough to hide his disability, and realize what it would mean if it ever came to light.
Bush is just a monkeyboy, and everyone across the globe (some hardcore repubs aside) have already realized he's a raving smacktard moron, more likely than not simply acting as a puppet and trying to ride on 'wartime' popularity, to the point of manufacturing an illegal war. Then again, republicans have always been good at spin. Scream about the liberal left media any time something undesired comes to light, and feed the red(neck)s through Fox.
And Rob, are you familiar with the term 'reacharound'? At this point arresting most of the current political system would be a POSITIVE action. After all, if they belong in jail, send them there. Of course, Bush would end up playing tennis with Martha, and wearing matching ankle-locators. Assuming they actually managed to keep him from weaselling out of the whole thing by shoving another bent bill through.
I call 'em like I see 'em. And if someone chooses to blindly follow party dogma, especially when it's f**king over the rest of the world, as well as our own country, I <b>will</b> call them a moron.
Then, you're a fool, Tale. Would you hack off both your legs in spite of your arms? We have troubles enough switching out our primary leader every few years without a shake up like that. Now just in the political system, in the military one, too. (they are seperate, you know) It could be disasterous. Not that I don't think we could use a good unrest in this country - the problem is most dem's don't want to take up their duty as Americans:
<!--QuoteBegin-"Declaration of Independence"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Declaration of Independence")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of that statement implores you to tear down your own government if you feel threatened by it. Hey- it's only sedition as long as the old guys are in power, right? If everyone who spouted off about how bad Bush is picked up a gun and charged the white house, they'd probably get him out of office. I shudder to think of how <i>they</i> would run the place, but we'll let that be aside.
More importantly, they don't have the nerve. Not that I blame them, it's a pretty big thing to start a war of independence, and it should not be undertaken by anyone without the ambition, the conviction, and the fortitude to see it through. Don't think the dem's have it, so we'll just have to sweat it out.
I'd rather believe that Bush has not screwed up the world so much as called them on all their BS. Clinton can talk about how people pushed him out of Somalia, and how he stayed longer than even the right wingers wanted after we lost some boys there, but the fact remains that he did pull them out. He did show terrorist that we can be manipulated with minimal deadly force.
If we pulled out of Iraq now, it would be doing the same thing. So, Bush has faced more opposition and resistence to his agendas than Clinton ever did - and he's stuck right to them. You can say he's switching motives, you can say he's stupid. But he's never looked back. And right now in a bunker somewhere there's probably a few Al Qaeda agents crapping themselves and going "what the hell was THAT for? Bush doesn't give a ish man! He just went in there and beat the hell outa that place."
I'm gonna say this isn't really offtopic because it's highlighting the possible gains to be had from Bush's actions, a key point in answering the question of whether we should impeach.
Give this a read, Tale: <a href="http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm" target="_blank">Bush is no moron</a>.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
If that's the best argument you can produce for the guy's intelligence rob then you're probably better off not mentioning it at all. Those of us who don't watch the news through republican tinted glasses can clearly see the guy is a moron.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> He did show terrorist that we can be manipulated with minimal deadly force. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arguably, bush showed this even more. He showed a minority of nutcases that all they have to do is sustain a low-cost terrorism campaign against the worlds last super-power to draw them into wars that benefit nobody but America's enemies. The war was ill-advised, poorly planned, understaffed, unjustified and unnecessary and <b>anyone</b> who pointed this out from within the bush administration was sidelined or dismissed.
Also, at the time Clinton pulled out of Somalia, it had nothing to do with terrorists. The US were there to keep the peace between local warlords.
In another 4 years this forum will be hosting a "Should we impeach president Hillary?" thread.
For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11? How could Kerry have made ANYTHING better given that there would have been a Republican congress?
If Kerry was president congress would have done everything in their power to make all of his efforts fail to make him look inept and vice versa.
Anyways, get over Bush. He'll be gone soon. You'll have your chance to vote.
Impeachment doesn't change the past.
If you REALLY care go hold a picket sign in front of the White House or write your congressmen.
<!--quoteo(post=1568743:date=Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]1568743[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If that's the best argument you can produce for the guy's intelligence rob then you're probably better off not mentioning it at all. Those of us who don't watch the news through republican tinted glasses can clearly see the guy is a moron. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably.
An SAT test score is damn sure good evidence of a person's intelligence - if not every college in the United States needs to rethink their entrance process.
<!--quoteo(post=1568743:date=Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]1568743[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Arguably, bush showed this even more. He showed a minority of nutcases that all they have to do is sustain a low-cost terrorism campaign against the worlds last super-power to draw them into wars that benefit nobody but America's enemies. The war was ill-advised, poorly planned, understaffed, unjustified and unnecessary and <b>anyone</b> who pointed this out from within the bush administration was sidelined or dismissed. Also, at the time Clinton pulled out of Somalia, it had nothing to do with terrorists. The US were there to keep the peace between local warlords. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm trying to tell you is that there was for sure a damn good reason to go into Iraq, at least as far as Bush was concerned. The one thing we CAN be sure of is that Bush himself thought the war was worth it, otherwise we would not be there.
And yes, Somalia wasn't about terrorism. It showed the terrorists our resolve though, we we FAILED to keep the peace between two warlords after we took a little bit of a beating. Most of the boys that went into combat that day wanted nothing more than to stay and finish the job.
Pulling out meant the lives lost were lost without purpose. The single worst thing Bush could do for the country right now is pull out of Iraq. That would negate the sacrifices of all of our lost soldiers instantly while at the same time telling the terrorists once again that we can't stay with something to completion.
As for sidelined and dismissed adminstration workers; I would expect nothing less. When the commander and chief sets and agenda and makes a decision, everyone in his adminstration has to get behind it and push it forward. That's the way a governmental body works. Internal disruption leads to failure. You must move as one, and that means you need to cut out the parts of the machine that don't push in the right direction.
The executive branch should not have any internal squabblings. It's left to the congress and the court system to keep the branch in check, not the branch itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1568453:date=Sep 29 2006, 06:34 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Sep 29 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]1568453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Disclaimer: This is my hardline, <i>objective</i> opinion on what's going on. It doesn't mean I practice or condone torture, but the understanding of its uses and inevitability are not mutually exclusive of my stance on the matter.
We americans are repulsed by torture. We consider it inhuman, and we, as americans, are above inhuman acts. Well we aren't. And torture is as much a human trait as love or indifference. What's happening today is that a concentrated group of individuals have taken the initiative and remained on the offensive, occupying a morale high ground from which they launch attacks on people who have using torture in its most effective manner.
Torture is not a good way to gain information. People will say anything after a certain threshold is reached. False confessions, sure, but those only serve it's true purpose: intimidation. People can drone on about the "spirit of freedom" as much as they want. "You can't kill ideas," and so forth.
But just ask Stalin. If one person rises against you, kill that person and 10,000 people like them. People will stop rising against you. We're nothing more than animals in this regard. Most of the population can be kept in line by the Alpha member exercising force. It's the difference between an obediant child and a "delinquent" one, between an orderly football team and one that gets alot of penalties.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." As much as the man may have been right, do you REALLY think his regime should be a role model for yours? "Stalin used torture to great effect, so why shouldn't we?" Please tell me I have completely and utterly misunderstood you. I see you advocating the use of torture to strike fear in the heart of the rest of the world. Are you that entrenched in the "us versus them" mentality, or am I misreading your post?
<!--quoteo(post=1568756:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:14 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 2 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]1568756[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." As much as the man may have been right, do you REALLY think his regime should be a role model for yours? "Stalin used torture to great effect, so why shouldn't we?" Please tell me I have completely and utterly misunderstood you. I see you advocating the use of torture to strike fear in the heart of the rest of the world. Are you that entrenched in the "us versus them" mentality, or am I misreading your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you quote my disclaimer and then ask what it answers? I'm conceding that torture happens, and trying to point out that by the rules by which we describe torture, we face it every day.
You're walking down the street and you trip. A bunch of people ridicule you. You're being <b>tortured</b>. It's psychological trauma meant to hurt you isn't it?
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1568755:date=Oct 2 2006, 03:12 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 2 2006, 03:12 PM) [snapback]1568755[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm saying that when you apply occam's razor to the situation, the only conclusion is that they guy is actually as dumb as he looks. Who are the 'we' you are referring to? I'm not caught up in your partisan politics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What I'm trying to tell you is that there was for sure a damn good reason to go into Iraq, at least as far as Bush was concerned. The one thing we CAN be sure of is that Bush himself thought the war was worth it, otherwise we would not be there. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, I have never seen bush present anything closely resembling his own reasoning on invading Iraq. All I've seen are some fudged accusations about WMDs and him constantly rewriting history since. I will not dispute that he may have personally believed it was the correct course of action, but I don't give a monkeys about his beliefs. He also believes in God, so I would consider his beliefs to be less than rational.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And yes, Somalia wasn't about terrorism. It showed the terrorists our resolve though, we we FAILED to keep the peace between two warlords after we took a little bit of a beating. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this current set of actions shows the terrorists that they can goad you into attacking anyone that looks at you crosseyed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Most of the boys that went into combat that day wanted nothing more than to stay and finish the job. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd rather leave the anecdotal speculation to fox news.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Pulling out meant the lives lost were lost without purpose. The single worst thing Bush could do for the country right now is pull out of Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd argue that attacking Iran would be a lot worse. Perhaps attacking Iran AND North Korea would be worse again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That would negate the sacrifices of all of our lost soldiers instantly while at the same time telling the terrorists once again that we can't stay with something to completion. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They already think that. With the very low commitment the US made in Iraq, it always looked like a half-assed job doomed to failure. Most of 'the coalition of the willing' was made up of token commitments with no real substance, and two ( read it <b>two</b> ) european governments fell for supporting Bush, and Blair's political career is in crisis due to it ( though not exclusively due to the bush relationship ).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> As for sidelined and dismissed adminstration workers; I would expect nothing less. When the commander and chief sets and agenda and makes a decision, everyone in his adminstration has to get behind it and push it forward. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I've heard this argument before, it was thrown around Nuremburg alot. A country that impliments a practice like the above, has really lost site of what patriotism means. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation, not your leaders. The supreme militiary commander should have to justify every decision he makes, and healthy debate, not regurgitation of the gop doctrine, is what guides a democracy through troubled waters.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's the way a governmental body works. Internal disruption leads to failure. You must move as one, and that means you need to cut out the parts of the machine that don't push in the right direction. The executive branch should not have any internal squabblings. It's left to the congress and the court system to keep the branch in check, not the branch itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good leader will delegate to experts and listen to their feedback. The Bush regime hires experts to parrot what they want them to say. I guess for this regime, the illusion of executive unity is sufficient. How many smart american leaders have to leave the circle before the republicans of america wake up?
I urge you to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/" target="_blank">The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara</a>.
For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11? How could Kerry have made ANYTHING better given that there would have been a Republican congress?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For a start, one doesn't have to have solutions to provide criticism. Secondly, I do think Kerry would have had huge problems facing a republican congress, and not being to most favoured politician over at the Pentagon would have made it worse, but there are still a lot of things that could have been done better. I'm not claiming that I would have done better, and I know that a lot of the criticisms people hand out are in hindsight, but that doesn't excuse president bush of his mistakes, nor the american public of their responsibilty to question him.
But for starters, it would have been a lot better if the US had worked with it's international partners to produce a compromise. When the US basically gave two fingers to the world and did it's own thing anyway, you burned most of your diplomatic currency.
Secondly, I would not have lied to my people and other countries about the fundamental reason for going to war. What happened to those WMDs?
Thirdly, there was so much expert opinion warning the US about the quagmire occupying Iraq would be, and that the Iraqi people would view the US as an invading force. Sound to me like a bad dose of history repeating itself.
Pretty much all of bush's arguments are rhetoric with no substance. The guy talks about god and liberty more than he does about the economic realities of occupying Iraq. Right now we have a situation where the purveyors of real politic are fudging the questions with propaganda and appeals to common decency, and the 'looney left' are the ones trying to ground the debate in reality. Whodathunk?
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No, I'm saying that when you apply occam's razor to the situation, the only conclusion is that they guy is actually as dumb as he looks. Who are the 'we' you are referring to? I'm not caught up in your partisan politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By 'you,' I mean everyone who repeatedly calls Bush a moron. By 'we,' I mean everyone who's tired of hearing it, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. The flip-flop part was a bit of a partisan slip.
Please describe the situation you're applying occam's razor to. You may be looking at different events than I am.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For starters, I have never seen bush present anything closely resembling his own reasoning on invading Iraq. All I've seen are some fudged accusations about WMDs and him constantly rewriting history since. I will not dispute that he may have personally believed it was the correct course of action, but I don't give a monkeys about his beliefs. He also believes in God, so I would consider his beliefs to be less than rational. And this current set of actions shows the terrorists that they can goad you into attacking anyone that looks at you crosseyed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How have terrorists goaded us into Iraq? I think we did that of our own accord.
Don't apply rationality to religious belief systems - that debate will never end in anyone's favor.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd rather leave the anecdotal speculation to fox news. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not speculation. There was a history channel special on the black hawk down incident. Every one of the soldiers interviewed who were there wanted to stay there.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd argue that attacking Iran would be a lot worse. Perhaps attacking Iran AND North Korea would be worse again. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Attacking the whole world at once would not be as big a morale blow to our own military as having lost lives for a cause abandoned. I can promise you that.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> They already think that. With the very low commitment the US made in Iraq, it always looked like a half-assed job doomed to failure. Most of 'the coalition of the willing' was made up of token commitments with no real substance, and two ( read it <b>two</b> ) european governments fell for supporting Bush, and Blair's political career is in crisis due to it ( though not exclusively due to the bush relationship ). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Decimating the Iraqi military within days or weeks and subsequently keeping a country together which has been dividing in idealogy for the last half-century with a minimal occupation force is not a small feat, and by no means a half-assed job.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yeah, I've heard this argument before, it was thrown around Nuremburg alot. A country that impliments a practice like the above, has really lost site of what patriotism means. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation, not your leaders. The supreme militiary commander should have to justify every decision he makes, and healthy debate, not regurgitation of the gop doctrine, is what guides a democracy through troubled waters.
...
A good leader will delegate to experts and listen to their feedback. The Bush regime hires experts to parrot what they want them to say. I guess for this regime, the illusion of executive unity is sufficient. How many smart american leaders have to leave the circle before the republicans of america wake up?
I urge you to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/" target="_blank">The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These points all all true - <b>before</b> the president has made a decision. Everybody seems to be looking at what happened after the president made his decision, assuming that he never consulted anyone. I'm sure he consulted someone, maybe many people. Once the decision is made, it's the job of the executive branch to shut up and make it happen.
It's the job of the senate, house, and supreme court to make sure the executive branch doesn't go ballistic. That's part of our mighty checks and balances system (cross yourself when you say it, folks! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />).
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Please describe the situation you're applying occam's razor to. You may be looking at different events than I am. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying the guy is so devoid of any semblence of intellect that I find it hard to accept that he's just a smart guy nervous of cameras. Some of the things he has said have left me gob smacked. When I see Bush speak on the news, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, and believe me when I say that it worries me a lot.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How have terrorists goaded us into Iraq? I think we did that of our own accord. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They goaded a reaction. One of the admitted purposes of the September 11th attacks was to provoke a reaction in that region of the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This is not speculation. There was a history channel special on the black hawk down incident. Every one of the soldiers interviewed who were there wanted to stay there. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh right, so we take the word of men who would look like cowards for saying anything else. Look Rob, I don't have the answers, I'm not even saying I know for certain that bush is wrong. I don't really think impeachment will solve all your problems, but I reject the concept of mindless obedience, which you seem to propose. I really hope that nobody comes away fromt this discussion thinking that I am in anyway anti-american, becuase that is not the case. I am very much anti-bush.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Attacking the whole world at once would not be as big a morale blow to our own military as having lost lives for a cause abandoned. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You aren't figthing to win morale, Rob, you are fighting to increase the security of the US.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Decimating the Iraqi military within days or weeks and subsequently keeping a country together which has been dividing in idealogy for the last half-century with a minimal occupation force is not a small feat, and by no means a half-assed job. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're obviously not watching the same news reports. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the area that the US has control over is shrinking daily. I don't think the situation is a complete loss, but given the way things are going, I expect things to get much much worse as long as bush is calling the shots.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> These points all all true - before the president has made a decision. Everybody seems to be looking at what happened after the president made his decision, assuming that he never consulted anyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush fired or marginalised *anyone* who disagreed with the objective of going into Iraq. The decision was not debated healthily anywhere. Anyone who suggested the president was wrong was pretty much accused of being unamerican. Does the term 'unamerican' not scare you?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm sure he consulted someone, maybe many people. Once the decision is made, it's the job of the executive branch to shut up and make it happen. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree, but I see there's no point in even discussing it with you. You seem prepared to give mindless loyalty to your leaders, I will never do so, under any circumstances.
Going back in History. When Robert McNamara spelt out the great difficulty the US would have in winning in Vietnam, when he admitted that the advice he had given and the policies he had helped to impliment would fail, he was fired and Johnson didn't listen to his advice to limit troop deployments and hand the fight over to the south vietnamese. We all know what happened next, and if at that time the great american public had not raised their voices in anger against the arrogant administration intent on maintaining militiary morale and US pride, who knows how many more lives would have been wasted. As we can see now, there was no domino effect in SE asia and as Chomsky has made clear again and again - militiary intervention makes the situation worse. It should only be the last resort.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1568754:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:05 AM:name=eliotmat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eliotmat @ Oct 2 2006, 10:05 AM) [snapback]1568754[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11? ... Anyways, get over Bush. He'll be gone soon. You'll have your chance to vote.
Impeachment doesn't change the past. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We are not merely talking about actions we disagree with. We are talking about actions that are ILLEGAL. When Bush acts in obvious violation of federal law, the correct course of action is impeachment.
<!--quoteo(post=1568781:date=Oct 2 2006, 12:06 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 2 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]1568781[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So in short, Rob, you condone torture on the grounds of "frightening the enemy?" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that I understand it's effectiveness in such a role, and that my decision of whether or not Bush was wrong in doing so rests on whether or not I believe that such measures were justified by the ends.
It's a cold hard fact. I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but I'm trying to be as realistic as I can.
Let's not forget that no more than a few centuries ago, public torture was an exceptable means of punishment for crimes. Have we evolved so much in the last 200 years that we can put down the greatest teaching tool nature has given us? (Pain)
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm saying the guy is so devoid of any semblence of intellect that I find it hard to accept that he's just a smart guy nervous of cameras. Some of the things he has said have left me gob smacked. When I see Bush speak on the news, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, and believe me when I say that it worries me a lot. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pure speculation based on appearences. I mean, come on. I give you a standardized test score, which I guess he could have cheated on, and you tell me he just <i>looks</i> stupid. There's all manner of reasons for your beefs with his outward appearence. I for one am not ready to believe that that sort of idiocy could actually become president.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> They goaded a reaction. One of the admitted purposes of the September 11th attacks was to provoke a reaction in that region of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be the case as far as Afghanistan is concerned. There, bin Laden may have been confident that he could prolong a ground war like he did with the Russians. Thankfully, this didn't happen. I have some doubts that his goal was to get us to go into Iraq.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Oh right, so we take the word of men who would look like cowards for saying anything else. Look Rob, I don't have the answers, I'm not even saying I know for certain that bush is wrong. I don't really think impeachment will solve all your problems, but I reject the concept of mindless obedience, which you seem to propose. I really hope that nobody comes away fromt this discussion thinking that I am in anyway anti-american, becuase that is not the case. I am very much anti-bush. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't propose mindless obedience. I just happen to believe that I think the same way the president does on these matters. I don't believe democracy is as effective as force when dealing with evident threats. But again this is one of the beauties of 8 term maximum presidancies. We can have a forceful one, then one that mends fences. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You aren't figthing to win morale, Rob, you are fighting to increase the security of the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Morale is a very important part of national security!
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We're obviously not watching the same news reports. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the area that the US has control over is shrinking daily. I don't think the situation is a complete loss, but given the way things are going, I expect things to get much much worse as long as bush is calling the shots. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I agree we're not doing as good as a tyrant who's willing to murder all opposition, but I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere, huh?
I do have some reservations about this. Part of me says "we had to fight a civil war before we learned to live together; why shouldn't they?" But, like we've already discussed, it's a hard subject.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Bush fired or marginalised *anyone* who disagreed with the objective of going into Iraq. The decision was not debated healthily anywhere. Anyone who suggested the president was wrong was pretty much accused of being unamerican. Does the term 'unamerican' not scare you? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it does. I'm not fond of the president's tossing around of that word. It's unfortunate, but I can't blame him for getting frustrated when all he gets as argument against the war is how stupid he is, and how he's satan come to unleash the end days. I'm sure that grates on your nerves after awhile.
If you really want evidence to Bush's morality, take a look at pictures before be elected and compare them to now. He's aged. It's taken a toll on him. Unless he's faking that somehow, he's been having just as hard a time as he says he's been. And damn anyone who kicks a man when he's down.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I disagree, but I see there's no point in even discussing it with you. You seem prepared to give mindless loyalty to your leaders, I will never do so, under any circumstances. Going back in History. When Robert McNamara spelt out the great difficulty the US would have in winning in Vietnam, when he admitted that the advice he had given and the policies he had helped to impliment would fail, he was fired and Johnson didn't listen to his advice to limit troop deployments and hand the fight over to the south vietnamese. We all know what happened next, and if at that time the great american public had not raised their voices in anger against the arrogant administration intent on maintaining militiary morale and US pride, who knows how many more lives would have been wasted. As we can see now, there was no domino effect in SE asia and as Chomsky has made clear again and again - militiary intervention makes the situation worse. It should only be the last resort. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, it's not mindless loyalty. The day this president does something that I can't abide is the day I switch sides. I just don't feel like he's done all that bad of a job. In fact I think he did a pretty darn good one, considering an economic crash (dow pointage drop was higher than back in the 20s, you know?) early in his first term which despite allegations could not have been his fault, a terrorist attack taking more lives than Pearl Harbor, and two subsequent wars overseas.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I love how Clinton is "silver-tongued" because he doesn't say things like 'I know it's hard to put food on your families.', or 'You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.'
It's one thing to get stage fright and be flustered when you first get up in front of an audience. But at this point he's worn out the theory that he might just not be used to speaking in front of people. The second quote was last month. Or asking a blind reporter if he was going to take off his shades, back in June. He's had.. what. Six years of practice now? I guess all the time spent at the ranch wouldn't help. Or maybe his throat suffered some permanent PRETZEL damage. Or perhaps falling off a Segway (only theoretically possible) traumatized him.
Oh, and for more hilarity, <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm" target="_blank">http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm</a> among TONS of other sites devoted to the raping Bush regularly delivers to the English language. Much less the American people.
Short version, we have an UTTER RETARD in the white house. The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... yet no one is really all that motivated to impeach, as we know we'd just end up with Cheney and the rest of the cronies still in power. Toss them in jail, where they belong. Or put them in a room with Hussein for a half hour, one at a time. I'm sure that our former puppet dictator would like to have a few words with our puppet president (and entourage).
<!--quoteo(post=1568808:date=Oct 2 2006, 05:02 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Oct 2 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1568808[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I love how Clinton is "silver-tongued" because he doesn't say things like 'I know it's hard to put food on your families.', or 'You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.'
It's one thing to get stage fright and be flustered when you first get up in front of an audience. But at this point he's worn out the theory that he might just not be used to speaking in front of people. The second quote was last month. Or asking a blind reporter if he was going to take off his shades, back in June. He's had.. what. Six years of practice now? I guess all the time spent at the ranch wouldn't help. Or maybe his throat suffered some permanent PRETZEL damage. Or perhaps falling off a Segway (only theoretically possible) traumatized him. Oh, and for more hilarity, <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm" target="_blank">http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm</a> among TONS of other sites devoted to the raping Bush regularly delivers to the English language. Much less the American people. Short version, we have an UTTER RETARD in the white house. The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... yet no one is really all that motivated to impeach, as we know we'd just end up with Cheney and the rest of the cronies still in power. Toss them in jail, where they belong. Or put them in a room with Hussein for a half hour, one at a time. I'm sure that our former puppet dictator would like to have a few words with our puppet president (and entourage). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell is wrong with you, Tale? Silver-Tongued is a compliment, not an insult. Clinton's a pretty damn good public speaker who's able to think on his feet. How many people do you know who routinely put their foot into their mouth? It's not like it's something weird.
So our president's an intravert. And it's quite easy to fall of a segway if you <i>try</i> to balance yourself. It's only smooth if you let it do all the work.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
A compliment is only a compliment when it stands on its own, not when it's an attempt to compensate for another person's glaring flaws. Sure, Clinton may have been 'silver tongued' compared to someone who can't string three words together coherently, but he spoke in a fairly clear and concise manner as compared to a standard non-redneck.
I don't know anyone personally who has ever even come close to choking on a snack food, whether it be a pretzel, a marshmellow, or beer nuts. It's this little thing called chewing and swallowing.
And if you've ever stood on a Segway and had someone SHOVE you, you'll know that it's almost impossible to fall off. Backward or forward. About the only excuse is if you're stupid enough to try to ride one down the stairs.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
You assume the president must be intelligent because he is, well, the president. I would be as justified in assuming that a president would also be good at public speaking - I would assume that in order to have put himself in his current position, he would have addressed large groups of people on many occasions. By your claim my assumption is false - a president does not need to be good at public speaking, so I see no logical reason why you can give him the benefit of the doubt on the old grey matter.
The reason he is president is because he is popular ( though not as popular as Al-Gore was, even after fudging ballot boxes ), and neither intelligence or strong language skills are necessary for popularity.
<!--quoteo(post=1568808:date=Oct 2 2006, 04:02 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Oct 2 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]1568808[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...which is...um...zero.
I mean, I know its been proven that there are Democrats who are registered to vote as 15 different people. But no one's ever presented proof of Republican ballot stuffing.
...
Honestly, there's so much misinformation and hatred floating around this thread that I'm going to consider it beyond salvage. It's never going to reach any useful conclusion, or any consensus, or anything resembling logic. Nothing left to do but to starve it of participants.
<!--quoteo(post=1568755:date=Oct 2 2006, 09:12 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 2 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]1568755[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Stumbles a bit" seems a little kind given the number of bushisms floating around.
We get upset because the "flip-flop" argument is ridiculous given that all politicians are guilty of that. However, not all politicians are "stupid". Simple as that. (we don't laugh either, given the seriousness of the situation).
It's not just the fact he "fumbles" around in public-speaking. His overall lack of knowledge of the rest of the world (yes, that might be important given the role of president) was sorely evident in the run-up with Gore.
Arriving in 2000 in the USA as a foreigner - with some left leanings I'll admit - it took me _one_ debate (in fact only a few minutes of said debate) to see that Bush was incompetent. To be honest I could not beleive that he was even a candidate for the presidency. Cheney can at least speak and actually appears to be quite sharp.
I'm sorry but the Bush as an "idiot savant" theory just doesn't hold water. Laura Bush never speaks so it's quite difficult to judge.
Kerry - an excellent speaker, ran circles around bush in the debates especially the first one where Bush appeared to be a time-bomb ticking chimp judging by the redness and strange facial expressions he produced.
Teresa Heinz Kerry - an outspoken women who unfortunately probably hurt Kerry's chances somewhat by not playing the *smiliing, I'm the nice first lady* role but actually expressed meaningful opinions. But then most of the bush supporters don't like their women to be "uppity".
Honestly, there's so much misinformation and hatred floating around this thread that I'm going to consider it beyond salvage. It's never going to reach any useful conclusion, or any consensus, or anything resembling logic. Nothing left to do but to starve it of participants. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regretfully agreed. On both sides. Democracy fails again I suppose. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Er, Ohio has already proven that their exit polls were correct, and found no less than 30% of their cast ballots for Bush were either miscounted or misreported. It's coming to light that the exit polls across the nation are a lot closer to reality... it's not that democrats were more likely to talk to the censors, it's that there were a lot fewer voting for Bush than were actually recorded.
As for the whole 'flip-flop' argument, I have nothing against a man who makes an argument, has a more convincing argument returned or new evidence come to light, and actually has enough of a spine to say 'Yeah, I was wrong before'. Instead of charging blindly ahead like a f**king retard.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the whole 'flip-flop' argument, I have nothing against a man who makes an argument, has a more convincing argument returned or new evidence come to light, and actually has enough of a spine to say 'Yeah, I was wrong before'. Instead of charging blindly ahead like a f**king retard. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
I love George Bush, and Laura Bush, and his daddy, and his brother Jeb. Republicans FTW, and no - don't bother impeaching him. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? What do you consider to be his successes?
1. He has successfully rid America of that troubling budget surplus and turned it into a $500 billion deficit.
2. He has successfully helped America's trading partners have the highest trade surplus with us in America's history.
3. He has successfully lowered the taxes for the richest Americans and corporations at the expense of 99% of the American population.
4. He has successfully started another Viet Nam in Iraq after lying to the whole world.
5. He has successfully pushed the price of gas up to the highest level ever here in America.
6. He has successfully allowed American corporations to dramatically increase their pollution.
7. He has successfully thrown about 10% of the population out of work.
8. He has successfully allowed corporations to export our best middle-class jobs.
9. He has successfully divided our country as never before.
10. He has successfully driven our oldest allies away.
11. He has successfully united the terrorists as never before (he said all along he was a uniter, not a divider).
12. He has successfully broken his oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.
13. He has successfully united Democrats (yay!) as they haven't been for years (I told you he was a uniter).
Got to LOVE this guy!!!
<b>A few of George Bush's successes:</b> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
7. He has successfully thrown about 10% of the population out of work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=Sep 1 2006:name=US Dept of Labor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(US Dept of Labor @ Sep 1 2006)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 128,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, so I'm only jumping on one of 13, but most of them don't rely on factual information anyway--making them hard to prove or disprove. For example, the price of gas: without even mentioning how much the price of gas has dropped recently, the assertion is silly because the president really doesn't have any power over the price of gas to begin with.
2. Not my area.
3. Any tax break of an across the board nature will aid the top earners more than the bottom. Considering (A) They earn more, there fore each percentage means more to them, and (B) You pay a higher tax rate the more you earn.
4. Point of opinion on the nature of Vietnam and Iraq. We're having much more success in Iraq than was had in Vietnam, and at least this time there won't be hippies and drugged up celebrities to call our soldiers baby killers when they get back... (Although Scumbag Phelps...)
5. Not his responcibility.
6. Kyoto had very, very little in the way of actual effect, and has been a strawman ever since.
7. Check the employment numbers above,
8. So did Clinton.
9. Incorrect, our country has always been divided, even after 9-11 it was still divided, the liberal side just wisely shut up for a while.
10. Such as? And in any case, the next administration will be more than able to repair relations.
11. By actually striking back, and treating them as what they are, a militia, instead of simple criminals.
12. True, however, it's far from a flawless document. And basic rights have been repealed before during times of war. You'll not the media is still publishing anti-govermental propaganda, so you can realise that argument holds no water, as that ability became criminal durning times of war a long, long time ago.
13. Democrats are not united, they can't be united, because they have too many special interest groups with different agendas. Besides, what you really want are the indepentant vote, you can basically count on the mind slaves (affiliated voters) to go with a straight party ticket no matter what... but more folks are registering independant.
As these are also mostly teenagers, they're likely to vote Dem, but the Dems are also seen as very weak on terror.
Also, I've only rarely heard a Dem offer an answer to how they'd do anything they complain about better.
Don't get me wrong, both parties are corrupt, are ruining this country, and need to be abolished.
I think there is some hope though of agreeing that all the evidence we have indicates he did something very illegal, and when the president does something illegal, he should be impeached.
...
I think there is some hope though of agreeing that all the evidence we have indicates he did something very illegal, and when the president does something illegal, he should be impeached.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This needs qualified. Generally, a president can't get through a term without doing <i>something</i> illegal. It could be as big as starting an unpopular, and therefore somehow illegal, war, or just a few hush-hush special forces missions that conviently disregard political boundries. Or it could be something domestic. When you're running a country, sometimes you gotta do some tough things.
The question we need to ask is, "Did Bush do something illegal <i>enough</i>, and do the ends, whether already or yet to be realised, justify the means?"
The really tough part about it is that we can't know all the variables. Even the president probably doesn't know everything - but he knows as much as any man can know it's safe to say, and he made a judgement call. The single greatest weakness of the Bush administration has been it's inability to keep the public happy and ignorant.
When we know too much about what's going on, we start to get ansy because somebody somewhere isn't going to like it.
It's like the old FDR question. In 21st century P.C. terms, FDR was disabled during most of his presidancy. In WWII era terms, FDR was a cripple. Weak, powerless. The true strength of a leader is that leader's ability to seem immortal; supreme. Like an officer riding gallently down the battle lines, oblivious to the rain of lead coming from the enemy.
Had FDR's secret weakness been leaked to the general public, would we have won WWII? This is not a question you can answer quickly. It requires a mindset we no longer have. When Germany swept across Europe, fear had the whole world in a stranglehold. If you think we're silly being a little afraid of terrorists today, whoa nilly.
All of these things are points you need to consider when deciding whether or not to impeach a president. Clinton's impeachment was ridiculous. Bush's may have more merit, but only because he's not kept us in the dark as to what's really going on. Then again maybe he has, who knows?
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Tale+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tale)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for evading the possible war crimes charges, apparently Bush is trying to ram a bill through the Senate that contains a full pardon for himself and everyone else associated with the 'terrorist' torture still going on, fully breaking the Geneva conventions.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ</a>
Jesus goddamn christ I hate spin-doctoring, warmongering, Bush-loving republicans.
(Republicans who hate Bush get my <3 though, for having at least two brain cells to rub together.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the president may be pardoned on this, the important thing to understand is that if it's taken as a pardon at all, it's a pardon for <b>everyone</b> involved with the torture of detained terrorist agents. He's basically taking care of his subordinates <b>as any good commander would</b>.
Can you imagine what would happen if there was a major outbreak of general court martials in the armed forces going from the high command all the way down the soldiers that were following orders? Number one it would be a mess, number two it would destroy the chain of command in ways no impeachment trial ever could.
Obviously, this is an extreme case, but a blood thirsty witch hunt for torture artists in our military would not, I repeat, NOT, be a good thing.
And would you please stop insulting me? It's not helping your case at all.
Bush is just a monkeyboy, and everyone across the globe (some hardcore repubs aside) have already realized he's a raving smacktard moron, more likely than not simply acting as a puppet and trying to ride on 'wartime' popularity, to the point of manufacturing an illegal war. Then again, republicans have always been good at spin. Scream about the liberal left media any time something undesired comes to light, and feed the red(neck)s through Fox.
And Rob, are you familiar with the term 'reacharound'? At this point arresting most of the current political system would be a POSITIVE action. After all, if they belong in jail, send them there. Of course, Bush would end up playing tennis with Martha, and wearing matching ankle-locators. Assuming they actually managed to keep him from weaselling out of the whole thing by shoving another bent bill through.
I call 'em like I see 'em. And if someone chooses to blindly follow party dogma, especially when it's f**king over the rest of the world, as well as our own country, I <b>will</b> call them a moron.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Declaration of Independence"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Declaration of Independence")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of that statement implores you to tear down your own government if you feel threatened by it. Hey- it's only sedition as long as the old guys are in power, right? If everyone who spouted off about how bad Bush is picked up a gun and charged the white house, they'd probably get him out of office. I shudder to think of how <i>they</i> would run the place, but we'll let that be aside.
More importantly, they don't have the nerve. Not that I blame them, it's a pretty big thing to start a war of independence, and it should not be undertaken by anyone without the ambition, the conviction, and the fortitude to see it through. Don't think the dem's have it, so we'll just have to sweat it out.
I'd rather believe that Bush has not screwed up the world so much as called them on all their BS. Clinton can talk about how people pushed him out of Somalia, and how he stayed longer than even the right wingers wanted after we lost some boys there, but the fact remains that he did pull them out. He did show terrorist that we can be manipulated with minimal deadly force.
If we pulled out of Iraq now, it would be doing the same thing. So, Bush has faced more opposition and resistence to his agendas than Clinton ever did - and he's stuck right to them. You can say he's switching motives, you can say he's stupid. But he's never looked back. And right now in a bunker somewhere there's probably a few Al Qaeda agents crapping themselves and going "what the hell was THAT for? Bush doesn't give a ish man! He just went in there and beat the hell outa that place."
I'm gonna say this isn't really offtopic because it's highlighting the possible gains to be had from Bush's actions, a key point in answering the question of whether we should impeach.
Give this a read, Tale: <a href="http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm" target="_blank">Bush is no moron</a>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
He did show terrorist that we can be manipulated with minimal deadly force.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arguably, bush showed this even more. He showed a minority of nutcases that all they have to do is sustain a low-cost terrorism campaign against the worlds last super-power to draw them into wars that benefit nobody but America's enemies. The war was ill-advised, poorly planned, understaffed, unjustified and unnecessary and <b>anyone</b> who pointed this out from within the bush administration was sidelined or dismissed.
Also, at the time Clinton pulled out of Somalia, it had nothing to do with terrorists. The US were there to keep the peace between local warlords.
For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11? How could Kerry have made ANYTHING better given that there would have been a Republican congress?
If Kerry was president congress would have done everything in their power to make all of his efforts fail to make him look inept and vice versa.
Anyways, get over Bush. He'll be gone soon. You'll have your chance to vote.
Impeachment doesn't change the past.
If you REALLY care go hold a picket sign in front of the White House or write your congressmen.
If that's the best argument you can produce for the guy's intelligence rob then you're probably better off not mentioning it at all. Those of us who don't watch the news through republican tinted glasses can clearly see the guy is a moron.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably.
An SAT test score is damn sure good evidence of a person's intelligence - if not every college in the United States needs to rethink their entrance process.
<!--quoteo(post=1568743:date=Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]1568743[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Arguably, bush showed this even more. He showed a minority of nutcases that all they have to do is sustain a low-cost terrorism campaign against the worlds last super-power to draw them into wars that benefit nobody but America's enemies. The war was ill-advised, poorly planned, understaffed, unjustified and unnecessary and <b>anyone</b> who pointed this out from within the bush administration was sidelined or dismissed.
Also, at the time Clinton pulled out of Somalia, it had nothing to do with terrorists. The US were there to keep the peace between local warlords.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm trying to tell you is that there was for sure a damn good reason to go into Iraq, at least as far as Bush was concerned. The one thing we CAN be sure of is that Bush himself thought the war was worth it, otherwise we would not be there.
And yes, Somalia wasn't about terrorism. It showed the terrorists our resolve though, we we FAILED to keep the peace between two warlords after we took a little bit of a beating. Most of the boys that went into combat that day wanted nothing more than to stay and finish the job.
Pulling out meant the lives lost were lost without purpose. The single worst thing Bush could do for the country right now is pull out of Iraq. That would negate the sacrifices of all of our lost soldiers instantly while at the same time telling the terrorists once again that we can't stay with something to completion.
As for sidelined and dismissed adminstration workers; I would expect nothing less. When the commander and chief sets and agenda and makes a decision, everyone in his adminstration has to get behind it and push it forward. That's the way a governmental body works. Internal disruption leads to failure. You must move as one, and that means you need to cut out the parts of the machine that don't push in the right direction.
The executive branch should not have any internal squabblings. It's left to the congress and the court system to keep the branch in check, not the branch itself.
[edit]grammar and spelling idioces[/edit]
Disclaimer: This is my hardline, <i>objective</i> opinion on what's going on. It doesn't mean I practice or condone torture, but the understanding of its uses and inevitability are not mutually exclusive of my stance on the matter.
We americans are repulsed by torture. We consider it inhuman, and we, as americans, are above inhuman acts. Well we aren't. And torture is as much a human trait as love or indifference. What's happening today is that a concentrated group of individuals have taken the initiative and remained on the offensive, occupying a morale high ground from which they launch attacks on people who have using torture in its most effective manner.
Torture is not a good way to gain information. People will say anything after a certain threshold is reached. False confessions, sure, but those only serve it's true purpose: intimidation. People can drone on about the "spirit of freedom" as much as they want. "You can't kill ideas," and so forth.
But just ask Stalin. If one person rises against you, kill that person and 10,000 people like them. People will stop rising against you. We're nothing more than animals in this regard. Most of the population can be kept in line by the Alpha member exercising force. It's the difference between an obediant child and a "delinquent" one, between an orderly football team and one that gets alot of penalties.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." As much as the man may have been right, do you REALLY think his regime should be a role model for yours? "Stalin used torture to great effect, so why shouldn't we?" Please tell me I have completely and utterly misunderstood you. I see you advocating the use of torture to strike fear in the heart of the rest of the world. Are you that entrenched in the "us versus them" mentality, or am I misreading your post?
"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." As much as the man may have been right, do you REALLY think his regime should be a role model for yours? "Stalin used torture to great effect, so why shouldn't we?" Please tell me I have completely and utterly misunderstood you. I see you advocating the use of torture to strike fear in the heart of the rest of the world. Are you that entrenched in the "us versus them" mentality, or am I misreading your post?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you quote my disclaimer and then ask what it answers? I'm conceding that torture happens, and trying to point out that by the rules by which we describe torture, we face it every day.
You're walking down the street and you trip. A bunch of people ridicule you. You're being <b>tortured</b>. It's psychological trauma meant to hurt you isn't it?
What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm saying that when you apply occam's razor to the situation, the only conclusion is that they guy is actually as dumb as he looks. Who are the 'we' you are referring to? I'm not caught up in your partisan politics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What I'm trying to tell you is that there was for sure a damn good reason to go into Iraq, at least as far as Bush was concerned. The one thing we CAN be sure of is that Bush himself thought the war was worth it, otherwise we would not be there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, I have never seen bush present anything closely resembling his own reasoning on invading Iraq. All I've seen are some fudged accusations about WMDs and him constantly rewriting history since. I will not dispute that he may have personally believed it was the correct course of action, but I don't give a monkeys about his beliefs. He also believes in God, so I would consider his beliefs to be less than rational.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And yes, Somalia wasn't about terrorism. It showed the terrorists our resolve though, we we FAILED to keep the peace between two warlords after we took a little bit of a beating.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this current set of actions shows the terrorists that they can goad you into attacking anyone that looks at you crosseyed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Most of the boys that went into combat that day wanted nothing more than to stay and finish the job.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd rather leave the anecdotal speculation to fox news.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Pulling out meant the lives lost were lost without purpose. The single worst thing Bush could do for the country right now is pull out of Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd argue that attacking Iran would be a lot worse. Perhaps attacking Iran AND North Korea would be worse again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
That would negate the sacrifices of all of our lost soldiers instantly while at the same time telling the terrorists once again that we can't stay with something to completion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They already think that. With the very low commitment the US made in Iraq, it always looked like a half-assed job doomed to failure. Most of 'the coalition of the willing' was made up of token commitments with no real substance, and two ( read it <b>two</b> ) european governments fell for supporting Bush, and Blair's political career is in crisis due to it ( though not exclusively due to the bush relationship ).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
As for sidelined and dismissed adminstration workers; I would expect nothing less. When the commander and chief sets and agenda and makes a decision, everyone in his adminstration has to get behind it and push it forward.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I've heard this argument before, it was thrown around Nuremburg alot. A country that impliments a practice like the above, has really lost site of what patriotism means. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation, not your leaders. The supreme militiary commander should have to justify every decision he makes, and healthy debate, not regurgitation of the gop doctrine, is what guides a democracy through troubled waters.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
That's the way a governmental body works. Internal disruption leads to failure. You must move as one, and that means you need to cut out the parts of the machine that don't push in the right direction.
The executive branch should not have any internal squabblings. It's left to the congress and the court system to keep the branch in check, not the branch itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good leader will delegate to experts and listen to their feedback. The Bush regime hires experts to parrot what they want them to say. I guess for this regime, the illusion of executive unity is sufficient. How many smart american leaders have to leave the circle before the republicans of america wake up?
I urge you to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/" target="_blank">The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara</a>.
For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11? How could Kerry have made ANYTHING better given that there would have been a Republican congress?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For a start, one doesn't have to have solutions to provide criticism. Secondly, I do think Kerry would have had huge problems facing a republican congress, and not being to most favoured politician over at the Pentagon would have made it worse, but there are still a lot of things that could have been done better. I'm not claiming that I would have done better, and I know that a lot of the criticisms people hand out are in hindsight, but that doesn't excuse president bush of his mistakes, nor the american public of their responsibilty to question him.
But for starters, it would have been a lot better if the US had worked with it's international partners to produce a compromise. When the US basically gave two fingers to the world and did it's own thing anyway, you burned most of your diplomatic currency.
Secondly, I would not have lied to my people and other countries about the fundamental reason for going to war. What happened to those WMDs?
Thirdly, there was so much expert opinion warning the US about the quagmire occupying Iraq would be, and that the Iraqi people would view the US as an invading force. Sound to me like a bad dose of history repeating itself.
Pretty much all of bush's arguments are rhetoric with no substance. The guy talks about god and liberty more than he does about the economic realities of occupying Iraq. Right now we have a situation where the purveyors of real politic are fudging the questions with propaganda and appeals to common decency, and the 'looney left' are the ones trying to ground the debate in reality. Whodathunk?
No, I'm saying that when you apply occam's razor to the situation, the only conclusion is that they guy is actually as dumb as he looks. Who are the 'we' you are referring to? I'm not caught up in your partisan politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By 'you,' I mean everyone who repeatedly calls Bush a moron. By 'we,' I mean everyone who's tired of hearing it, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. The flip-flop part was a bit of a partisan slip.
Please describe the situation you're applying occam's razor to. You may be looking at different events than I am.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
For starters, I have never seen bush present anything closely resembling his own reasoning on invading Iraq. All I've seen are some fudged accusations about WMDs and him constantly rewriting history since. I will not dispute that he may have personally believed it was the correct course of action, but I don't give a monkeys about his beliefs. He also believes in God, so I would consider his beliefs to be less than rational.
And this current set of actions shows the terrorists that they can goad you into attacking anyone that looks at you crosseyed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How have terrorists goaded us into Iraq? I think we did that of our own accord.
Don't apply rationality to religious belief systems - that debate will never end in anyone's favor.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'd rather leave the anecdotal speculation to fox news.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not speculation. There was a history channel special on the black hawk down incident. Every one of the soldiers interviewed who were there wanted to stay there.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'd argue that attacking Iran would be a lot worse. Perhaps attacking Iran AND North Korea would be worse again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Attacking the whole world at once would not be as big a morale blow to our own military as having lost lives for a cause abandoned. I can promise you that.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
They already think that. With the very low commitment the US made in Iraq, it always looked like a half-assed job doomed to failure. Most of 'the coalition of the willing' was made up of token commitments with no real substance, and two ( read it <b>two</b> ) european governments fell for supporting Bush, and Blair's political career is in crisis due to it ( though not exclusively due to the bush relationship ).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Decimating the Iraqi military within days or weeks and subsequently keeping a country together which has been dividing in idealogy for the last half-century with a minimal occupation force is not a small feat, and by no means a half-assed job.
<!--quoteo(post=1568761:date=Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]1568761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Yeah, I've heard this argument before, it was thrown around Nuremburg alot. A country that impliments a practice like the above, has really lost site of what patriotism means. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation, not your leaders. The supreme militiary commander should have to justify every decision he makes, and healthy debate, not regurgitation of the gop doctrine, is what guides a democracy through troubled waters.
...
A good leader will delegate to experts and listen to their feedback. The Bush regime hires experts to parrot what they want them to say. I guess for this regime, the illusion of executive unity is sufficient. How many smart american leaders have to leave the circle before the republicans of america wake up?
I urge you to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/" target="_blank">The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These points all all true - <b>before</b> the president has made a decision. Everybody seems to be looking at what happened after the president made his decision, assuming that he never consulted anyone. I'm sure he consulted someone, maybe many people. Once the decision is made, it's the job of the executive branch to shut up and make it happen.
It's the job of the senate, house, and supreme court to make sure the executive branch doesn't go ballistic. That's part of our mighty checks and balances system (cross yourself when you say it, folks! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />).
[edit]fixing pesky quotations; urk;[/edit]
Please describe the situation you're applying occam's razor to. You may be looking at different events than I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying the guy is so devoid of any semblence of intellect that I find it hard to accept that he's just a smart guy nervous of cameras. Some of the things he has said have left me gob smacked. When I see Bush speak on the news, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, and believe me when I say that it worries me a lot.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
How have terrorists goaded us into Iraq? I think we did that of our own accord.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They goaded a reaction. One of the admitted purposes of the September 11th attacks was to provoke a reaction in that region of the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
This is not speculation. There was a history channel special on the black hawk down incident. Every one of the soldiers interviewed who were there wanted to stay there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh right, so we take the word of men who would look like cowards for saying anything else. Look Rob, I don't have the answers, I'm not even saying I know for certain that bush is wrong. I don't really think impeachment will solve all your problems, but I reject the concept of mindless obedience, which you seem to propose. I really hope that nobody comes away fromt this discussion thinking that I am in anyway anti-american, becuase that is not the case. I am very much anti-bush.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Attacking the whole world at once would not be as big a morale blow to our own military as having lost lives for a cause abandoned.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You aren't figthing to win morale, Rob, you are fighting to increase the security of the US.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Decimating the Iraqi military within days or weeks and subsequently keeping a country together which has been dividing in idealogy for the last half-century with a minimal occupation force is not a small feat, and by no means a half-assed job.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're obviously not watching the same news reports. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the area that the US has control over is shrinking daily. I don't think the situation is a complete loss, but given the way things are going, I expect things to get much much worse as long as bush is calling the shots.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
These points all all true - before the president has made a decision. Everybody seems to be looking at what happened after the president made his decision, assuming that he never consulted anyone.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush fired or marginalised *anyone* who disagreed with the objective of going into Iraq. The decision was not debated healthily anywhere. Anyone who suggested the president was wrong was pretty much accused of being unamerican. Does the term 'unamerican' not scare you?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm sure he consulted someone, maybe many people. Once the decision is made, it's the job of the executive branch to shut up and make it happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, but I see there's no point in even discussing it with you. You seem prepared to give mindless loyalty to your leaders, I will never do so, under any circumstances.
Going back in History. When Robert McNamara spelt out the great difficulty the US would have in winning in Vietnam, when he admitted that the advice he had given and the policies he had helped to impliment would fail, he was fired and Johnson didn't listen to his advice to limit troop deployments and hand the fight over to the south vietnamese. We all know what happened next, and if at that time the great american public had not raised their voices in anger against the arrogant administration intent on maintaining militiary morale and US pride, who knows how many more lives would have been wasted. As we can see now, there was no domino effect in SE asia and as Chomsky has made clear again and again - militiary intervention makes the situation worse. It should only be the last resort.
For all you Bush critics: How would you have handled events immediately following 9/11?
...
Anyways, get over Bush. He'll be gone soon. You'll have your chance to vote.
Impeachment doesn't change the past.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are not merely talking about actions we disagree with. We are talking about actions that are ILLEGAL. When Bush acts in obvious violation of federal law, the correct course of action is impeachment.
So in short, Rob, you condone torture on the grounds of "frightening the enemy?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that I understand it's effectiveness in such a role, and that my decision of whether or not Bush was wrong in doing so rests on whether or not I believe that such measures were justified by the ends.
It's a cold hard fact. I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but I'm trying to be as realistic as I can.
Let's not forget that no more than a few centuries ago, public torture was an exceptable means of punishment for crimes. Have we evolved so much in the last 200 years that we can put down the greatest teaching tool nature has given us? (Pain)
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm saying the guy is so devoid of any semblence of intellect that I find it hard to accept that he's just a smart guy nervous of cameras. Some of the things he has said have left me gob smacked. When I see Bush speak on the news, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, and believe me when I say that it worries me a lot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pure speculation based on appearences. I mean, come on. I give you a standardized test score, which I guess he could have cheated on, and you tell me he just <i>looks</i> stupid. There's all manner of reasons for your beefs with his outward appearence. I for one am not ready to believe that that sort of idiocy could actually become president.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
They goaded a reaction. One of the admitted purposes of the September 11th attacks was to provoke a reaction in that region of the world.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be the case as far as Afghanistan is concerned. There, bin Laden may have been confident that he could prolong a ground war like he did with the Russians. Thankfully, this didn't happen. I have some doubts that his goal was to get us to go into Iraq.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Oh right, so we take the word of men who would look like cowards for saying anything else. Look Rob, I don't have the answers, I'm not even saying I know for certain that bush is wrong. I don't really think impeachment will solve all your problems, but I reject the concept of mindless obedience, which you seem to propose. I really hope that nobody comes away fromt this discussion thinking that I am in anyway anti-american, becuase that is not the case. I am very much anti-bush.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't propose mindless obedience. I just happen to believe that I think the same way the president does on these matters. I don't believe democracy is as effective as force when dealing with evident threats. But again this is one of the beauties of 8 term maximum presidancies. We can have a forceful one, then one that mends fences. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
You aren't figthing to win morale, Rob, you are fighting to increase the security of the US.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Morale is a very important part of national security!
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
We're obviously not watching the same news reports. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the area that the US has control over is shrinking daily. I don't think the situation is a complete loss, but given the way things are going, I expect things to get much much worse as long as bush is calling the shots.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I agree we're not doing as good as a tyrant who's willing to murder all opposition, but I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere, huh?
I do have some reservations about this. Part of me says "we had to fight a civil war before we learned to live together; why shouldn't they?" But, like we've already discussed, it's a hard subject.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Bush fired or marginalised *anyone* who disagreed with the objective of going into Iraq. The decision was not debated healthily anywhere. Anyone who suggested the president was wrong was pretty much accused of being unamerican. Does the term 'unamerican' not scare you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it does. I'm not fond of the president's tossing around of that word. It's unfortunate, but I can't blame him for getting frustrated when all he gets as argument against the war is how stupid he is, and how he's satan come to unleash the end days. I'm sure that grates on your nerves after awhile.
If you really want evidence to Bush's morality, take a look at pictures before be elected and compare them to now. He's aged. It's taken a toll on him. Unless he's faking that somehow, he's been having just as hard a time as he says he's been. And damn anyone who kicks a man when he's down.
<!--quoteo(post=1568778:date=Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 2 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]1568778[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I disagree, but I see there's no point in even discussing it with you. You seem prepared to give mindless loyalty to your leaders, I will never do so, under any circumstances.
Going back in History. When Robert McNamara spelt out the great difficulty the US would have in winning in Vietnam, when he admitted that the advice he had given and the policies he had helped to impliment would fail, he was fired and Johnson didn't listen to his advice to limit troop deployments and hand the fight over to the south vietnamese. We all know what happened next, and if at that time the great american public had not raised their voices in anger against the arrogant administration intent on maintaining militiary morale and US pride, who knows how many more lives would have been wasted. As we can see now, there was no domino effect in SE asia and as Chomsky has made clear again and again - militiary intervention makes the situation worse. It should only be the last resort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, it's not mindless loyalty. The day this president does something that I can't abide is the day I switch sides. I just don't feel like he's done all that bad of a job. In fact I think he did a pretty darn good one, considering an economic crash (dow pointage drop was higher than back in the 20s, you know?) early in his first term which despite allegations could not have been his fault, a terrorist attack taking more lives than Pearl Harbor, and two subsequent wars overseas.
It's one thing to get stage fright and be flustered when you first get up in front of an audience. But at this point he's worn out the theory that he might just not be used to speaking in front of people. The second quote was last month. Or asking a blind reporter if he was going to take off his shades, back in June. He's had.. what. Six years of practice now? I guess all the time spent at the ranch wouldn't help. Or maybe his throat suffered some permanent PRETZEL damage. Or perhaps falling off a Segway (only theoretically possible) traumatized him.
Oh, and for more hilarity, <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm" target="_blank">http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm</a> among TONS of other sites devoted to the raping Bush regularly delivers to the English language. Much less the American people.
Short version, we have an UTTER RETARD in the white house. The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... yet no one is really all that motivated to impeach, as we know we'd just end up with Cheney and the rest of the cronies still in power.
Toss them in jail, where they belong. Or put them in a room with Hussein for a half hour, one at a time. I'm sure that our former puppet dictator would like to have a few words with our puppet president (and entourage).
I love how Clinton is "silver-tongued" because he doesn't say things like 'I know it's hard to put food on your families.', or 'You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.'
It's one thing to get stage fright and be flustered when you first get up in front of an audience. But at this point he's worn out the theory that he might just not be used to speaking in front of people. The second quote was last month. Or asking a blind reporter if he was going to take off his shades, back in June. He's had.. what. Six years of practice now? I guess all the time spent at the ranch wouldn't help. Or maybe his throat suffered some permanent PRETZEL damage. Or perhaps falling off a Segway (only theoretically possible) traumatized him.
Oh, and for more hilarity, <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm" target="_blank">http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm</a> among TONS of other sites devoted to the raping Bush regularly delivers to the English language. Much less the American people.
Short version, we have an UTTER RETARD in the white house. The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... yet no one is really all that motivated to impeach, as we know we'd just end up with Cheney and the rest of the cronies still in power.
Toss them in jail, where they belong. Or put them in a room with Hussein for a half hour, one at a time. I'm sure that our former puppet dictator would like to have a few words with our puppet president (and entourage).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell is wrong with you, Tale? Silver-Tongued is a compliment, not an insult. Clinton's a pretty damn good public speaker who's able to think on his feet. How many people do you know who routinely put their foot into their mouth? It's not like it's something weird.
So our president's an intravert. And it's quite easy to fall of a segway if you <i>try</i> to balance yourself. It's only smooth if you let it do all the work.
Anyone can choke on a pretzel. Hell I've done it.
You're just being silly.
I don't know anyone personally who has ever even come close to choking on a snack food, whether it be a pretzel, a marshmellow, or beer nuts. It's this little thing called chewing and swallowing.
And if you've ever stood on a Segway and had someone SHOVE you, you'll know that it's almost impossible to fall off. Backward or forward. About the only excuse is if you're stupid enough to try to ride one down the stairs.
The reason he is president is because he is popular ( though not as popular as Al-Gore was, even after fudging ballot boxes ), and neither intelligence or strong language skills are necessary for popularity.
The only sadder part of the story is the amount of spin and Diebold ballot-stuffing that's been <i>proven</i> after the fact... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...which is...um...zero.
I mean, I know its been proven that there are Democrats who are registered to vote as 15 different people. But no one's ever presented proof of Republican ballot stuffing.
...
Honestly, there's so much misinformation and hatred floating around this thread that I'm going to consider it beyond salvage. It's never going to reach any useful conclusion, or any consensus, or anything resembling logic. Nothing left to do but to starve it of participants.
What? The only evidence I've ever seen to his idiocy is his inability to do public speaking good (<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Most people would apparently rather die than speak in public. Just because we're used to a silver tongued Clinton doesn't mean a man who stumbles a bit is retarded.
Not to mention his intelligence card is played every day all damn day long. Ya'll get upset when we mention "flip-flop," but it seems fine to keep repeating "president is dumb!" and then laugh uncontrollably.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Stumbles a bit" seems a little kind given the number of bushisms floating around.
We get upset because the "flip-flop" argument is ridiculous given that all politicians are guilty of that. However, not all politicians are "stupid". Simple as that. (we don't laugh either, given the seriousness of the situation).
It's not just the fact he "fumbles" around in public-speaking. His overall lack of knowledge of the rest of the world (yes, that might be important given the role of president) was sorely evident in the run-up with Gore.
Arriving in 2000 in the USA as a foreigner - with some left leanings I'll admit - it took me _one_ debate (in fact only a few minutes of said debate) to see that Bush was incompetent. To be honest I could not beleive that he was even a candidate for the presidency. Cheney can at least speak and actually appears to be quite sharp.
I'm sorry but the Bush as an "idiot savant" theory just doesn't hold water. Laura Bush never speaks so it's quite difficult to judge.
Kerry - an excellent speaker, ran circles around bush in the debates especially the first one where Bush appeared to be a time-bomb ticking chimp judging by the redness and strange facial expressions he produced.
Teresa Heinz Kerry - an outspoken women who unfortunately probably hurt Kerry's chances somewhat by not playing the *smiliing, I'm the nice first lady* role but actually expressed meaningful opinions. But then most of the bush supporters don't like their women to be "uppity".
...
Honestly, there's so much misinformation and hatred floating around this thread that I'm going to consider it beyond salvage. It's never going to reach any useful conclusion, or any consensus, or anything resembling logic. Nothing left to do but to starve it of participants.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regretfully agreed. On both sides. Democracy fails again I suppose. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
As for the whole 'flip-flop' argument, I have nothing against a man who makes an argument, has a more convincing argument returned or new evidence come to light, and actually has enough of a spine to say 'Yeah, I was wrong before'. Instead of charging blindly ahead like a f**king retard.
hear ye, hear ye
OLO Depot