Sick Of Blaming Bush

[Scuba Pete]

Spinkles,

I DO hold the voters responsible for every single death in Iraq today! I feel that they have put my 16 year old son in jeapardy when they finally invoke the draft. ANYONE who voted for Bush is as equally guilty of murder as he is.

 

[Yerda]

Spinkles,

I DO hold the voters responsible for every single death in Iraq today! I feel that they have put my 16 year old son in jeapardy when they finally invoke the draft. ANYONE who voted for Bush is as equally guilty of murder as he is.

I'm sorry to hear that you have reason to fear for your son's safety, but that statement is a bit harsh, no?

But if you want to take the long view, the complacency exhibited by most members of the public for generations has allowed vested interests to govern civic virtue almost completely.

Are we all murderers? Have you bought a computer with components manufactured from materials pirated from the DRC for instance? (For conversations sake I'd like to point out that genocide has been occuring in the congo for years and hardly anyone has batted an eyelid).

Besides John Kerry would've had his wars, and murders, and somebody's kids would be in the firing line.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Death is harsh. Selling WAR to America with lies based on FEAR and HATE which leads to the deaths of innocents is unconscionable. Bush is no more than a serial murderer backed by the religious right (which is neither). He only uses God to increase his power base. THAT is the Mark of the Beast in my book: masquerading evil for good.

But one day, I will tell you how I really feel, and will try not to hold back so much...

 

[Yerda]

masquerading evil for good.

THAT my friend is politics. In fact if I ever write a Politics For Idiots (or MPs as we call them in Britain) that will most definitely be included in the opening paragraph.

But one day, I will tell you how I really feel, and will try not to hold back so much...

Ah well I'm glad you're so restrained.

 

[No*s]

What evidence? All they had were people just like you saying that no such thing could be true. That ain't evidence my friend.

Professional evidence, such as font, formal style, signature format, etc. with those of documents at the time. The fonts were proven to come from Mircrosoft Word, not from one of the standard typewriters at the time. It was a bunch of hard, cold facts there.

Comparing the dishonesty of the Bush camp to the Kerry camp is like comparing WWII to the invasion of Grenada.

This is an example of the superlatives the thread refers to. How much can we really compare? Kerry hasn't had the chance to do some of the things Bush has, he's never been president. What I do know, is that Kerry couldn't maintain many consistent positions. I had trouble knowing even what he stood for. Bush, even though I couldn't agree with him, was definate, even if he was wrong. Bush's camp never posited, and then defended, documents about Kerry. Then again, this wasn't Kerry's men (but neither were many of the heinious things done by the other side Bush's men).

It is especially disturbing that rather than agree how terrible it is, you keep simply saying, "but this is worse..." Why do that? Please don't take any offense at this, but it's like a party instinct, and it's used to justify worse actions (like many "conservative's" responses to Abu Grhaib). Rather than say that something is excessive, or that there was a wrong committed in one's camp, the mentality simply requires pointing fingers at another camp and saying "that's worse." As far as I'm concerned the Democrats and Republicans were just about equally dirty...just the Democrats employed the most dishonest example in the election. Saying "He's worse" just makes me wag my head.

 

[No*s]

Death is harsh. Selling WAR to America with lies based on FEAR and HATE which leads to the deaths of innocents is unconscionable. Bush is no more than a serial murderer backed by the religious right (which is neither). He only uses God to increase his power base. THAT is the Mark of the Beast in my book: masquerading evil for good.

But one day, I will tell you how I really feel, and will try not to hold back so much...

Here is actually a spot where Kerry is more dishonest than Bush. He voted for this war. He said he would question the moral values of anyone who didn't in the face of the election. When he started losing ground to Dean in the election, he took Dean's position and started assaulting the moral values of those who voted for the war. I find this whole fair-weather war mentality revolting. It's worse than Bush's jingoism, because it reduces war to exclusively a political game. You can support it for your image, and deny it for your image. It's revolting and dishonest.

Fortunately, I have a feeling you didn't support the war then flip . That applies to Kerry (and many people I do know did that ) there.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm waiting for the "Flip Flop" argument any moment.

He was TOLD by our president that there WERE WMDs all over the place. He Voted to go to was as a LAST POSSIBLE RESORT, not the first choice. The entire senate and congress were decieved by a meglomaniac hell bent on war to shift the focus from him having NO OSAMA.

I respect a man who after being given ADDITIONAL information can change his mind, not caring how others perceive him. I have NO RESPECT for a man who invents and manipulates information to intentionally mislead an entire nation into war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He was TOLD by our president that there WERE WMDs all over the place.

Give me a break. That Iraq had WMD was nothing new--our intelligence agencies had been saying that for years.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Myth #3: NIE judgments were news to Congress:[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Over the past fifteen years our assessments on Iraq WMD issues have been presented routinely to six different congressional committees including the two oversight committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To the best of my knowledge, prior to this NIE, these committees never came back to us with a concern of bias or an assertion that we had gotten it wrong. [/font]
​

From: http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm

I believe the good Senator Kerry was on one of the committees mentioned.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
​

 

[No*s]

I'm waiting for the "Flip Flop" argument any moment.

He was TOLD by our president that there WERE WMDs all over the place. He Voted to go to was as a LAST POSSIBLE RESORT, not the first choice. The entire senate and congress were decieved by a meglomaniac hell bent on war to shift the focus from him having NO OSAMA.

I respect a man who after being given ADDITIONAL information can change his mind, not caring how others perceive him. I have NO RESPECT for a man who invents and manipulates information to intentionally mislead an entire nation into war.

Already used it .

I share the respect in both places. As a third class, I have "NO RESPECT" for a man who does so at the most oppertune political moments. Mr. Kerry changed his views far more readily than someone doing so in light of new evidence. As Spinks pointed out, he was on one of the committees that oversaw the whole thing. He also saw the same information as Mr. Bush. He saw the same corroberating statements by other nations (including those who opposed our going to war). There wasn't much dispute among politicians on the "does he have them" question, but on the "how do we proceed" question.

Kerry's "flip flops" weren't from any cause of conscience. They came while losing to Dean (even going so far as copying his slogans). He went from questioning the morality of anyone who wouldn't vote for war, to questioning the morality of anyone who supports it. IMO, changing your position so readily on human lives is revolting. Bush is a jingoist, and that's revolting as well, but he at least is willing to be so in spite of what people think. I just think Bush's opinion is the wrong one. I have no stomach for Kerry's actions here.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Conveniently you didn't comment on the "Last Possible Choice" verses "First Choice".

The Bush party used the same deception. I guess you are in great company with people who never change their mind, even when proven WRONG.

 

[Scuba Pete]

BTW,

I feel ANGER boiling up again over this issue. I will be refraining from posting on this thread for a bit. I will read it, but feel that I am getting close to crossing over the line to continue my part of the discussion. I very rarely feel animosity towards ANYONE and do not lke it one bit.

 

[No*s]

I understand entirely. Sorry if I angered you.

Please understand, I'm not a Bush supporter. I found both choices deplorable, and I found both men a threat to my liberty. I simply oppose the kinds of bashing that normally occur with this president. I opposed the same with Clinton.

 

[retrorich]

I,too,agree that there has been enough bashing. He IS afterall our President. /QUOTE]

He may be YOUR president, but he is most definitely NOT MINE!

 

[Faminedynasty]

Please understand, I'm not a Bush supporter. I found both choices deplorable, and I found both men a threat to my liberty. I simply oppose the kinds of bashing that normally occur with this president. I opposed the same with Clinton.

That's the problem right there. You half-heartedly oppose Bush, maybe you figure he's not that good a guy and is guilty of some wrong doings. Maybe you whole-heartedly oppose him, but you make the colossal misjudgment that he's essentially no different than any other politicians. Kerry wasn't perfect, but there was no logical indication that he would inflict such horrific damage on the economy, the environment, the separation of Church and state or start unjust wars for his own corrupt interest. George Bush the second is not the same as other politicians today or those in our recent history. His rise to power and his despicable career as President form an astounding historical monument to ignorance, corruption and machiavellian pro-elitist/anti-democratic politics. Quite frankly, we've never seen anything like him and it is dangerous not to recognize that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would like to point out that Faminedynasty is NOT my sock puppet. He's easily as politically savvy as I am for sure, but he's not me!

Sic em' boy, sic em!

 

[No*s]

That's the problem right there. You half-heartedly oppose Bush, maybe you figure he's not that good a guy and is guilty of some wrong doings. Maybe you whole-heartedly oppose him, but you make the colossal misjudgment that he's essentially no different than any other politicians. Kerry wasn't perfect, but there was no logical indication that he would inflict such horrific damage on the economy, the environment, the separation of Church and state or start unjust wars for his own corrupt interest. George Bush the second is not the same as other politicians today or those in our recent history. His rise to power and his despicable career as President form an astounding historical monument to ignorance, corruption and machiavellian pro-elitist/anti-democratic politics. Quite frankly, we've never seen anything like him and it is dangerous not to recognize that.

Haven't you noticed that several of the allegations on this thread couldn't be substantiated? I don't care who it is. I don't want to see lies spread about them. Since we both agree that he's bad, then we should be able to do it only with verifiable evidence, without making things up, without conspiracy theories, etc. If you have to tear a man down by doing that, then you are in for a world of hurt, because the beliefs are renedered baseless. You cheapen your own cause in the process.

In that sense, I am not being half-hearted. I am only being fair. You'd further your cause with some moderation in your accusations. If you can substantiate your claims better, use less rhetoric, and so on, you'd be amazed how many people listen. I think it's partially a result of this kind of rhetoric he got reelected.

Now "Kerry wasn't perfect," no he wasn't. I do feel he was a greater threat to me than Bush. Almost everything you can name on Bush, if Kerry had any say on it, he voted for it. When it comes to government power, many of his plans increased it more...except when it was politically expedient (note the voting for the Patriot Act, condemning it, and taking no further action). Now, I don't play either man as benevolent.

Franky, most of the scariest pieces of legislation are passed bi-partisan (Patriot Acts, DMCA, etc.). You can't put these on Bush's shoulders. You can't put them on Kerry's shoulders, though I doubt you would try. However, Bush isn't the cause of all our woes...he's just a manifestation of our current situation with two parties.

Now, as for my anti-Bush feelings, make no mistake, they exist. I'm very passionate about it. I just don't pretend to have friends where I have none, and I try not to make unsubstantiated claims. I don't think it's half-hearted. I think it's just being moral.

 

[Faminedynasty]

Haven't you noticed that several of the allegations on this thread couldn't be substantiated? I don't care who it is. I don't want to see lies spread about them. Since we both agree that he's bad, then we should be able to do it only with verifiable evidence, without making things up, without conspiracy theories, etc. If you have to tear a man down by doing that, then you are in for a world of hurt, because the beliefs are renedered baseless. You cheapen your own cause in the process.

In that sense, I am not being half-hearted. I am only being fair. You'd further your cause with some moderation in your accusations. If you can substantiate your claims better, use less rhetoric, and so on, you'd be amazed how many people listen. I think it's partially a result of this kind of rhetoric he got reelected.

Now "Kerry wasn't perfect," no he wasn't. I do feel he was a greater threat to me than Bush. Almost everything you can name on Bush, if Kerry had any say on it, he voted for it. When it comes to government power, many of his plans increased it more...except when it was politically expedient (note the voting for the Patriot Act, condemning it, and taking no further action). Now, I don't play either man as benevolent.

Franky, most of the scariest pieces of legislation are passed bi-partisan (Patriot Acts, DMCA, etc.). You can't put these on Bush's shoulders. You can't put them on Kerry's shoulders, though I doubt you would try. However, Bush isn't the cause of all our woes...he's just a manifestation of our current situation with two parties.

Now, as for my anti-Bush feelings, make no mistake, they exist. I'm very passionate about it. I just don't pretend to have friends where I have none, and I try not to make unsubstantiated claims. I don't think it's half-hearted. I think it's just being moral.

Oh, I am all for being fair, but in all fairness there is enough within what is common knowledge about George Bush's economic and foreign policies to justify everything I have said without engaging in much speculation or paying any mind to so called conspiracy theories. We all know what Bush has done with his Presidency and I am merely expressing my opinion about the results. And I may speculate about his intent, but intent is often indicated through policy and his own words. I do not wish to come across as if my opinion is fact, but political debate is not a court of law and we have to speak about what we believe, not just that which is proven beyond a doubt. And I feel that it is reasonable, and essential to democracy for people to express, not only the facts but also their interpretation of the larger implications the facts hold. You may call that speculation or the use of unsubstantiated claims, but that is the "art" aspect of political science, and it is also what makes it possible to fight corruption in a given society and preventing atrocities before they happen.

As far as using moderation in my criticisms, I do. I think that I am being reasonable and basing my arguments in fact. If it's my choice of terms you object to--my rhetoric-- I apologize but it is appropriate to speak in strong terms when you are addressing your strongest objections to the hypocrisy, corruption and incompetence of the holder of the most powerful office in the world. People often accuse me of coming off as hateful (and subsequently unreasonable) in my criticisms, but it is the love of my country that compels me to oppose men such as Bush with such fervor. And all due respect, I think that you'd be surprised how many people DO listen to me or feel like I do.

And you speculate that Kerry wouldn't have been a good President, and there is some merit to that, but it is established and undeniable (by virtually anyone being reasonable) that George W. Bush has had a disastrous Presidency. And I am glad that you are passionately opposed to Bush, but it seems to me that if you had taken it all into account, it would be obvious to you that Kerry--or almost anyone else in national politics-- almost certainly couldn't come close to doing the damage that Bush has to our nation.

I didn't mean to assert that you were being half hearted, I only offered it as a possibility, and I hope that this explanation will help you to understand how I too feel that I am being moral with my arguments.

 

[Scuba Pete]

In his own words:

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state. "

"There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again. "

Unfortunately No*s too many Americans did this:

"They misunderestimated me."

 

[No*s]

In his own words:

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state. "

"There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again. "

Yes, the old "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on you." Heard it all the time growing up in TX .

Unfortunately No*s too many Americans did this:

"They misunderestimated me."

ND, you get no gripe from me there. I don't like George W. at all. I think he's a statist, and he's dangerous. I feel also that Kerry is a statist, just one that would do it faster. As far as I'm concerned, Bush is ushering in a socialist state, one that will stomp on human rights. He's travels with a crowd, though, that includes Clinton, Bush Sr., FDR, and many others. It's been a long process, and it's going to continue.

Bush doesn't hold any special place in my heart at all. If I could get him out and somebody worthwhile in, then I would do so. It's just that the majority of Americans beleive in legislating morality (both Democrats and Republicans...it just depends on the morality), and until this changes, there is no hope of stopping this process. So, yes, too many Americans are doing this.

 

[Yerda]

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

I thoroughly agree on this one. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.