Sick Of Blaming Bush

[Yerda]

As far as I'm concerned, Bush is ushering in a socialist state, one that will stomp on human rights.

Please, don't utter his name in conjunction with socialism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Uh... Bush was refering to freedom of speech... in fact he was refering to speech critical of him. He believes it's un-American to disagree with HIM.

BTW, did you hear that ONLY REPUBLICAN DONORS can purchase a ticket to the inauguration? They are calling it the "Oil Bowl". BWAHAHAHAHA! I wish I could frubal that reporter!

 

[No*s]

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.

Yes, this is good. That's why I oppose mistruths as much as I am willing to criticize (in a thread before this one, I was accused of hating Bush and having a double standard, on account of my statements on WMDs). I replied to what you said before. When you asserted the "mainstream media" had not "held him accountable." That is patently false. When you asserted that his tax system "He has been a class war President, on the side of the elite and essentially everything he does is to help the elite rich at the expense of the common people," I responded by pointing out that his tax cuts weren't just for the rich, just the biggest portion to the rich, who consequently paid the most and that both parties support coddling the top 1%. Lastly, in that post, you said "He has been a class war President, on the side of the elite and essentially everything he does is to help the elite rich at the expense of the common people." That, also, is verifiably false. Almost all our leading intelligence officers believed that Saddamm had WMDs (I'm part of the loonie fringe who didn't), and was confirmed by foriegn sources. If a person believes something, then it isn't a lie.

All the above allegations are in post 10, and my rebuttal subsequent to it. In that, you didn't appeal to common knowledge, you made allegations, some slanderous, some factual errors. You also didn't acknowledge that problems. Acknowledging factual errors, recanting of falsehoods, and so on, and then making the case exclusively with accurate information is what I was referring to. My charges were broad enough to encompass other individuals' allegations, but they did include ones like this. I don't consider them lying unless the person who tells them knows they are false. I didn't believe that was the case there, with you (insisting on them after learning otherwise is another matter).

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.[/quote



No, we don't all know what he has done. If we did, then you wouldn't have repeated inaccuracies. It may well be your opinion about the results, but I am glad that you don't want your opinions to come across as fact. What I object to is making factual statements, not the expression of opinion. Further, when the strongest possible rhetoric is used (most of the "mosts" "worsts" and so on can be casually refuted), then we also reduce our own respectability. If we combine this with inaccurate facts/allegations, then we make matters worse. Not only can we express strong opinions, but we should. It's the "how" that is in question.

Obviously, I don't think (and have pointed them out earlier), that all the facts you cite are, indeed, true. Bush, for instant, isn't a class president. He is a partisan president. He's no more a class president than Kerry was. Both of them pass laws that favor the top 1%, but the Dems do it while whining about Republicans doing it.

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.

As for my speculation on Kerry, can you name one time when I have cited a fact, that in turn was false? If so, then I will check it and recant of it. If not, then I am conforming to the own standards I have mentioned (and I have also avoided superlatives with Kerry).

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.

I'm sorry to have misunderstood the statement. I can understand how you feel you are being moral, but my objection (when applied to your statements) is rooted in some of the instances above. I can understand repeating an error in ignorance, and I think that has been done, but I will also oppose criticism based on that. I have been doing so with Bush, and I did so with Clinton.

Glad we have things cleared up.

 

[No*s]

Please, don't utter his name in conjunction with socialism.

I did, on the basis of this. He is indeed increasing the power of catpitalism with regard to corporations, but his support here is more than mitigated by his actions elsewhere.

In increasing the regulation of the average citizen, he lays a regulatory gridwork for a socialist approach to the economy. The first socialist leaning Congress and/or President may then capitalize on the gridwork he laid down, and use it to further their goals. Big power to the state rarely goes away, but it is frequently added to, and Bush's expansions into the area of individual liberty cannot help but further other statist goals.


He is proposing a small (especially in comparison to Kerry's) national health care plan. I don't need to explain how this is socialist. It may not be the equivilant of Kerry's plan, by a large magnitude, but it is socialist. I'm afraid, that this is directly furthering our progress towards a socialist state.

I could make other points, but I believe that I have supported my statement, despite its apparant problems. If you wanted small government or complete opposition to socialism, you should support the Libertarian party. You won't get absolute opposition to socialism or opposition to statism in Bush (While he may be aiding socialism, despite being a capitalist, he is blatantly a statist, and there can be no dispute on that).

 

[HelpMe]

http://460design.net/ohio/video1.wmv

http://460design.net/ohio/video2.wmv

http://460design.net/ohio/

 

[No*s]

HM, I'm not going to look at them, because it's getting late, and we all know what night it is, but further, I have my OS being updated by CVSup and am on a dial-up. I may download them later, and I'm nervous about spending several hours downloading a movie that may not be useful to the argument and I may not be able to play, since it's in WMV format (I'll have to check the MPlayer codecs). I did read it, though.

1). What can you tell me about the "Free Speech Zone." It's obviously very partisan, so I am taking it with a grain of salt, and I don't trust just any internet source.

2). Can this be linked to George W.? If it can't, then this is a waste of time. That "small group of Republicans" may well not include him.

Now, I am perfectly willing to try and evaluate the facts, and this will take some time and will require I cross-reference with reputable sources. The "Free Speech Zone" isn't in my list of those, so I'm not about to just take it at its word. If I do that, then I will find myself believing falsehoods. Since it smacks of conspiracy theory, it makes me very nervous. Conspiracy theories are almost always dubious.

I will check it carefully. Thank you for trying to substantiate the claims.

 

[HelpMe]

It's obviously very partisan

and the links that deny it aren't?

the facts are more important than the name calling.


being partisan isn't saying much, we were partisan to hitler(geez, i hope i worded that properly), did that make him right?(of course not)

Can this be linked to George W.? If it can't, then this is a waste of time.

that's just a horrible thing to say.

http://shopfoto.us/weblog/archives/001555.html

Imagine a hypothetical situation where a team of vicious thieves plots an exceptionally violent bank robbery in the downtown financial district of a major city. Numerous anomalies are noticed during the commission of this crime.
The bank tellers are not able to send out an alarm to the police even though banks have numerous hidden silent alarms for foiling robbery. The guards at the bank somehow take much longer to call the police for assistance than they have done on previous occasions, raising questions among bank customers whether orders were given to the the guards to "stand down" and not interfere.
The police take an extraordinarily long amount of time to show up on the scene, despite an unblemished record of fast response to prior robberies.
The cops who do eventually respond are not dispatched from the nearest police station, but from a suburban police force many miles away that travels far below emergency speeds to intercept the robbers. Some of the responding officers travel the exact opposite direction from the bank when they do leave the station, and arrive on the scene too late to catch the criminals

http://www.oilempire.us/911.html#parable


http://www.makeamericaworkforus.com/saudis/index.asp
http://zfacts.com/
http://expage.com/notowar1
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

 

[No*s]

and the links that deny it aren't?

the facts are more important than the name calling.


being partisan isn't saying much, we were partisan to hitler(geez, i hope i worded that properly), did that make him right?(of course not)

Don't worry abou the wording much. The reason we were partisan towards Hitler, was because we were at war with him. It had nothing to do with our elections, so no matter what, it is apples and oranges.

that's just a horrible thing to say.

It would be a waste of time for this discussion. It doubt it could take away the election, and this thread is about Bush-bashing, and my objection is the lack of facts...often abject hatred. If it really can't be linked to him, why should we use it to attack him? We can use it to challenge the election, but it says nothing about him cheating or about his character. As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion, but it deserves discussion in other mediums regardless.

As for my holding back, it's a matter of being careful about my sources. I don't trust just anybody, especially on something as heated as this election. I've seen lies and mud-slinging done by both sides, and I've seen it done on both sides. I don't trust a patently anti-bush page anymore than I trust the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I have to check the facts in other sources and verify it. I can only be responsible and moral by doing that.

Obviously...I didn't get to bed, but got to commenting again, so I'm going to stay up all night now lol. This site is addictive.

 

[Faminedynasty]

Yes, this is good. That's why I oppose mistruths as much as I am willing to criticize (in a thread before this one, I was accused of hating Bush and having a double standard, on account of my statements on WMDs). I replied to what you said before. When you asserted the "mainstream media" had not "held him accountable." That is patently false. When you asserted that his tax system "He has been a class war President, on the side of the elite and essentially everything he does is to help the elite rich at the expense of the common people," I responded by pointing out that his tax cuts weren't just for the rich, just the biggest portion to the rich, who consequently paid the most and that both parties support coddling the top 1%. Lastly, in that post, you said "He has been a class war President, on the side of the elite and essentially everything he does is to help the elite rich at the expense of the common people." That, also, is verifiably false. Almost all our leading intelligence officers believed that Saddamm had WMDs (I'm part of the loonie fringe who didn't), and was confirmed by foriegn sources. If a person believes something, then it isn't a lie.

All the above allegations are in post 10, and my rebuttal subsequent to it. In that, you didn't appeal to common knowledge, you made allegations, some slanderous, some factual errors. You also didn't acknowledge that problems. Acknowledging factual errors, recanting of falsehoods, and so on, and then making the case exclusively with accurate information is what I was referring to. My charges were broad enough to encompass other individuals' allegations, but they did include ones like this. I don't consider them lying unless the person who tells them knows they are false. I didn't believe that was the case there, with you (insisting on them after learning otherwise is another matter).



As for my speculation on Kerry, can you name one time when I have cited a fact, that in turn was false? If so, then I will check it and recant of it. If not, then I am conforming to the own standards I have mentioned (and I have also avoided superlatives with Kerry).



I'm sorry to have misunderstood the statement. I can understand how you feel you are being moral, but my objection (when applied to your statements) is rooted in some of the instances above. I can understand repeating an error in ignorance, and I think that has been done, but I will also oppose criticism based on that. I have been doing so with Bush, and I did so with Clinton.

Glad we have things cleared up.

Please explain to me why it is patently false to claim that the mainstream media has not held Bush accountable? As a matter of fact, let me explain why your claim is ridiculous. When Bush was pushing for war in Iraq, do you honestly believe that the media was skeptical enough about his claims? Were they critical enough of his decision to go to war or of the intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction? Now, as with all matters of political debate this is a matter of opinion, but I feel that you cannot reasonably answer yes to those questions. And countless members of the press, even some conservatives have admitted that they were too soft on the President, too eager to conform to the push to war as has been the case with the media time and time again throughout recent history. I don’t think that anyone believes that Bush believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Since the common people with whom I worked knew that his claims were false, you would expect the media to express this view, or at least mention the possibility that intelligence contrary to Bush’s claims was in existence. It failed to do so. And although members of the mass media have admitted that they failed to do their job, you will not see anyone on the corporate media television channels call Bush a liar, a criminal or a demagogue though that is the sentiment held by many millions of Americans, and it is a view that needs be expressed. I don’t hear anyone on the mainstream media calling for the impeachment of Bush, or the imprisonment, though I, my family and friends and countless others believe it is called for. I think that it is a fair assertion that the media hasn’t held him accountable, and that many, if not most Americans would call it a fact.

And do you honestly think for an instant that the fact that George W. Bush offered a token gesture to the poor in his massive tax cuts dismisses the claim that he is in the pocket of the elite rich? His shameless and disastrous tax cuts to the richest 1% cannot be justified and I cannot be mollified by such token efforts. It is the failed system of “trickle down economics,” the belief that if the rich have more money, they’ll have more pennies to throw at bums (the common people) on the street. It brought poverty under Reagan and similar results under Bush. But I don’t believe it is an accident. It is a direct result of Bush and people of like mind believing that the purpose of government is to consolidate wealth into the hands of a few. Jobs are shipped overseas and he rewards the companies that do it. The economic and political power of the middle class is therefore diminished as unions and American production die out. The class divide is larger than ever and growing fast, and yet Bush speaks about economic success. That says a lot about what his economic goals are.

Finally, you act as if my arguments are not based in facts, that they are “patently false.” This is not the case. Facts are the very basis of my arguments. Perhaps you would prefer that I would be “objective” in gathering and interpreting facts? I’m sorry, but that is not how political debate works, and that is certainly not what you do. It is not my facts you object to, but the interpretation thereof. You feign objectivity, as if you will only speak out given proven, substantiated facts, but there are so many facts to select from, and your interpretation of them demonstrates your right-wing bias, and I think that it explains a lot about your stance in this thread. And that’s only natural. One considers the facts at hand, but in interpreting them, one is either pro-democratic or pro-elite. We can’t truly be unbiased or objective, the best we can do is to be logical and reasonable...And in regards to that...no offense, but anyone who believes that Bush is building a socialist state needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[No*s]

Please explain to me why it is patently false to claim that the mainstream media has not held Bush accountable? As a matter of fact, let me explain why your claim is ridiculous. When Bush was pushing for war in Iraq, do you honestly believe that the media was skeptical enough about his claims? Were they critical enough of his decision to go to war or of the intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction? Now, as with all matters of political debate this is a matter of opinion, but I feel that you cannot reasonably answer yes to those questions. And countless members of the press, even some conservatives have admitted that they were too soft on the President, too eager to conform to the push to war as has been the case with the media time and time again throughout recent history. I don’t think that anyone believes that Bush believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Since the common people with whom I worked knew that his claims were false, you would expect the media to express this view, or at least mention the possibility that intelligence contrary to Bush’s claims was in existence. It failed to do so. And although members of the mass media have admitted that they failed to do their job, you will not see anyone on the corporate media television channels call Bush a liar, a criminal or a demagogue though that is the sentiment held by many millions of Americans, and it is a view that needs be expressed. I don’t hear anyone on the mainstream media calling for the impeachment of Bush, or the imprisonment, though I, my family and friends and countless others believe it is called for. I think that it is a fair assertion that the media hasn’t held him accountable, and that many, if not most Americans would call it a fact.

One participant of the liberal media presented documents that were blatant forgeries, against the testimony of their own experts, and even after admitting to this, they still defended their actions by saying that while the documents were forgeries, they were still newsworthy because their contents were true, but they couldn't supply further proof. You don't call that trying to take him out of power? Of the major news media orginizations, almost all of them are staunchly, and statistically, anti-Bush. We have polls indicating that they have a far more likely to be liberal than the average populace. Of the major media outlets, I can name two that are clearly Republican-leaning: Fox and the talk radio orginizations. Saying that the media hasn't tried to take Bush down is the equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. They've tried, and they've tried hard. It doesn't matter that they haven't succeeded...unless we have ridiculously high standards.

Why did the media not call down the War in Iraq when we were preparing? Well, it might be because everbody had basically the same information (and I was against a preemptive strike for ethical reasons...were you?). The information was pretty hard to refute, and the few experts who disagreed at the time did get air-time. It The information was convincing enough to make both Democrats and Republicans vote "yes" to the war. It's funny to me, that after Colin Powell's presentation of our intelligence, that popular opinion in favor of the war sky-rocketed and was bi-partisan. Now, however, it's hard to find a Democrat who will admit he supported it, and even Republicans slink away. I don't think that in that context, we have much grounds to cry "foul!"

If you're going to call for impeachment, you had better start making your case. For impeachment, you need to be able to demonstrate that Bush violated the law. If you cannot demonstrate that, then you have no grounds for impeachment, much less expelling him from office. It doesn't matter how much you dislike the guy.

As an aside, I don't think your "common man" really represents the common man. I bet if we look at the gallup poll, more unbiased than either of us can be, we will find that Bush has close to a 50% approval rating, or depending on the week, a little over. The common man seems pretty split.

And do you honestly think for an instant that the fact that George W. Bush offered a token gesture to the poor in his massive tax cuts dismisses the claim that he is in the pocket of the elite rich? His shameless and disastrous tax cuts to the richest 1% cannot be justified and I cannot be mollified by such token efforts. It is the failed system of “trickle down economics,” the belief that if the rich have more money, they’ll have more pennies to throw at bums (the common people) on the street. It brought poverty under Reagan and similar results under Bush. But I don’t believe it is an accident. It is a direct result of Bush and people of like mind believing that the purpose of government is to consolidate wealth into the hands of a few. Jobs are shipped overseas and he rewards the companies that do it. The economic and political power of the middle class is therefore diminished as unions and American production die out. The class divide is larger than ever and growing fast, and yet Bush speaks about economic success. That says a lot about what his economic goals are.

Can you propose a single presidential candidate who doesn't cut taxes for the top 1%? Kerry voted for that special tax break (he benefits). Neither Clinton nor Bush Sr. ever lifted a finger to oppose that. Increase taxes on the top 15-20%? Yeah sure...but they aren't in that. If you criticize Bush for this, and support a Democratic candidate, you are practicing a double standard.

Finally, you act as if my arguments are not based in facts, that they are “patently false.” This is not the case. Facts are the very basis of my arguments. Perhaps you would prefer that I would be “objective” in gathering and interpreting facts? I’m sorry, but that is not how political debate works, and that is certainly not what you do. It is not my facts you object to, but the interpretation thereof. You feign objectivity, as if you will only speak out given proven, substantiated facts, but there are so many facts to select from, and your interpretation of them demonstrates your right-wing bias, and I think that it explains a lot about your stance in this thread. And that’s only natural. One considers the facts at hand, but in interpreting them, one is either pro-democratic or pro-elite. We can’t truly be unbiased or objective, the best we can do is to be logical and reasonable...And in regards to that...no offense, but anyone who believes that Bush is building a socialist state needs to go back to the drawing board.

Actually, I've been frubaled by both Bush and Kerry supporters for my comments in this thread. Have you? I try to be objective, but that doesn't mean I always succeed, and my opposition to both parties isn't because I'm neutral, but because I come from another ideology and another point of view. I'm friends of neither party. That isn't a claim not to have bias.

What I pointed out weren't interpretations of facts. They were factual errors. Bush did cut taxes across the classes, and those he doesn't tax neither party supports taxing heavily (it's their brackett funny enough). When you say the media hasn't held Bush accountable, they most certainly have tried. When you claim to speak for the common man, you can be speaking for at best 50%, which is hardly the "common man's" opinion...just your group, so claiming to speak for all of them, it is extreme hyperbole at best. When you claim Bush lied in starting the Iraq War, you have to omit the fact that all our intelligence and foriegn intelligence supported his position, but if he actually believed it, then he didn't lie. When you say his "corruption is blatant and shameless," you fail to supply one instance of his breaking the law. That's kind of a prerequisite. There can be unethical activities that don't break the law.

Those are factual errors. They aren't matters of opinion. Only the media can be remotely an opinion...but it is a fact they have tried quite hard to hold him accountable even if they haven't succeeded.

Now my defense of the socialist remark is already been posted. Please note, I was typing in a hurry and didn't explain what I meant, nor how I got there. Now, it goes like this, and this is interpretation:

1). He increases government regulation, almost without restraint. Regulation never ceases to be. Said regulation will be, not might be, used as a framework from which to launch socialist programs by later politicians. Government regulations also don't tend to vanish, so most of these changes are permanent.

2). He is in favor of a state health-care system. This is, of course, a socialist idea, and while he starts it, it will eventually be made into a full health-care program. He lays the first stone (and this is a socialist act), and others will build on it. Like government regulation, government freebies don't normally disappear.

Those are the two reasons I listed. By doing so, he even though he is a capitalist, is laying the ground for socialism. Statism cuts both ways, after all. So, now I've expained that a second time.

 

[Faminedynasty]

The evidence you have cited in your attempt to prove that the media has held Bush accountable is essentially based on one isolate incident, whereas my effort to counter that claim is based on years of complacency and conformity on the part of the corporate media. And do you not see the self-evident contradiction in the fact that your so-called “liberal” media is owned by giant corporations? Corporations do not tend to be left-leaning. They do not strive for radical change, they would like to continue making obscene profits and that, by definition makes them conservative of the status quo. Fox news, Sinclair broadcasting and conservative talk radio are all openly the mouthpiece of the Republican right, but even reasonable liberal (and in this case by liberal I mean only of modern and democratic thought) sources such as CNN were painfully complacent in Bush’s push for war. And it is true that many key anchors, reporters and journalists are liberal, but the sources used by all of the corporate media remain very conservative and as the annual surveys from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting indicate, largely white, male and Republican. And that is not to mention the fact that the Bush administration has bribed at least one “journalist” to be friendly in his reporting of the “no child left behind” program.

Bribery is illegal I believe. Which brings me to the question of what laws Bush has broken. I’m not a lawyer like my brother, or even a legal expert, but common sense seems to indicate that if bribing the press is not illegal, it should be. Furthermore, it is the most blatant violation of international law and the UN charter to invade a sovereign nation in an act of aggression, and it seems to me that although it isn’t possible, the harshest penalty should be imposed in consideration of the countless thousands who died as a direct result. (oh and to answer your question, yes I was opposed to the preemptive strike on Iraq for ethical reasons and I marched on the capitol with thousands who felt the same) Assassination and attempted assassination is illegal under Federal and international law and you’ll recall the “decapitation strike” which began the bombing of Baghdad. And although it is common place, it is still illegal for the President to take the country to war without the consent of congress.

I would also argue that he has violated constitutional law by exploiting September 11th to reduce the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. In attacking Habeas corpus, in exploiting September 11th to pass the Patriot act, in allowing illegal searches and denying people the right to attorneys he has hardly upheld his oath to defend the constitution. And that is where the most legal criticism can be placed: on Bush’s failure to uphold his constitutional oath. His violations of international law are numerous, but unfortunately, there is no body which enforces international law over the President of the United States. And if Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex, logic would suggest that Bush could be impeached for lying to justify a war in which perhaps 100,000 have died. And perhaps it is not yet proven beyond a doubt that Bush lied to justify this war, perhaps he was just extremely incompetent and misleading, but in either case a trial is certainly called for.

In regards to my description of the common people, for the purpose of this thread, let’s consider the common people those who are not obscenely rich. When I spoke of “the common people with whom I worked” it is true, I was speaking of blue collar workers, Blacks and Latinos, students and low wage workers in the inner city. But to a man they knew that Bush’s claims were false, and they have been proven correct. In a larger sense, the phrase “common people” does apply also to the poor white and the non-elite who support the President who exploits them, and enacts economic policies that cost their jobs and cuts the social programs that support them and their children. It even applies to the poor whites who believe that they will someday be allowed to be rich because they are white. My point is that whether they know it or not, the common people all share in common the fact that Bush is their economic enemy.

As far as your claims of Bush ushering in a socialist state, I have read your defense of it, and I am not asking you to defend it again, but I do not think that you can reasonably make such a claim about a President who has so consistently supported privatization, who has cut so many social programs and cut taxes to the rich, and who has suggested that we eliminate the protection of national parks. And he has consistently decreased environmental regulations of corporations. Democratic socialism, such as that seen in European nations very rarely involves tax-cuts to the elite rich and privatization. In fact it generally involves taxing the hell out of the rich and increasing public ownership, and it generally results in a decrease in the class divide. The Bush administration has had the opposite of all of these effects. You claim that Bush is a statist, but that is not exclusive to, or even an indication of supporting socialism. You say that state health insurance is a socialist idea and that Bush is laying the groundwork as if socialism is something new to the United States. Libraries, public schools, public parks, public works, and public transportation are socialist ideas as well, but Americans are raised not to look at it as such. Government regulations are inevitable in and essential to any democratic society. Socialism is nothing new to the United States, but Bush has been consistently opposed to it ideologically, economically and he is on the opposite end of the spectrum politically.

 

[No*s]

The evidence you have cited in your attempt to prove that the media has held Bush accountable is essentially based on one isolate incident, whereas my effort to counter that claim is based on years of complacency and conformity on the part of the corporate media. And do you not see the self-evident contradiction in the fact that your so-called “liberal” media is owned by giant corporations? Corporations do not tend to be left-leaning. They do not strive for radical change, they would like to continue making obscene profits and that, by definition makes them conservative of the status quo. Fox news, Sinclair broadcasting and conservative talk radio are all openly the mouthpiece of the Republican right, but even reasonable liberal (and in this case by liberal I mean only of modern and democratic thought) sources such as CNN were painfully complacent in Bush’s push for war. And it is true that many key anchors, reporters and journalists are liberal, but the sources used by all of the corporate media remain very conservative and as the annual surveys from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting indicate, largely white, male and Republican. And that is not to mention the fact that the Bush administration has bribed at least one “journalist” to be friendly in his reporting of the “no child left behind” program.

I didn't limit it to a single event. I also used statistics. The statistical argument is actually far more powerful. It is true Fox, Sinclair, and talk radio are right-leaning, but how much, really, of the media is that? I'll trust the polls on this, unless I can find a reason to doubt them.

It is odd that corporate execs would be left-leaning. I mean, who would have thought that George Soros would be a staunch supporter of the Democratic party? It's the same thing that a great many of the elite who preach massive redistribution of wealth on TV often ride in limos and have resort houses in multiple countries. It's not surprising, though, when we consider that humans are not often rational.

Bribery is illegal I believe. Which brings me to the question of what laws Bush has broken. I’m not a lawyer like my brother, or even a legal expert, but common sense seems to indicate that if bribing the press is not illegal, it should be.

It really is rather...um odd. I don't think this deserves any more comment, and it's a pretty revealing allegation, and not so much about Bush either. Of course, if you can supply solid evidence of Bush "bribing the press," then I'll eat my words...but I have a feeling it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, it is the most blatant violation of international law and the UN charter to invade a sovereign nation in an act of aggression, and it seems to me that although it isn’t possible, the harshest penalty should be imposed in consideration of the countless thousands who died as a direct result. (oh and to answer your question, yes I was opposed to the preemptive strike on Iraq for ethical reasons and I marched on the capitol with thousands who felt the same)

Now, I don't disagree that it was a violation of U.N. rules...but I don't hear you decrying the nations who dissented most strongly with Bush's plan being tied for that "Oil for food" mess. Nor do I hear you decrying Kofi Annan's behavior in office...even when I asked about it earlier. It really is kind of funny that we can condemn Mr. Bush's actions here, but the same people condemning it don't say a word about the paper trail, which directly links the same countries that objected to dirty money from Saddamm, and with a trail that often leads to officials. Funny indeed.

Assassination and attempted assassination is illegal under Federal and international law and you’ll recall the “decapitation strike” which began the bombing of Baghdad. And although it is common place, it is still illegal for the President to take the country to war without the consent of congress.

So, you're saying a law forbidding the assassination of the head of another nation in a time of peace is applicable in a time of war? I'd love to see that one tried.

I would also argue that he has violated constitutional law by exploiting September 11th to reduce the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. In attacking Habeas corpus, in exploiting September 11th to pass the Patriot act, in allowing illegal searches and denying people the right to attorneys he has hardly upheld his oath to defend the constitution. And that is where the most legal criticism can be placed: on Bush’s failure to uphold his constitutional oath.

Sorry, that was bi-partisan, and sadly it was supported overwhelmingly by Americans. Passing laws in violation of the Constitution is not impeachable. If it were, we'd see Congress and the President impeached frequently. Stopping that problem is exactly what the courts are for. I cannot stand the Patriot Acts, but if that's where "the most legal criticism can be placed," then impeachment has very poor prospects indeed.

His violations of international law are numerous, but unfortunately, there is no body which enforces international law over the President of the United States. And if Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex, logic would suggest that Bush could be impeached for lying to justify a war in which perhaps 100,000 have died. And perhaps it is not yet proven beyond a doubt that Bush lied to justify this war, perhaps he was just extremely incompetent and misleading, but in either case a trial is certainly called for.

First, the majority of our intelligence pointed to Saddam having WMDs. This was the position of Kerry before the election. It was the position of Clinton. It was the position of numerous senators. They all saw the same data. This position was confirmed by other nations' intelligence, even those who stonewalling Bush (like Russia). That isn't a lie. It's a mistake.

Clinton's lie was a result of a witch-hunt. What he was impeached for was perjuring himself, not lying to the public in a general sense. Perjury is a different than Bush's charge for WMDs on two counts 1). We have no reason to believe that Bush didn't believe what he said, except prejudice, and a trial can only be called for here if we have proof he lied. 2). Bush wasn't under oath in a court. Apples and oranges.

In regards to my description of the common people, for the purpose of this thread, let’s consider the common people those who are not obscenely rich. When I spoke of “the common people with whom I worked” it is true, I was speaking of blue collar workers, Blacks and Latinos, students and low wage workers in the inner city. But to a man they knew that Bush’s claims were false, and they have been proven correct. In a larger sense, the phrase “common people” does apply also to the poor white and the non-elite who support the President who exploits them, and enacts economic policies that cost their jobs and cuts the social programs that support them and their children. It even applies to the poor whites who believe that they will someday be allowed to be rich because they are white. My point is that whether they know it or not, the common people all share in common the fact that Bush is their economic enemy.

Even that doesn't allow for the fact that over 50% of the nation supported Bush. You admit, now, that the common people includes more than the people that agree with you. You cannot speak for them. You may think that "Bush is their economic enemy," but if they choose Bush, then you cannot speak for those who did. That's pretty arrogant. I can go ask my mother (a lower-class white woman) if she thinks you speak for her. I'm pretty sure I'll get a "no." The test is repeatable.

As far as your claims of Bush ushering in a socialist state, I have read your defense of it, and I am not asking you to defend it again, but I do not think that you can reasonably make such a claim about a President who has so consistently supported privatization, who has cut so many social programs and cut taxes to the rich, and who has suggested that we eliminate the protection of national parks. And he has consistently decreased environmental regulations of corporations. Democratic socialism, such as that seen in European nations very rarely involves tax-cuts to the elite rich and privatization. In fact it generally involves taxing the hell out of the rich and increasing public ownership, and it generally results in a decrease in the class divide. The Bush administration has had the opposite of all of these effects. You claim that Bush is a statist, but that is not exclusive to, or even an indication of supporting socialism. You say that state health insurance is a socialist idea and that Bush is laying the groundwork as if socialism is something new to the United States. Libraries, public schools, public parks, public works, and public transportation are socialist ideas as well, but Americans are raised not to look at it as such. Government regulations are inevitable in and essential to any democratic society. Socialism is nothing new to the United States, but Bush has been consistently opposed to it ideologically, economically and he is on the opposite end of the spectrum politically.

My claim isn't based on his what he believes. It's based on increasing regulation. We both know good and well, that the increased privitization will go away just about as quickly as it was put in as soon as the political winds change. His increased government power, though...that will form a gridwork for even further regulation.

I am looking forward to looking through HelpMe's information in the library in the next couple days. I like hard facts and testable statements here.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I am sure that you are well aware of the situation with Armstrong Williams and the revelation (as reported in USA today) that the administration paid him $240,000 to hype the no child left behind program, and urge other black commentators to do the same. And I can only assume that you acting as if you had no idea what I was talking about is a pre-curser to you explaining to me why that is not bribery. Call it what you want, but the purpose of the media is to provide information vital to our freedom, and when a pundit’s opinions can be purchased it corrupts our democracy. Perhaps your best (and Bush’s best) hope to avoiding him being held accountable in this case is to use the classical machiavellian tactic of claiming that it is no fault of his, that others below him in the administration, (without any knowledge of his) used faulty judgment, but I am wondering how many times a man can use this excuse before any reasonable person will become skeptical. This is undeniably corruption, the only unknown variable is the extent to which it goes. And the cold, hard, fact that one man’s opinion could be bought inevitably raises questions about what others have been bribed--or--given financial incentive to agree, if you prefer. Williams himself has made the claim that “This happens all the time,” and that “There are others.” Whether there is truth to that or not remains to be seen, but it sparks one’s curiosity, does it not? I for one am wondering who else is on the payroll.

As far as the common people, I don’t claim to speak for the opinion of your mother or anyone but myself. That doesn’t mean that I will relinquish my right to talk about other people or to express the sentiment other people have described to me or to analyze political trends. I expressed the sentiment of my former comrade workers and I think that it is a fair statement, in the gentlest of terms to say that there are many Americans who are expressing similar opinions, and feeling similar sentiment to my own. Some common people recognize their economic enemies, and some do not. Some instead divide themselves from their political “enemies” based on race. And that is nothing new. Many other common people have told me that they support Bush because they don’t like faggots, or because they want to prove that this is a Biblical nation, or because abortion is murder or because Kerry would come in the night and take their guns (Possibly thereby allowing Kofi Annan to invade ). So clearly there is a wide variety of opinions among the common people and it is not as if they are a united political faction. I make no denial of the fact that the common people are as divided and mollified by race and religion as ever.

Aside from that, I think my previous statement sums it up quite nicely.

 

[No*s]

I am sure that you are well aware of the situation with Armstrong Williams and the revelation (as reported in USA today) that the administration paid him $240,000 to hype the no child left behind program, and urge other black commentators to do the same. And I can only assume that you acting as if you had no idea what I was talking about is a pre-curser to you explaining to me why that is not bribery. Call it what you want, but the purpose of the media is to provide information vital to our freedom, and when a pundit’s opinions can be purchased it corrupts our democracy. Perhaps your best (and Bush’s best) hope to avoiding him being held accountable in this case is to use the classical machiavellian tactic of claiming that it is no fault of his, that others below him in the administration, (without any knowledge of his) used faulty judgment, but I am wondering how many times a man can use this excuse before any reasonable person will become skeptical. This is undeniably corruption, the only unknown variable is the extent to which it goes. And the cold, hard, fact that one man’s opinion could be bought inevitably raises questions about what others have been bribed--or--given financial incentive to agree, if you prefer. Williams himself has made the claim that “This happens all the time,” and that “There are others.” Whether there is truth to that or not remains to be seen, but it sparks one’s curiosity, does it not? I for one am wondering who else is on the payroll.

I think you confuse contracts with bribery. This wouldn't be the first time that someone has paid the media in order to propogate things. We do it all the time in advertising. The courts, though, will sift out whether it is illegal. Bribery, though, no it is not. It would be a bribe if they had some disastrous news story, and the administration paid them not to broadcast it. Words mean things. Don't weaken them.

As far as the common people, I don’t claim to speak for the opinion of your mother or anyone but myself. That doesn’t mean that I will relinquish my right to talk about other people or to express the sentiment other people have described to me or to analyze political trends. I expressed the sentiment of my former comrade workers and I think that it is a fair statement, in the gentlest of terms to say that there are many Americans who are expressing similar opinions, and feeling similar sentiment to my own. Some common people recognize their economic enemies, and some do not. Some instead divide themselves from their political “enemies” based on race. And that is nothing new. Many other common people have told me that they support Bush because they don’t like faggots, or because they want to prove that this is a Biblical nation, or because abortion is murder or because Kerry would come in the night and take their guns (Possibly thereby allowing Kofi Annan to invade ). So clearly there is a wide variety of opinions among the common people and it is not as if they are a united political faction. I make no denial of the fact that the common people are as divided and mollified by race and religion as ever.

Aside from that, I think my previous statement sums it up quite nicely.

It is true that the average man in America isn't a common political faction. It is equally true, however, that they don't have all the same interests. The farmer, teacher, and factory workers' businesses all inter-relate. They also don't all have the same interests. It is, frankly, impossible to speak for the "common man," so I assume we should let him speak for himself, and what the common man says his interests are, let that be them. I certainly can't do better, even if I think somebody like Badnarik is more equipped for office than Bush.