| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 12:24:57
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Sunglasses.mov
How dare anyone speak to me wearing sunglasses!!!!!!!
Wallsten (the reporter he tries to take to task) is legally blind.
That's our Bush. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 13:31:26
While I do think Bush is a lousy President, I don't think his crappy public speaking skills are what make him bad. They're easy (and fun) to make fun of, which is why comedians will always call attention to them. But there are intelligent, hard-working people who probably sound just as dumb as Bush when they have to address a crowd. Arguing that Bush is a poor excuse for a Chief Executive because he said "misunderestimated" is kind of silly. He's a bad leader and a bad speaker, but he isn't a bad leader BECAUSE he's a bad speaker.
Also, while national security is a very important issue, I think it's much more likely that the average American will die due to lack of work, resources, and health care than from a terrorist attack. And Bush has repeatedly shown himself to be totally callous toward anyone who isn't rich.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 11:29:11
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
"I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period."
I actually find in that line an ominous undertone, perhaps fear for the future is the cause? I kind of hope that in 100 years people look back and the event of 9/11 is perhaps known, but not the fulcrum upon which the world balance has fundamentally changed.
Certainly the near-term view can be construed pessimistically, but one may also think in terms of a light at the end of the tunnel. At least somebody with power has acted from the knowledge that we’ve been in a tunnel. It would be much better that history will regard 9/11 as a blip, but for the historical moment we cannot afford to assume that. I’m glad the hornet’s nest has been stirred, for this confrontation has long been past due.
To me the key phrasing I have stumbled upon is “don’t you think your ideals are getting ahead of geopolitical reality?” If there’s a fulcrum, perhaps it lies thereabout.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 04:14:54
i feel that´s the point Dean, it´s being used as a platform for a global plantation. they didn´t name the site of the ruin after something you launch something from for nothing y´noo.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 01:51:54
"I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period."
I actually find in that line an ominous undertone, perhaps fear for the future is the cause? I kind of hope that in 100 years people look back and the event of 9/11 is perhaps known, but not the fulcrum upon which the world balance has fundamentally changed.
 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 20:27:00
quote:
Originally posted by s_wrenn
"I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period."
Whoa! I could have swore that i just heard teeth grinding around the world.
Perhaps the world sleeps too well.
|
| s_wrenn |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 17:02:45
"I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period."
Whoa! I could have swore that i just heard teeth grinding around the world.
http://myspace.com/seanwrenn  |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 17:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
My point is that China can have the same feelings about Tibet that you have about Iran or Iraq. So, by your standard every country should attack whatever country they feel it is in their best interests to attack. And putting labels like "legitimate" or "non-legitimate" on countries is just an attempt to justify your actions.
Yes, China CAN have similar feelings and act on them. Whether or not “every country should attack whatever country they feel it is in their best interests to attack” lies within determination of “best interests”, as conceived with sufficient foresight. The rulers in Beijing, to include their progeny I hope, will eventually pay for being what they are. Sectors of Islam did in fact attack the US and others. What did Tibet ever do to China? (I ask that genuinely, for I don’t know that much about the history.) My sense is that the two situations are not morally comparable. It is true that what I advocate may seem to justify nations doing whatever they deem to be in their own interests, and hence that I advocate outlawism. But isn’t it evident that China has behaved largely as an international outlaw for decades and that the USA has been (relatively) a force for freedom, albeit of the capitalist variety. Yes, in a perfect world, all such conflicts could be adjudicated by a morally well-guided majority, but don’t you think your ideals are getting ahead of geopolitical reality?
|
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 16:38:27
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period.
Oh sweet merciful crap.
Serenity now. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 16:32:14
quote:
Originally posted by a guy in a rover
Erebus, while I respect everyone's right to political beliefs, I couldn't let this thread flow any longer without pointing out one simple flaw with your position as a Bush apologist.
The guy is fucking retarded. Okay, it has become hip to criticise him and jump on the Bush-baiting bandwagon (see Green Day) but unfortunately its one thing you cannot hide from, aside from anything to do with his war-mongering, his domestic/foreign policy, the economy, whatever, is that the guy acts like he has had a full frontal lobotomy. He has been making political satirists obselete since his election, the only President to be given his own phrase for his constant shit talking (Bushism). This is a man who has said, among other things
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., 5 August 2004
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., 29 September 2000 (referring to a dispute over Upper Klamath Lake)
"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 November 2000
How you can say he is better than anything the Democrats have put forward is clearly horseshit.
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
I was appalled when Bush Sr., in the run-up to the 2000 election, did such a good job of getting Republican dollars pre-committed to Bush Jr. While I think we should all be glad Gore didn't get the job, especially given the mangled job he no doubt would have done in the post-9/11 context, I was something of a McCain supporter pre-2000 (less so now). Bush does embarrass, but then I haven't been able to watch any American president speak publically since Reagan, and even then only sparingly. Not that I expect to convince anyone here, I think it’s a mistake to conclude from his public speaking that Bush comes off in private conversation as anything other than of above average intelligence. No genius, no intellectual, but probably with an IQ of around 120, showing all the tatters of years of abuse of alcohol and who knows what else. By itself, intellect is overrated, especially in the service of wrongheaded fundamental assumptions about human nature, which is part of what galls me so much about the great affection for Bill Clinton. I have always agreed with what Newo has said about GW being perhaps the figurehead of a group that is itself quite able. At least the rightwing intellectual cadre has some ideas that have not been thoroughly repudiated by history (and biology), which cannot be said about their leftwing counterpart. But anyway, back to Bush, what first impressed me about him was how he stood up to the Chinese when they tested him by snatching that surveillance plane prior to 9/11. And of course I think he has been so good in the post-9/11 period. To me, the “litmus test” issue is posture on Islamic radicalism. So, in short, I think it’s a mistake to judge GW on the basis of the mangled syntax. Yes, he makes me cringe at times, but more and more I think history will judge that we, and the world, are so fortunate he was president during this particular period.
|
| darwin |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:54:33
My point is that China can have the same feelings about Tibet that you have about Iran or Iraq. So, by your standard every country should attack whatever country they feel it is in their best interests to attack. And putting labels like "legitimate" or "non-legitimate" on countries is just an attempt to justify your actions. |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:52:44
Obviously you've never seen a Star Wars movie.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Perhaps "legitimate" was not the best term, but all this is quite beside the point. The Palestinians presently have elected leadership that may be "legitimate" while otherwise being of little merit. I don't believe anyone here seriously doubts the soundness of my larger point to the effect that the analogy between opposition voices on Tibet and those on Iraq is fundamentally flawed.
I think you think toppling another government is "justified" if you don't like that government. Therefore, there is no moral (or legal) difference between attacking Tibet, Iraq, Palenstine, Israel, or Cuba.
To me it's not just a matter of morality or legality, in the senses that I think you're using the terms. There is also the direct pragmatic aspect. I think there was ample moral justification in hitting Iraq, but there was also the long-term practical justification. A similar situation could well evolve in regard to Iran. For that matter, it's not too difficult to imagine a democratically-elected government, especially in a fundamentalist Islamic state, which actively fosters threats to the West, and therefore could justifiably be attacked. In what I would regard to be a better world, I would have no problem with taking out the regimes in Cuba and North Korea, or even China, but various considerations make that impractical or cost-ineffective. If Israel were feel just cause to roll over the Palestinians, as things stand now, it would matter not one bit too me. Given the resources and will, all the garbage in the world could be taken out. And my desire is not to kill people in big bunches but rather to end the killing and repression which exists all over the world. I applaud the will to peace that is evident on the left, but I very much doubt ideals alone are going to get it done, at least not in the foreseeable future and perhaps never.
|
| a guy in a rover |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:34:55
Yeah but surely the fact that he is a puppet is a problem of his own making. But more to the point, I dont see being told what to say as an excuse for being a blithering idiot, tripping over your words or using words such as 'hispanically' and 'misunderestimate'. The guys is a fucking idiot. Fact.
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
|
| ScottP |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:29:26
Bush is clearly challenged in many ways. But, during TWO elections, he did represent the majority of our country's voter's ideals. I guess our new flag will be the disabled person's symbol.
Just kidding, of course. But really, most of his votes came from our less than dynamic states. |
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:21:33
I don´t feel it does any good to go assassinating Bush´s character though Roverguy, rich as the material is. He may be thick as a post but those who are making him talk are formidably intelligent (if not wise, I´d consider wisdom to be a blend of intelligence and compassion). Plus, check out his speeches as a governor ten years ago, he was a compelling public speaker. Fastforward to him stumbling and shuffling through an election "debate" ten years later would indicate some serious degeneration. I spose when you´re a governor you have to be on your toes and talk about locally important stuff whereas when you´re a puppet in front of 300 million you can just be wheeled out to slur some vague garbage about good versus evil.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:07:16
It´s only difficult to envision the right and the left taking over together when you´re prone to sticking geographical coordinates on something as elusive as an opinion. How scientific!
Erebus, I guess grasping the situation in a country would, instead of us having a view refracted through the opinions of a bunch of journalists and spokesmen we´ve never even met, involve flying there, finding out how it smells and sitting down to dinner with some of the natives.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| a guy in a rover |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 15:07:14
Erebus, while I respect everyone's right to political beliefs, I couldn't let this thread flow any longer without pointing out one simple flaw with your position as a Bush apologist.
The guy is fucking retarded. Okay, it has become hip to criticise him and jump on the Bush-baiting bandwagon (see Green Day) but unfortunately its one thing you cannot hide from, aside from anything to do with his war-mongering, his domestic/foreign policy, the economy, whatever, is that the guy acts like he has had a full frontal lobotomy. He has been making political satirists obselete since his election, the only President to be given his own phrase for his constant shit talking (Bushism). This is a man who has said, among other things
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., 5 August 2004
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., 29 September 2000 (referring to a dispute over Upper Klamath Lake)
"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 November 2000
How you can say he is better than anything the Democrats have put forward is clearly horseshit.
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
|
| darwin |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 14:52:57
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Perhaps "legitimate" was not the best term, but all this is quite beside the point. The Palestinians presently have elected leadership that may be "legitimate" while otherwise being of little merit. I don't believe anyone here seriously doubts the soundness of my larger point to the effect that the analogy between opposition voices on Tibet and those on Iraq is fundamentally flawed.
I think you think toppling another government is "justified" if you don't like that government. Therefore, there is no moral (or legal) difference between attacking Tibet, Iraq, Palenstine, Israel, or Cuba. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 14:44:58
quote:
Either the liberals secretly took over in the 60s with pervasive propoganda, or the right wing did. It can't be both.
I think it COULD be both. Not totally, mind you, but I'm sure mainstream thought today incorporates both right-wing and left-wing propaganda, or at least what would have been viewed as such back in the sixties. But then, in the sixties, black people drinking from the same water fountains as white people was considered a radical left-wing idea by a substantial number of Americans.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 13:32:52
Perhaps, but perhaps not. His second term has not been much different than his first and this trickery you speak of was apparent to even those from the most shallow part of the gene pool, but it was ignored, laughed at as "crackpot conspiracy theories" (by which I refer to WMD in Iraq as my example), and supported.
If you choose to ignore fact, you can't be surprised to learn you're living a fiction.
Actually, that came out sounding more harsh than I intended. I suppose we should live in a world where we don't have to question our government, our media, our ...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| ScottP |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 12:59:48
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
>
Well, they say that you get the leaders you deserve.
I've never heard that saying. But it was surely made by an unhappy, bitter, asshole.
If you do the math regarding Bush's popularity ratings, nearly half of the people who voted for him would take their vote back today. They feel tricked, in other words. I doubt the citizens of Germany felt any different as Hitler's plan became obvious. Did they deserve him as a leader? No. They were simply tricked. The statement is arrogant, mean, and thoroughly invalid. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 12:54:17
Perhaps "legitimate" was not the best term, but all this is quite beside the point. The Palestinians presently have elected leadership that may be "legitimate" while otherwise being of little merit. I don't believe anyone here seriously doubts the soundness of my larger point to the effect that the analogy between opposition voices on Tibet and those on Iraq is fundamentally flawed.
I have never been to Iraq, but I take the question to suggest that I am wrong, or at least unqualified, to believe that conditions in Iraq are much better than they have been for a long time. For starters, I suggest you check these links out.
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE4OA==
http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/20050704_1941.html
or go to ask.com to search for “good news in Iraq” or some similar phrase.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:52:15
When Germans found out what they´d supported in the name of protecting the homeland from tyranny, most of the petardhoisting was selfadministered.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:42:14
People like Erebus will be hoisted by their own petard.
I will say no more about it. |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:40:49
I don't think Tibet was ever a democracy, thus the Chinese didn't overthrow a legitimate governmate. There needs to be a different term if "legitimate" requires democracy. |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:39:18
Taking this line of reasoning (and I belive it be sound) to an (perhaps) extreme, one could justify invading the US, based on the illegitimacy of the Bush adminstration following the election debacle of 2000. But then Bush is not guilty of killing his own people, like Saddam. Just people in other countries. Which is okay, because the ends justify the means. The ends being quieting a global terrorism threat and securing oil reserves. Correct if I'm wrong. And killing people slowing by encouraging a contiuned suburban, car-centric, sedentary lifestyle is okay because it's all in the name of the free market economy and the American way of life and do something subversively horrible over the long term is not as bad blowing up a building. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh hell, don't read my ramblings on this, read the ramblings of a professional: http://www.kunstler.com
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| speedy_m |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:33:21
By most political science definitions Saddam's government was not legitimate. It is generally considered that the people (vis-a-vis democracy) give a government legitimacy.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| darwin |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:26:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I think the analogy does not hold because the Chinese displaced a legitimate government whereas the same cannot be said of the invasion of Iraq.
What is a legitimate government? Does it have to be a democracy to be legitimate? Because I can't see how Saddam's governmate wasn't legitimate. It was brutal, but certainly functioning. Or is legitimate just who like (i.e. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran aren't legitimate). |
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:12:52
erebus, have you been to Iraq?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 10:10:00
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
And further to Erebus' comments re: wetsern liberalism being an "ally" to Islamofacism; does that mean that the pacisfist monks of Tibet are in fact "allies" of the opressive powers that have abused them?
I think the analogy does not hold because the Chinese displaced a legitimate government whereas the same cannot be said of the invasion of Iraq. And in Iraq coalition forces are fighting an enemy that has tyrannical ambitions beyond the conflict at hand, but in Tibet it is the "oppressive powers" that are tyrannical. Both the monks in Tibet and the coalition forces in Iraq are on the side of freedom against tyranny and murder. Look at the elections in Iraq and at the general improvement of the condition of the Iraqi people. The American forces there are hardly oppressive and, despite all the absurd talk of "blood for oil", very much look forward to the day when they can leave Iraq. So, no, not all opposition to war is the same, just as all war is not the same.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 09:59:23
Another usage of "useful idiot", the one I´m more familiar with, is to describe a thirdrate criminal protected by security services till he drives a truck laden with homemade explosive to a governmental building which black-op agents have rigged to detonate from the inside to the purpose of having a public begging for harsher legislation.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 09:50:02
All of the "useful idiots" who came out in droves to vote for Bush because they didn't want gays to get married are definitely on top of all the complex issues in the Middle East, I'm sure.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 09:46:59
I ask that the mods in this instance not enforce the "no personal insults" rule. I do not feel insulted, not in the least. Nor do I think this involves any threat to the broader civility of the forum. Passions will run high but we don't want to protect in such a way that makes it impossible to discuss highly controversial topics.
While I would say that many of those who are working hard against Bush and this war are indeed "sympathizers", most are merely this generation's version of what Stalin called "useful idiots". However, it is the latter who do more damage if only because the former are usually dismissed by the average citizen. But in any case, there can be no doubt that widespread opposition to the war, of both the rabid and ostensibly respectable varieties, is the best weapon in the Bin Laden arsenal.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 09:46:36
Well the head of Pakistani intelligence service ICI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, was on an official visit with his CIA counterparts the week surrounding September 11 after he´d channelled funds to the hijackers, but that´d be an ally we´d have to disbelieve what we see on teevee to consider so uh yeah, monks, smoke em out.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 09:36:19
Either the liberals secretly took over in the 60s with pervasive propoganda, or the right wing did. It can't be both.
And further to Erebus' comments re: wetsern liberalism being an "ally" to Islamofacism; does that mean that the pacisfist monks of Tibet are in fact "allies" of the opressive powers that have abused them?
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
|
|
