| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ScottP
= Cult of Ray =
USA
618 Posts |
 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. |
 |
|
|
a guy in a rover
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
535 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5456 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
marcus4realius
- FB Fan -
133 Posts |
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
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
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?
|
|
|
|
s_wrenn
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1851 Posts |
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  |
Edited by - s_wrenn on 06/16/2006 17:04:28 |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11690 Posts |
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." |
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
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! |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
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." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
President Bush's Handicap Gaffe
