Bush Speech: Utter Bullshit [Archive]

Gomezticator

June 29th, 2005, 12:11 PM

Over 59 million people this past election voted for Dubstack, in fact. Either a) our nation at large is very ill informed, b) they think all the information of misdeeds and screw-ups on Dubs' part are lies propogated by the so-called liberal jew-run media and his detractors, and that Bush can't do any wrong or c) they thought Kerry was even worse.

I voted for Kerry, even if I didn't think Kerry would do a good job. I think the reason "our" president's still in office today is that the Democrats aren't making enough of an effort to connect with the midwest and south, traditionally conservative voters, and instead wasted time rallying an already existing base that couldn't win an election on their own. Don't give me this crap about how it's the Bible Belt and right-wing fucknuts and you can't reach them: Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, connected with many of those voters, took many of those states on election day and he won his elections easily. Some upstanding stuffed shirt from New England isn't going to connect with middle America, and yes, THAT matters.

hydrozoa

June 29th, 2005, 12:26 PM

"the green king", i would be fucking delighted to hear why you voted for bush. i don't think i've ever had a conversation with one of... your kind. other than my boyfriend's catholic parents, and i don't get to ask them all the questions that i'd like to.

yeah. enlighten me.

The Green King

June 29th, 2005, 12:49 PM

You voted for Bush? Then you don't just feel like an asshole, you ARE an asshole.

Read Ted Rall's piece in this week's paper: You had all the info you needed on Bush to make an informed choice on Election Day 2004. He's was a lying, inept idiot during his first term, and he's the same idiot during his second term - why did you expect anything else? Christ!

Oh Dan, I hate the sin (of not knowing all your shit) but love the sinner (because...well...just because). I voted for Bush in 2000, not 2004. Might've asked. Didn't. That's OK, not that I'm a big one for excusing the prejudices of omission of others. I've kicked myself in the ass for having believed W's cunning brand of bullshit in 2000 with such regularity that even your best-aimed boot couldn't miss a long-calloused bruise.

In answer to the question you might've asked but didn't: it was learning of preemptive arrests of anarchists before a World Bank/IMF meeting in DC back in 2001, just three months after the Chimp's inaguration. It was the first entry in a list titled Ways This Country Has Changed For The Worse, and Why. I never quite sensed how cynical Republicans could be because, like millions of other right-thinking but deluded individuals, I found the boostrappers' stories enthralling enough to give a pass on shit like Iran-Contra and kicking all the sad, hopeless, fucked-up 'Nam vets out of mental hospitals (plus I was banging a Republican nymphomaniac Elizabeth Hurley doppelganger and there was no way I was passing on that).

The point of all this –and the original post– should be taken as an affirmation of the possibility of victory for the good-hearted America we all know and lament, currently best embodied in the nascent progressive left.

Hydrozoa, does this offer even a partial answer to your question?

hydrozoa

June 30th, 2005, 09:14 AM

I voted for Bush because I was swayed by his prodigious charm and eloquence. And PS, I was fucking this superhot Republican chick.

Hydrozoa, does this offer even a partial answer to your question?

um, i don't know. i can barely speak, much less type, because my brain is crying and my face just caved in.

i'll get back to you.

neatomajick

June 30th, 2005, 10:30 AM

This is fucking funny. Green King, you have balls! To admit that you voted for Bush, here, in the Stranger forums, is, is, is the cat's pajamas.

The Green King

June 30th, 2005, 10:53 AM

It wasn't his charm or eloquence. In fact, my 2000 vote had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the Republican platform (see reference to boostrappers). Like his father and Reagan before him, I saw Bush as an inert figurehead for the men behind the scenes: men I had always believed (due in equal parts to my own naivete and a seductively-packaged philosophy of 'personal responsibility') were acting in the nation's interest. What happened, as we all now know, was the same MO of the figurehead leader, only the men behind the scenes were new, and had plans for the government and culture none of us were really able to fathom.

To this point I ask you to consider whether in 2000 you thought Bush was going to be the fairly benign laughingstock Trey Parker & Matt Stone predicted in "That's My Bush," or whether you were one of the half-dozen non proto-fascists who'd read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and saw too many of its signatories lurking backstage at the 2000 RNC for comfort. The fact is: nobody I heard raised in 2000 any of the alarms we now constantly beat in 2005. By the same token, nobody was able to predict 9/11 or our awful government's awful response to it, so there's really no way of knowing how bad he'd otherwise have been.

Among the primary lessons I've learned is this: never ever give the keys to a dumbass. Even if the road seems straight (as it did after eight years of the Clinton Prosperity) and the scenery seems dull (without enemies to speak of we'd grown awfully happy and unwarlike...except Republicans that is), you never know when things are going to take a sudden turn for the worse.

The Green King

June 30th, 2005, 11:02 AM

This is fucking funny. Green King, you have balls! To admit that you voted for Bush, here, in the Stranger forums, is, is, is the cat's pajamas.
Believe me nm, I'm not here taking pride in it. There should be one important lesson to take away from this, though:

Those of us on the progressive side of the left are going to have to learn how to deal with people like the man I was in 2001: disillusioned Republicans. Poll numbers show there are lots of them. Bush's intransigence and inability to change course mid-agenda-driven disaster suggest there'll be a lot more. Unless we on the left are able to capitalize on this disillusionment and replace shattered rightist lies with the compassionate aims and rationales of the humanistic left, we're blowing our best opportunity to erode our opposition's base.

We're right. We know we're right. I believe they know we're right too. When they give us opportunities to show them how, I believe it's up to us to take them, and take them seriously. The temptation to bludgeon the stupid with their stupidity is great (ask Dan), but ultimately is unhelpful.

hydrozoa

June 30th, 2005, 12:26 PM

It wasn't his charm or eloquence. In fact, my 2000 vote had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the Republican platform (see reference to boostrappers).

To this point I ask you to consider whether in 2000 you thought Bush was going to be the fairly benign laughingstock Trey Parker & Matt Stone predicted in "That's My Bush," or whether you were one of the half-dozen non proto-fascists who'd read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and saw too many of its signatories lurking backstage at the 2000 RNC for comfort.

in 2000, i was 20 years old and a student at cornish college of the arts, and i didn't vote because all my flaky cornish friends weren't voting either or they were voting for nader, which i thought was a fucking waste of a vote even in my tender youth. also, i was spoonfed a lot of nonsense about how it doesn't matter who i vote for anyway because king county always goes to the dems, and i didn't know how to vote anyways, and i wasn't that interested in politics, bloo blee, et cetera. so i didn't bother. which is about half as bad as voting for bush. maybe a third. (neither of them are as rank and unforgivable as voting for nader.)

but if i recall correctly, there was plenty of shit-talking about bush back then, at least around my cadre of art students. it wasn't nearly what it is today, but i'm pretty sure that it was substantial. i knew he was bad news in 2000, and the summer after the election, i interned at the stranger, where i learned very intimately all about what a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad person he is. and i know damn well that the stranger extolled his evils in the stranger's endorsement thing that they do for every election. i remember arguing with a friend who was planning to vote for bush and regurgitating all the factoids i'd just read in the stranger. i couldn't even tell you what they were now, of course. (and it doesn't matter, since i didn't vote and thereby negated any argument against my republican friend.)

you're kind of contradicting yourself, though, because you just said that you voted bush in 2000 because you "believed W's cunning brand of bullshit in 2000 with such regularity that even your best-aimed boot couldn't miss a long-calloused bruise," not because you found him inert and inoffensive. sounds to me like you were a true believer.

anyway. maybe you had to be in art school in 2000 to know that bush was a total stooge. or not already be a republican to take notice of it. who knows.

The Green King

June 30th, 2005, 03:19 PM

you're kind of contradicting yourself, though, because you just said that you voted bush in 2000 because you "believed W's cunning brand of bullshit in 2000 with such regularity that even your best-aimed boot couldn't miss a long-calloused bruise," not because you found him inert and inoffensive. sounds to me like you were a true believer.
Not sure how you arrived at this, so rather than yell I'll endeavor to make sense of it.

I did indeed believe a "cunning brand of bullshit," but I still contend damned few of us knew quite how cunning it was. I wrongly figured Bush 2 would be more of the same from Bush 1: accomplishing little while incrementally moving the government and its policies to the right. As a 32-year-old Southerner (in 2000) government had stayed largely out of my life and I had never asked much of it, so I was in no way an activist. A social 'liberal,' I felt a vote for a Republican was a vote for fiscal conservatism: small government, 'personal responsibility,' more of the quiet and freedom I'd come to crave in my rural agrarian bubble. I didn't have a lot invested in my vote, but hadn't missed voting in an election since 1986 so I was going to vote for someone even if I didn't particularly care about the person for whom I voted.

The same apathy about individual votes changing nothing that kept you away from the polls in 2000 had a similar effect on me. In my case rather than just not voting (which I agree is bad) I voted without sufficient forethought, figuring the pendulum would continue to swing no more than a couple of degrees in either direction as Presidents come and go, and my life would go on largely unchanged.

Being in Seattle in 2000 was as big an advantage for your awareness of the wrongness of the rightist agenda as being at Cornish. By the time election 2000 rolled around I'd freshly moved from my family's twelve acres in the country to take a job in Las Vegas in an industry dominated by other Southerners (not moonshining, but close), so commensurate with my move I evolved from a blase rural Republican drifting with the current in a Republican state to a blase urban Republican drifting with the current in a Republican state. Someone might've been screaming about what an evil fucker Bush was, but they sure as hell weren't doing it where I could hear them.

I'm not seeking to excuse myself. I carelessly voted for a man I've now come to recognize as a thoroughly opportunistic mandarin whose sole purpose in life now is to hijack the authority of the people of the United States and deliver it into the hands of corporate interests and power hungry latter-day fascists (a shopworn term I still consider accurate despite its popularity with fringe thinkers).

hydrozoa

July 1st, 2005, 11:05 AM

Not sure how you arrived at this, so rather than yell I'll endeavor to make sense of it.

i'm tempted to say "don't be condescending" to this, but it seems like you're not doing it purposefully. are you?

anyway, i can't shout down at you from my high horse, since i didn't even vote, and i realize that there are two very different americas, but. come on. to say that nobody knew that bush was bad in 2000 so we can't get mad at you for voting for him is really, uh... hard to swallow. it's more plausible to think that you had heard and read about what a dipshit he was but you were already a registered republican and chose not to listen. i would believe that in a heartbeat.

i don't know--i kind of do believe you, when i consider my friend from dallas who came to visit me last year and how she was simply aghast at the "IMPEACH BUSH" signs that she saw all over the city. "you can't do that in dallas," she said. "you'll get your window smashed. people might think it, but they don't talk about it."

it's just difficult to accept that level of retardation being so rampant. even now, in 2005. i guess i'm a sheltered seattle native.

waxfanatic

July 3rd, 2005, 06:32 PM

I listened as people told me how stupid, evil, nefarious, bigoted, etc Bush was.
What I heard was because this guy doesn’t think like us, he's inferior.

I listened as people said how narrow, ignorant, unenlightened and dangerous Bush supporters were.
What I heard was because those people don’t think like us, they're inferior.

I listened as it was explained to me how insular, xenophobic and myopic the red states are.
What I heard was someone telling me how insular, xenophobic and myopic they were.

I listened as it was explained to me that Bushes war is killing thousands and anyone who supports it is a mindless dupe. What I didn’t hear is an honest admission about how opposing it puts you in the uncomfortable position of being a defacto supporter of fascism or how if the war opponents would have succeeded in preventing it - thousands would continue to be murdered by the regime.
I was told Bush lied by someone who wasn’t honest about the implications of their own position.

When it came time to vote I was asked to choose between the guy in office and a guy that was just like him yet was supported by everyone that hated everything about the guy in office.

Half the country voted for a person.. The other half voted to defeat an archetype.

My country has lost its fucking mind.

WF

Neil

August 11th, 2005, 07:37 PM

I listened as people told me how stupid, evil, nefarious, bigoted, etc Bush was.
What I heard was because this guy doesn’t think like us, he's inferior.
I ask, as an honest question, did you pay attention to why?

In this article on his very entertaining blog, We Get Offered a Bribe! (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2005_08_01.html#010155), Mark Evanier, comic book writer, musical comedy enthusiast, all around smart guy, pointed to this article, Look in the mirror, Mr. President (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/01/bush_apology/index_np.html) by Doug Bandow, in response to a conservative asking him to not use his blog to tout his political beliefs. As he says, "If someone wishes to understand why some of us think George W. Bush is a bad president -- one who's doing great damage to this nation and not even serving the causes he claims to be serving -- I suggest you read this article... You may need to watch an ad or something but it may be worth it if you really want to understand. Mr. Bandow, by the way, is not a crazed, partisan Democrat. He's a pretty well-respected Reagan-brand conservative."

I understood that the hateful rhetoric of the left about Bush II were likely to make us seem just as absurd and paranoid as the rhetoric of the right during the Clinton administration made them sound. Unfortunately, it's difficult to avoid those kinds of statements when you're seized with rage over how "stupid, evil, nefarious, bigoted, etc" the man really is.

I listened as it was explained to me that Bushes war is killing thousands and anyone who supports it is a mindless dupe. What I didn’t hear is an honest admission about how opposing it puts you in the uncomfortable position of being a defacto supporter of fascism or how if the war opponents would have succeeded in preventing it - thousands would continue to be murdered by the regime.
I was told Bush lied by someone who wasn’t honest about the implications of their own position.
Did you really listen? Really.

I never heard Bush's plan rid the world of all oppressive governments. If he had, I would surely have listened.

I would have thought that the logical progression might be from the most powerful or the most heinous, though, of which Iraq was sadly not even in the Top 5 for each. (To remain clear, my sadness is due to the fact that there are, in fact, at least five more heinous and powerful and simply more heinous governments out there than Hussein's Iraq)

The fact of the matter is, because the plan never was to go about ridding the world's sovereign nations of oppressive governments, we were sold a story about us being in danger due to the Iraqi government, which is now known to be false. An alarming half of Americans now believe that we were told that as a purposeful falsehood (in Today's Political Rant (http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2005_08_07.html#010172) for August 7, 2005, Mark Evanier questions how we immediately want to terminate liars but for some reason keep incompetents in place without question).

I'm no knee-jerk pacifist. I supported the war in Afghanistan. In fact, I still support a continued effort to build a flourishing, free and happy people there, who would have no reason to attack us. Part of the reason the war on Iraq so infuriated me was because it took the resources away from that effort, where I understood how and why it served to protect me, my family and my nation.

In September of 2004, Garry Trudeau ran this series (http://http://aiken.isy.vcu.edu/personal/2004election.html) of cartoons featuring prominent conservatives and their reasons for not supporting Bush II (my favorite being Why I will vote for John Kerry for President (http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=44657&archive=1) by John Eisenhower).

The voices of reason were out there if you were really listening.

My country has lost its fucking mind.
On this we agree.

greencassie

August 11th, 2005, 09:13 PM

Not sure how you arrived at this, so rather than yell I'll endeavor to make sense of it.

I did indeed believe a "cunning brand of bullshit," but I still contend damned few of us knew quite how cunning it was. I wrongly figured Bush 2 would be more of the same from Bush 1: accomplishing little while incrementally moving the government and its policies to the right. As a 32-year-old Southerner (in 2000) government had stayed largely out of my life and I had never asked much of it, so I was in no way an activist. A social 'liberal,' I felt a vote for a Republican was a vote for fiscal conservatism: small government, 'personal responsibility,' more of the quiet and freedom I'd come to crave in my rural agrarian bubble. I didn't have a lot invested in my vote, but hadn't missed voting in an election since 1986 so I was going to vote for someone even if I didn't particularly care about the person for whom I voted.

The same apathy about individual votes changing nothing that kept you away from the polls in 2000 had a similar effect on me. In my case rather than just not voting (which I agree is bad) I voted without sufficient forethought, figuring the pendulum would continue to swing no more than a couple of degrees in either direction as Presidents come and go, and my life would go on largely unchanged.

Being in Seattle in 2000 was as big an advantage for your awareness of the wrongness of the rightist agenda as being at Cornish. By the time election 2000 rolled around I'd freshly moved from my family's twelve acres in the country to take a job in Las Vegas in an industry dominated by other Southerners (not moonshining, but close), so commensurate with my move I evolved from a blase rural Republican drifting with the current in a Republican state to a blase urban Republican drifting with the current in a Republican state. Someone might've been screaming about what an evil fucker Bush was, but they sure as hell weren't doing it where I could hear them.

I'm not seeking to excuse myself. I carelessly voted for a man I've now come to recognize as a thoroughly opportunistic mandarin whose sole purpose in life now is to hijack the authority of the people of the United States and deliver it into the hands of corporate interests and power hungry latter-day fascists (a shopworn term I still consider accurate despite its popularity with fringe thinkers).

Well i just didn't vote this last time around--i mean why should I? democracy doesn't really exsist as long as there are special interest groups handing out money for their agendas to "political" leaders who are suspose to serve us. yeah right. i grew up in a very conservative republican home and well i consider my family to be brainwashed.

Shady_B_206

August 15th, 2005, 10:31 AM

Did you really listen? Really.

I never heard Bush's plan rid the world of all oppressive governments. If he had, I would surely have listened.

I would have thought that the logical progression might be from the most powerful or the most heinous, though, of which Iraq was sadly not even in the Top 5 for each. (To remain clear, my sadness is due to the fact that there are, in fact, at least five more heinous and powerful and simply more heinous governments out there than Hussein's Iraq)

The fact of the matter is, because the plan never was to go about ridding the world's sovereign nations of oppressive governments, we were sold a story about us being in danger due to the Iraqi government, which is now known to be false. .

How many of those countries had been shooting down our planes for the last 10 years before we invaded? Also how many of those countries paid peoples family 25k every time they killed innocent Jewish children and women, just for being Jewish? Just curious.

I'm no knee-jerk pacifist.

You fooled me!

I supported the war in Afghanistan.

Would you like a gold star?

In fact, I still support a continued effort to build a flourishing, free and happy people there, who would have no reason to attack us.

What? Did they have a reason in the first place? Maybe I just misunderstood you, but that does sound kind of bad!

Part of the reason the war on Iraq so infuriated me was because it took the resources away from that effort, where I understood how and why it served to protect me, my family and my nation.

How exactly did it take away from that effort? I mean you do understand there is no way in hell that 4ID or 1st Cav could manover thier big ol' tanks, apv's, and VERY BIG VEHICLES. Oh wait, that would mean you would have to actually know something about the military, and military operations. I don't like the man, so I will paraphrase a quote from General Lee whereas he was commenting on how the press seemed to think they knew so much about how to run a war, that the Generals and reporters should just trade spaces.

The voices of reason were out there if you were really listening.

Yo wax, see your problem is that you are just to stupid to see that you were not listening to the voices of reason!!

Basically ya boy Neil is a fucking genius, and his opinion is the one that matters (he seems to think he knows how to run a war, I wonder how many tanks crews would be killed as they rolled through the mountains under his command!!) But you, Wax, are just so stupid to not realize that Bush is (place insult here) !!

Ok, I am coming from a different perspective (oh shit not that!!) then a lot of you true believers on here. I voted for NADER in 2000. Yes I was a stupid lib, but in my defense I was only 19. Then this last time I fucked up and voted for Kerry, and I regret it now!! I have come to the realization that if I want to be the happy little Socially liberal, pot smoking, Drum and Bass pounding, independent minded, happy go lucky young man I am, well then I have to be true to myself, and oppose fascism.

We must stand together and oppose the Jew hating, Gay hating, Christian hating, Women Hating, and everyone else hating Muslims that want us dead or converted!!

Neil

August 15th, 2005, 02:33 PM

You fooled me!
Well, you are quite a fool, then, aren't you?

How exactly did it take away from that effort?
Are you kidding?

The statistics on our continued military and relief "efforts" in Afghanistan are, in fact, a matter of public record. Not only did we immediately after starting in Iraq take those down to next to nothing.

At this point, we barely are able to keep the resources to continue the efforts in Iraq. We're keeping soldiers long past their tours of duty and not getting new ones at the rate we need.

Ok, I am coming from a different perspective (oh shit not that!!) then a lot of you true believers on here. I voted for NADER in 2000. Yes I was a stupid lib, but in my defense I was only 19.
Wow! I was never that stupid. Should I still be listening to you?

We must stand together and oppose the Jew hating, Gay hating, Christian hating, Women Hating, and everyone else hating Muslims that want us dead or converted!!
See, and I don't disagree with this, but despite being quite the king of snark here, you've actually made no points of your own to prove that our current efforts are the most effective course against that. You've only offered blind trust that the people currently in charge can most effectively do that.

You can blindly accuse me of not knowing the arguments on all side, but that's inaccurate. I believe strongly in paying attention to all different arguments and perspectives to keep my base of opinion strong and diverse. You've shown no particular strength in knowing the arguments on either side yourself, aside from a couple of obvious bullet-points.

Good luck with your snarkiness prizes, though. That's a sure sign of a great thinker.

Shady_B_206

August 15th, 2005, 03:03 PM

The statistics on our continued military and relief "efforts" in Afghanistan are, in fact, a matter of public record. Not only did we immediately after starting in Iraq take those down to next to nothing.

At this point, we barely are able to keep the resources to continue the efforts in Iraq. We're keeping soldiers long past their tours of duty and not getting new ones at the rate we need.

Well then maybe you can give some links to this info, bro. Wait! Why should you do that, Neil, I think maybe we should just listen to you, since you obviously know how to fight terrorism better then those brave men and women in the military!

So since you are so wise, lets have it, what would you do differently? Or do you only have the ability to bitch, with no answers of your own?
And I am not trying to be a dick, so don't get your feelings hurt, we can still be friends!!! :-)

Neil

August 16th, 2005, 12:28 AM

Let me take this opportunity to make two things clear.

First of all, my response earlier was marred by being in response to a snarkiness over substance reply and I hadn't really sorted my thoughts as well as I'd have preferred to.

However, the "voices of reason", I referred to were not specifically the voices opposing Bush II, but rather the voices of reason that opposed Bush II, as opposed to the rather simplistic views he was citing.

Well then maybe you can give some links to this info, bro. Wait! Why should you do that, Neil, I think maybe we should just listen to you, since you obviously know how to fight terrorism better then those brave men and women in the military!
I certainly said nothing to suggest anything about the brave men and women serving and while I see how what I said about "voices of reason" could reasonably be miscronstrued... I can't imagine what stretch of logic my words could be taken as a criticism of them.

As it is, there are political and military experts with a wide range of opinions about how all of this can/could/should be handled, if one has the inclination to find it. Suggesting that the military handling, in itself, is even close to being a settled issues by people who, in fact, do know what they're talking about is ludicrous, absolutely without merit as a statement.

Even within the current military, which is limited in its freedom to speak against the way the war is handled, there is significant word of difference of opinion. Blindly assuming that either side is correct seems a poor choice for a thinking member of a free society, to my mind.

Reasonable people should be able to agree that there are most certainly idiots and assholes on all sides of the political arena, and most have reasonable, intelligent people on most sides, whose opinions are worth considering. Reasonable people should all pay attention to a wide array of reasonable, considered opinion to keep their minds sharp and ensure that their ideas are valid and not simply held onto because they're comfortable.

You show no evidence whatsoever of having a reasonable or valid opinion. You've moved from one reactionary political belief to another with no evidence of consideration or reason. You post a lot of snarky answers that show no genuine understanding of the complexity of the world around you.

Enjoy that, but don't expect to convert people or even to gain their respect using this methodology.

Shady_B_206

August 16th, 2005, 08:36 AM

However, the "voices of reason", I referred to were not specifically the voices opposing Bush II, but rather the voices of reason that opposed Bush II, as opposed to the rather simplistic views he was citing.
OK, let me then ask you one simple question: were there voices of reason that supported Bush?

If not, why do you feel that more than half the country is unreasonable?

I certainly said nothing to suggest anything about the brave men and women serving and while I see how what I said about "voices of reason" could reasonably be miscronstrued... I can't imagine what stretch of logic my words could be taken as a criticism of them.

What you said was that the war in Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan. This means you said that the Generals in the US Military did not know what they were doing, that somehow you had a better plan then they did. I am still waiting for that better plan, as you have yet to offer it in this discussion! BTW Generals are still brave men and women serving our country, in case you forgot!

As it is, there are political and military experts with a wide range of opinions about how all of this can/could/should be handled, if one has the inclination to find it.

So if they are so easy to find, why not list a few? Where are your links? I am not denying that there are plenty of people who have opinions about how this can be done differently. But for the sake of argument, list them!

Suggesting that the military handling, in itself, is even close to being a settled issues by people who, in fact, do know what they're talking about is ludicrous, absolutely without merit as a statement.

No doubt, I never said that. So...... what would you do different?

Even within the current military, which is limited in its freedom to speak against the way the war is handled, there is significant word of difference of opinion.

Well, while there is significant differences of opinion, overwhelmingly people in the Military support the WOT, which points to why reenlistment right now is so high, especially for those who have actually gone to IRAQ!

Blindly assuming that either side is correct seems a poor choice for a thinking member of a free society, to my mind.

No doubt, in fact this is the one statement of yours I agree with the most.

Reasonable people should be able to agree that there are most certainly idiots and assholes on all sides of the political arena, and most have reasonable, intelligent people on most sides, whose opinions are worth considering. Reasonable people should all pay attention to a wide array of reasonable, considered opinion to keep their minds sharp and ensure that their ideas are valid and not simply held onto because they're comfortable.

I agree with this.

You show no evidence whatsoever of having a reasonable or valid opinion.

Thank You!

You've moved from one reactionary political belief to another with no evidence of consideration or reason.

Please give me a specific example of this.

You post a lot of snarky answers that show no genuine understanding of the complexity of the world around you.

Baby, you are just getting me hot now!

Enjoy that, but don't expect to convert people or even to gain their respect using this methodology.

I did not come to the SLOG to convert people dude!!

Ok so Neil, how about answering some direct questions:

You were talking about the 5 countries that were worse then Iraq, which one of those countries made a habit of shooting down our planes?

You think the government is handling the war on IslamoFascism in the wrong fashion, what things would you do different?

Why is Bush evil?

Neil

August 16th, 2005, 01:43 PM

OK, let me then ask you one simple question: were there voices of reason that supported Bush?

If not, why do you feel that more than half the country is unreasonable?
Very few, but yes.

I don't have a good answer for why that it, but it does indeed make me sad. I suspect it has something to do with poor education and an intellectually waning media.

What you said was that the war in Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan. This means you said that the Generals in the US Military did not know what they were doing, that somehow you had a better plan then they did. I am still waiting for that better plan, as you have yet to offer it in this discussion! BTW Generals are still brave men and women serving our country, in case you forgot!
It is possible and even reasonable to recognize that a plan is not working adequately or will not work adequately without necessarily having thought out a better one. It is not, in this case, my responsibility to come up with a better plan.

And I don't necessarily think the generals, in this case, are doing a bad job with what they have. Unfortunately, they have been undercut by having to work with inadequate timeframes and less troops than they would have used, then they apparently would have if left to plan on their own.

So if they are so easy to find, why not list a few? Where are your links? I am not denying that there are plenty of people who have opinions about how this can be done differently. But for the sake of argument, list them!
No.

Not that I'm unwilling to show my work, but since I've already done more citation in this thread than you have, I see no reason why I should be the one on the defensive.

You were talking about the 5 countries that were worse then Iraq, which one of those countries made a habit of shooting down our planes?
And this vast expenditure of lives and money is made worthwhile for that? Are you kidding?

The ways in which Iraq worked against us were obvious and almost childish. Making that out to be the most dangerous or nefarious, however, is just weird. The countries that are the biggest danger to us aren't the ones making the biggest fuss over it. They're sitting in the dark, plotting slowly.

You think the government is handling the war on IslamoFascism in the wrong fashion, what things would you do different?
As I said, I would have started by making good on our promises to build up a free and independent Afghanistan.

I'd also cut all financial ties to Saudi Arabia, which I understand would be very painful in a number of ways, but I think keeping vast amounts of funding flowing to the nation that beats all in funding terrorism is naïve at best.

Why is Bush evil?
I'm not actually a big supporter of using the word evil for anything. I don't think it serves the greater good. I included it in the quote to make a point.

I did, however, already include links to two articles by noted conservatives that include a lot of reasons why I find him to be incompetent.

Shady_B_206

August 16th, 2005, 01:59 PM

It is possible and even reasonable to recognize that a plan is not working adequately or will not work adequately without necessarily having thought out a better one. It is not, in this case, my responsibility to come up with a better plan.

Listen, if you don't have a better idea you should just keep your mouth shut until you do.

Neil

August 16th, 2005, 04:04 PM

Listen, if you don't have a better idea you should just keep your mouth shut until you do.
That's the stupidest thing I've read in my life.

Even the tiniest modicum of respect I had for your hollow mouthings toward listening to all sides have evaporated.

But since you pretend to be having a dialogue, let me ask you a question.

How bad does a plan need to be, in your opinion, before someone without a complete rebuttal plan should be allowed to note that it's a bad plan?

This is a serious question. I did make note of a couple of things I think should be first on the agenda, regarding how we're handling Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which were and are real sources of terrorist threat. I also acknowledge that I don't have the expertise to "solve", as it were, a problem that has existed for all of recorded history.

Wow. That puts me in the same category as, well, every other person since the beginning of recorded history. I guess I can see that every person since the beginning of recorded history should indeed not - or should not have - been able to criticize any inept or immoral plans to solve it.

What if the plan were to smack everyone with a brick before they got onto an airplane? Would that be stupid enough? How about if they were to invent a machine to destroy all the sand in the world? Stupid enough?

What about the genocide of all Arabic people or outlawing Islam? Would that be immoral enough?

I'm speaking in extremes on purpose - which seems obvious enough to me, but subtlety does seem to elude you - to make my point, not specifically to draw comparisons. There has to be a line at which even someone so trusting in the powers that be would think there was a legitimate right to criticize the plan in motion as inept or immoral even without having fleshed out the entirety of a plan for oneself. Where is that line?

Because I don't think a plan is inherently better than no plan. I think action must still justify itself as more effective than no action, and I don't think being in power necessarily justifies your plans in itself. That's the way it's supposed to work in America, goddamnit!