Kain Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Powell calls Terrorism Report BIG Mistake AND Bush damaged National Security Hail to the Chief indeed. Edit: Fixed Kain's links. - Skinwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 DAMMIT!! Take 2 I suppose... Link 1 I can't find that other link either dammit. Basically it was a group made up of both parties saying Bush has more or less ruined National Security. Sorry for the incovinience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Could you guys keep Bush hate threads in the senate chambers so I don't have to look at them, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Could you guys keep Bush hate threads in the senate chambers so I don't have to look at them, please? You might have guessed what it was about from the thread title No one forced you to click the thread, nor read it "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press." That's so stupid it's funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Could you guys keep Bush hate threads in the senate chambers so I don't have to look at them, please? The senate is for debate and serious discussion, not for bush hate threads. nice links @ kain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Could you guys keep Bush hate threads in the senate chambers so I don't have to look at them, please? Fine, I want all picture threads removed cuz I don't like to look at them. I don't like looking at games I don't like either, so take all of those away. Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to. Bush himself didn't release the info. Even the senator who questioned it agreed that the info released was not for political purposes. Whoohoo, another "anybody but Bush" and "let's blame everything on BusH' spree! I've gotta agree with IG, please leave one of your thousands of Bush-bashing threads in the Senate Chambers. [EDIT] on second thought, maybe not, as the whole lot of Liberals in the Senate Chambers would make it worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Whoohoo, another "anybody but Bush" and "let's blame everything on BusH' spree! I think it's interesting whenever evidence comes up that puts a bad light on the current administration Bush supporters pass it off as another "Bush bashing" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 There are those for whom it is one's duty to "bash." And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say facist). "Liberal" in politics means open to change or progress, whereas "conservative" means wanting to maintain the status quo and resist change. The hard-lined conservatives of the Republican party can't point their fingers and say, "communist bastard" anymore, so they substitute "liberal." All that really is accomplished is a demonstration of gullibility level. While change for the sake of change may not be good, there seems little doubt that change is necessary for progress. Someone once said that "all progress begins from an unpopular idea." That may or may not be true, but I would suggest to you that many of the institutions and ideas that we take for granted today where once opposed by hard-lined conservatives. So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican. Instead, we have a hard-lined, right-winged, neo-conservative (their self description) group puppeteering the President of the United States. I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton. Fire the Liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 the story itself isn't that damning of bush, as far as i can tell. but it does bug me the way "liberal" is used as a dirty word by smallminded people who can't accept that anyone might disagree with them. Like a lot of things, the best bet is usually a nice balance between new and old... which is likely why a basic liberal vs conservative setup has appeared in pretty much every democracy on the planet. It is when one side gets too powerful that the whole thing goes to hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I live in the United Kingdom, and after having studied American politics for the last two years, one of the many things I have noticed that underlines the polarised nature of the two systems, is the use of the word "liberal." In this country, liberalism is generally seen as a good thing, and even those more conservative among the population do not scorn or "bash" people for being liberal. It's just, for want of a better term, a "word" to British people. Hell, even Margaret Thatcher (one of the most right-wing Prime Ministers we have ever had) equated herself with "neo-liberalism" - not exactly liberalism, but she wasn't afraid to use the word. However, in America, it seems that this "word" is more of an insult than a description of someone's political persuasion. It is, to all intents and purposes, a bad word, and if you're liberal, you're clearly different from everyone else. This obvious difference in definition between the UK and USA is probably down to the very nature of politics within both the countries. American politics, in general, is quite a bit further to the right than British politics. Our Conservative Party would probably be seen as more left-wing than your average Democrat. You may say, "hang on, British politics isn't particularly left-wing." This is certainly true, and the last decade or so has seen a world-wide move to the right, but still, everything is relative - and the US is typically more conservative than the UK, and most other European countries. But "liberal" and "liberalism" are terms that get thrown around far too much. It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will. I don't think much can be done to change the perception people have of "liberals" in the USA, but it's self evident that word has been taken completely out of context, and is so far removed from its proper definition that it's probably not even worth trying to get people to understand the true meaning of the word. And even if that did happen, most of the world's narrow-minded citizens would still see it as a "bad thing," as in our Western, capitalist culture, the majority of people aren't open to change. It's ashame really, as right now, the whole world's going to hell, and conservatives are at the centre of it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 the story itself isn't that damning of bush, as far as i can tell. but it does bug me the way "liberal" is used as a dirty word by smallminded people who can't accept that anyone might disagree with them. I merely refer liberals as Democrats... nothing more, nothing less... I think it's interesting whenever evidence comes up that puts a bad light on the current administration Bush supporters pass it off as another "Bush bashing" thread. I think it's interesting that you may not have noticed that it eventually evolves into Bush bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I think it's interesting that you may not have noticed that it eventually evolves into Bush bashing. Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nice little flamewar... And for once one that I didn't start... And for the record I'd thank you all very much to remember that there are several steps on the ladder between 'liberal' and 'commie'. Some people (none named, none forgotten) seem to think that liberalism is some radical left-wing kind of thing. They'd do well to remember that in some parts of the world, 'liberal' is right-wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I nominate Kain for prez. He's planning to take over the world anyways, and Selene would make a cool first lady. And yes, The Kain presidency would probably be more legitimate than the Bush administration anyways *drops 3 places on kains hit list* nice links man mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth. *this* is the kickass ET I respect and admire..... cool ! *hugs ET* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nice little flamewar... And for once one that I didn't start... Flamewar? That wasn't a flame war, or at least I've seen more intense ones... Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth. And yet, what is this? Originally posted by Kain Hail to the Chief indeed. That is one small example of Bush-bashing, is it not? And that post wasn't even a reply to anything, as you say, "blame away from the truth." And there's more Bush-bashing that you may not have cared to see, and that's an example of your "blaming away from the truth." Now let's let that discussion end and stay on topic. The Kain presidency would probably be more legitimate than the Bush administration anyways Yeah, anyone who's his enemy will get on his Secret Service's hit list, and he'll become a dictator, ooh that's so legitimate. just kidding! though I hope that's not the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeleneRayne Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 I nominate Kain for prez. He's planning to take over the world anyways, and Selene would make a cool first lady. Thanks Astro! Yes, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Yeah, anyone who's his enemy will get on his Secret Service's hit list, and he'll become a dictator, ooh that's so legitimate. just kidding! though I hope that's not the case... Hey, atleast I wouldn't need baby brother to rob my opponent of the election. Besides, dictators have rather...violent ends. My rule will be more towards anarchy. I'll just have lots and lots of armed guards with no sense of right or wrong, just blind obidience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Besides, dictators have rather...violent ends. My rule will be more towards anarchy. I'll just have lots and lots of armed guards with no sense of right or wrong, just blind obidience. Of course, in anarchy they could just scheme up a plan to kill you and then divide the loot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Or, they could just fire into a crowd of innocent civilians... >_< oh wait... was this about bush? I dun like him, nor Kerry. Bush's 4 years as president haven't been good, the way he's going with this war stuff... Period. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Originally posted by Kain Hail to the Chief indeed. That is one small example of Bush-bashing, is it not? ... And there's more Bush-bashing that you may not have cared to see, and that's an example of your "blaming away from the truth." Now let's let that discussion end and stay on topic. The topic is, "The White House is Blowing it [a.k.a. screwin' it up]." Like MennoniteHobbit suggested, we should keep it on topic. If true, then there is reason to "bash" Bush, however.... One thing that I've noted: Bush supporters get upset and cry foul when Bush is "bashed," and the implication by some is that there is a high amount of "Bush bashing" going on in this forum. That may be. But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush? My answer: there is significant dissatisfaction with the Bush admin's performance, character, and loyalties in the Whitehouse. Unlike the Republican adminstration of Reagan, Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin. The link I put in the "Bush Pro's and Con's" thread the other day gives more support to this notion. Reagan on the other hand, was extremely patriotic and thought of the nation first and individuals of the elite second. Bush tries hard to emulate Reagan (going off to the ranch, blows his own horn about so-called economic successes, etc.), but he falls dramatically short. In fact, Bush seems more like a Nixon Republican than a Reagan one. The man we really need in the Whitehouse is John McCain. Perhaps if we can get a regime change now with Kerry, then McCain can get on the Republican ticket in 2008 after the party goes through some much needed house cleaning (getting rid of the fascist element of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.). If Bush is re-elected, the country might find itself in ruin by the time McCain gets his chance. Fire the Liar, elect Kerry in November! Until then, Bash away, bash away, bash away all! But only in regards to non-members per the Lucasforums rules. And George W. Bush does not appear to be a member. Nor does Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I think it would be deliciously ironic if Bush was a closet star wars freak and was a random member on these forums, and we were inadvertently breaking forum rules by ripping on him in these threads *this* is the kickass ET I respect and admire..... cool ! *hugs ET* I do what I can.... [/modest] On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this (as I have been all along). Fire the Liar. That's pretty catchy...I kinda want to put it on a bumper sticker, but then I'd just have to remove it after november, what a hassle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB1 KNOB Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say fascist) Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as: a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc... In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism? Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these. By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas. Originally posted by SkinWalker So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican. So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone. Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board. People from both sides can look at either word as negative or positive based on their beliefs. Some one who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions. Originally posted by SkinWalker I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton. Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support. Originally posted by SkinWalker Fire the Liar. Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired? Originally posted by The_One It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will. I’m not totally sure, but by your wording it sounds like your “liberal” represents America’s “conservative” and your “conservative” would likewise represent America’s “liberal”. If so, that’s another example of the interchangeability of the terms based on what both sides believe should and should not be changed. On the topic of “Bush Bashing”: Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth. People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other? In response to the articles: The first link has nothing to do with President Bush. It just says that some clerical errors were made in that report that need correcting. It should also be noted that the number that is mentioned as needing correcting in this quote: The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president. is the 2003 figure. I haven’t read the whole report, but from this quote there was a very noticeable and significant decline from 2001 to 2002. (Down 148 to be precise.) The purpose of that article wasn’t about any decline in terrorism. It was just reporting the clerical errors that admittedly slipped through. The second seems to make the assumption that because these people were appointed to high level jobs under Republican presidents that they were/are Republican themselves. A president can appoint someone that they disagree with politically, or otherwise, to a high level position simply because that person was the best for the job. As an example of this here is a quote from that article: Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton I don’t know whether she is Republican or Democrat but she did serve under two separate presidents of opposing parties. Others are admittedly democrats and therefore can simply be making an attempt to make their political statement. The article only briefly mentions at the very end what they are basing their complaints on and doesn’t really site any specific examples and their ramifications and how much of an effect they really have on American security. I don’t know their reasons specifically, but I think it’s interesting that the article spent a large amount of space establishing that many of these people served under Republican presidents when a)if they are military they really didn’t have a choice and b) they could have been appointed to their position based on the merit of their qualifications. Originally posted by SkinWalker But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush? You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not. Originally posted by SkinWalker Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin. I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they? Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines. What specific loyalties are you referencing between President Bush and his “pals”? Also, how does a quote about terrorism have anything to do with said “pals”? Originally posted by ET Warrior On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this 26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush. Originally posted by ET Warrior Fire the Liar. Likewise, what specifically do you believe that he lied about? Originally posted by Kain Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to. How are either of those articles directly related to Bush? Originally posted by Kain Hey, at least I wouldn't need baby brother to rob my opponent of the election. How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed? (Not to get off topic or anything, but it was brought up.) The title of this thread is even presumptuous in saying that both these articles are absolute proof of anything. Even the Democrat who challenged the report said that he accepts that it was unintentional. "He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. [With Colin Powell] And again, the second isn’t really proof of anything either. Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 unfortunately it is just too much FUN to bash bush. He is just such an easy target that it is always really hard to resist. Politics these days is almost entirely about personalities and appearance and very little about issues or policies... so when you see politicians and commentators "bashing bush" or "bashing kerry" all the time it is only natural that you tend to follow suit (from whichever side you start on) It should also be noted that it is much easier to campaign and vote AGAINST something than for it. And as Bush is the current president he has a much higher profile than Kerry and so is an easier target. As far as ican see it is largely down to the "with us or against us" stance. Anyone who criticises bush seems to be branded as "liberal" and therefore unamerican and not worth listening to. When someone tells you that it is quite likely that you are going to respond on a less intelectual level and "bash bush" as your reasoned arguements have falled on deaf ears and you need to try something less subtle. It is also the case that a number of people on these forums are from outside america, and bush is universally seen as an idiot (perhaps even to an unfair degree) outside of america. Less subtle: bush meets arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.