lukeskywalker1 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Lol, they wouldn't just kick him cause of his age. Besides, there is no limit to the age. There is however, an age requirement... you have to be 36(?) or old to get elected. # Rampant Sexism What? Obsession with National Security Hmmm.. .well, after 9-11 and declaring war on Iraq... (being a bully) not to mention the monthly terrorist threats (that never seem to happen) ... yeah, I would be concerned about National Security. Besides, if he wasn't doing much about it you guys would be complaining about that too lol. With gasoline racing past $3 a gallon, Bush's standing on dealing with those prices may be one of his biggest problems — seven in 10 said they disapprove. Prices dropped a little. Too bad, it was like 2.50 before Katrina.. now its like 2.96 (was like 3.10) but all thats for Regular, never mind supreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Well, if my maths are right, its up to $6.90 a gallon in parts of the uk... so we are wondering what the heck you guys are making such a fuss about. That is a record high price due to Katrina though. FYI: Thats for unleaded petrol, the UK has the fifth highest price in europe for unleaded. Based on history its quite likely that after making so amny mistakes that thing that takes takes Bush down will be the price of petrol (something even he couldn't really be held responsible for). The population is often willing to lose civil liberties, ignore wars abroard etc... but put up the price of their toys and they freak out. Its always silly things like that that piss people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 What? Last time I checked Focus on Family and their cronies in the West Wing were against equal pay for equal work - citing that it was harmful to the family structure. Maybe Skin has linkage - mine is all in Danish, assuming that it even exists any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Hmmm.. .well, after 9-11 and declaring war on Iraq... (being a bully) not to mention the monthly terrorist threats (that never seem to happen) ... yeah, I would be concerned about National Security. Concerned, yes. Obsessed? No. Besides, if he wasn't doing much about it you guys would be complaining about that too lol. Nope, if he was doing it right I would not complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 (that never seem to happen) Weird that... Considering there are so many Films and Books about the way politicians can use the "fear of a distant enemy" in order to get people to agree to anything, take their minds off real problems and give up their rights its amazing the trick STILL seems to work. (1984, Wag the Dog, Canadian Bacon, etc..) There was a documentary a while back about how both Bin Laden and Bush NEED each other as enemies in order to solidify their power. After all its hard to get everyone to rally behind you if they don't have anything to rally against. (ps the documentary also pointed out how similar the ideologies and methods of Al Quaida and Neo Cons actually are, and how they both rose up around the same time, in response to very similar situations.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 "Obsessed with national security" would include the extreme measures of the Patriot Act as well as the human rights violations of Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib. People tortured to extract information, particularly when it is well known that evidence extracted during torture is suspect. But lets not get into a discussion of Abu Ghraib and how the perpetrators were individuals... it'll only lead to pointing out the similarities that exist in other U.S. concentration camps and the culture of sadism that has arisen from the actions of those in authority who validated the actions and behavior of their subordinates. As for a link to the "equal pay/equal work" dilemma for Neo-Cons: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-15-roberts_x.htm http://feminism.eserver.org/workplace/wages/the-glass-ceiling.txt/document_view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Trust in Skin to dig up the links. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did. "'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state." though: The White House has dismissed this as "absurd". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4317498.stm Fun fact: for a republican dedicated to "small government" Bush has the highest spending of any president since Linden Johnson in the 60s. Though of course running long wars abroad can't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 But the fact thats he's obviously gone off his rocker and said that GOD is behind the war is going to piss off a LOT of people... ...not that Christianity as a whole gives a damn. Its great f'ing publicity when the most idio...powerful man in the world says that their God is talking to him. And its even more crazy because God called me a half hour before and said he told Geedubya to sit at home and STFU before he pisses of more countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Yes, as if the muslim world wasn't already thinking that the US and it's supporters are on a crusade. Bush just have to put more fuel on the fire. I'm sure the extremists are very pleased with this info and are no doubt going to take full advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 If I didn't know better I'd say Bush is the modern Jesus. Just without the love and peace parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 If I didn't know better I'd say Bush is the modern Jesus. Just without the love and peace parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdsphantom Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Forgive a poor soul late to the debate, but wow Skinwalker you wanted impeach him in May. Im sure although Impeaching him earlier would have been nicer and of course just using the actual votes of the 2000 election even better. But well done on the debate and this forum. I find it odd that this is so one sided, the issues to impeach all backed up with evidence and facts, the voices against, seemed to fall back on name calling, I might have missed some posts so forgive me if i did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 If I didn't know better I'd say Bush is the modern Jesus. Just without the love and peace parts. So wait, you're saying Bush is all about love and peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I wouldn't want him impeached for being a Republican (or whatever else seems to be what others want him for), but for whole Iraq debacle. Many of the other things he's done seem minor by comparison or could be blamed more squarely on others in his administration (could happen to any president). The president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeaners" so his crime would be lying to the American people about the reasons for going to war, war crimes committed during the occupation (torture of prisoners), and sending the National Guard to fight, when that is not their role. An impeachment trial of course is a tricky thing. Would he be let off the hook like both presidents that have been thus far impeached? High probability of that of course. But it would put a black mark on his presidency, which I think is what his opponents want, at the very least. Anyway, try comparing this to Bill Clinton. Think of all the things he did in office that people got mad about or were questionable. But the only thing he got impeached for was lying about his improper sexual relationship with a subordinate. It was more a symoblic thing than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Clinton didn't get 1000+ soldiers killed for questionable causes either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Clinton didn't get 1000+ soldiers killed for questionable causes either. Maybe possible soldiers, but then we'd have to arrest every curious male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 True, though there were some questionable military actions and "collateral damage" under Clinton's term. Not the debacle like Iraq, but not innocent of bloodshed either. He just didn't lose American troops... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 So wait, you're saying Bush is all about love and peace? That is one of two possible interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Quickie... did half of America really vote for Bush? I thought only half of Americans (eligable) voted, period. And of those, about half voted for that other fellow. So really wouldn't it be more accurate to say "25% of Americans" voted for Bush? Even if we're talking the re-election, that's still only a fraction of Americans, not "half" (and in the first election, as non-Republicans contend, he wasn't elected by "appointed" by the Surpreme Court, so it wasn't really "the people" who decided.. right?). Longie... And saying that "people let their religion guide their vote" is a bit of a misnomer, because it assumes there is only one kind of religion... Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian, that supports the Republican Party. I've heard enough people like Kerry and other Democrats say that their religion demands that they support diversity, egalitarianism, social program, protecting the environment, gay rights, etc. They use their religion to support their liberal views, saying that this is the true Christian (or Jewish, or whatever) way to do things. I know Skin that you despise all religion, but I imagine you'd have less of a problem with the religion (or religious people whatever, there are as many different flavors as their are people) that happens to agree with your political goals. While to you it's all superstition and nonesense, "bondage on the mind of man" (as Jefferson would have it) at least religious liberals are on your side. Instead, the argument gets cast as an "us vs. them" of secular humanists vs. "christians." I never voted for Bush, even though I consider myself religious. But neither did I vote for Kerry, thinking that his religion makes him a better candidate. Religion is just one of many factors in voting. Saying that people can't vote their conscience is unfathomable (after all, to many people their conscience and their religious convictions are inseperable). As an atheist, this is perhaps hard for you to understand. You can't imagine a person being guided by unprovable mystical beliefs. They must be crazy, or self hypocritical or brainwashed, etc. somehow it just doesn't make any sense. But what you're really saying is that a person cannot vote based on their conscience, but on someone else's, such as your's. And there's other issues at stake too that are non-rational. It's much easier for example, for a rich person to care about the environment (which sounds paradoxical) because for example a person who's job it is to cut down the trees with his chainsaw to earn his pay probably can't afford to 'care' so much about the virgin forests, etc. On the other hand it's also true the "rich person" can afford to care or not to care, but most of all he can afford the choice. The poor student who gets roped into serving in the military may not like it, but it's paying his way through college, even if it might get him killed (he probably weighed the odds when signing up, and figured it was worth the risk, well informed or not). And yet, by going with practical personal reasons, he's contributing to the oppression of some people over our national interests (whether those be good or bad). I think that there is a tendency to see the common man on the street as either evil or a zombie of the evil leadership. I think rather that most people, on a practical, logical level, simply are guided by self interest. Much as you like to rant about religion being what makes people do bad things, I think it's simply a matter of "how can I get what I want" or "how can I survive." The world is huge and impersonal, often it's hard to see the bigger picture. It's not just politicians who go for the short term gain. The difference is that they're going for more profits and campaign contributions for re-election. Your average schmuck is trying to keep some cash coming in for his family. So a person's religion can provide a justification for what they are doing ("Jesus would want me to support this war." "Jesus would want me to oppose tax cuts.") but I wonder how you could tell if a person did not heartfeltly agree that it does, rather than trying to trick people into thinking that their religion is the reason. I mean, do we trust them or not? I guess what I'm saying is, you have somebody who made the "wrong" decision in your opinion, and since they are religious, then their religion must be to blame, and if they only stopped being religious they would start being "right." At least that's the impression I'm getting from various rants like this. But not to get too distracted from Bush here... obviously he's used religion to try to curry favor. Few Presidents have passed up that chance, even ones that were extremely non-religious. Even the Democrats do it. That doesn't make it right, but it's a fair observation. We've got it easy compared to plenty of poor nations. They have even more reason to act out of self interest, with far less resources than we have, and far less "choice" between the "greater good" and "what is the short term benefit for me or my family." I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying that we can't afford a certain smugness that we're so much better. Certainly the richest and most powerful have "no excuse" because they can afford to be altruistic for the common good. They ought to know better (being able to afford better education in order to see the bigger picture and understand it). Certainly we should all do more, and try to learn the issues. But in politics it's always easier to cast things in black and white terms. It's the neocons vs. the social democrats. It's the christians vs. the rationalists. It's the whatevers vs. the what-have-you's. Either you're with me, or you're my enemy! Anyway, if you can impeach Bush on some crime, go for it. Obviously putting the President on trial is always a tall order... As for the corporate scandals, that's one of those things were it may not be the worst of his crimes/mistakes, but maybe something that could "stick" in a court of law (which is what an impeachment is). It's the old principle finally nailing the mob leader on unpaid parking tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 If I may point something out about the 'God led Bush' thing... Note that he says 'God would tell me' and not 'God told me'. It really isn't Bush's style to use 'would tell me' in the sense that it was what was said (it's excessively formal), but more in a 'this is what I think he would tell me' sense. Either way, it's not clear-cut. I think the remark was misinterpreted. I also think there's a double standard regarding such things... People laugh at Bush for his speech errors/misunderstandings, yet completely ignore his habit of making them when trying to find a damaging quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 At the past press conference he did however say "God told me". That however has nothing to do with why I dislike him and wish him to be impeached, so I guess you can ignore this or not, it's up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 It's the old principle finally nailing the mob leader on unpaid parking tickets. Which is why, much as i dislike bush, I'm not convinced about actual impeachment. There is at least as much evidence about Bush's dealings as there was about Clinton's. But the investigation against clinton always came across like a "parking tickets" deal... and then lead to a huge fishing trip desperately searching for something, anything to nail him with after the initial charges were found to be false. The spectacle of that was fairly appaling, showing the worst side of politics (from both sides) and I can't believe it benefited anyone, or helped people's opinion of politics in general. So, unless the issue is a major, clear cut one of national importance I'd rather they postponed any investigation until after his term ends.. then look into it if necessary. I may think the guy is a muppet, but he was voted into office so you kind of have to like it or lump it until he finally goes. Rather than trying to push him out for "parking tickets" reasons and coming across as desperate and petty and damaging the institution even further. Apparently many conservatives are starting to think he's doing them more harm than good, so he doesn't have that many friends left. though whether the democrats will be able to pull themselves back together before the next election to take advantage of it is another matter. Hopefully either way they will come up with a few better ideas than "At least i'm not bush" as their philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I dunno toms. Depending on how Bush's reign ends out, the "At least I'm not Bush" philosophy could win anyone a Presidential seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 At the past press conference he did however say "God told me". That however has nothing to do with why I dislike him and wish him to be impeached, so I guess you can ignore this or not, it's up to you. May I see a transcript? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.