f13.net

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/pelosi.bush/index.html

The part that disturbs me is this:

"Nancy Pelosi should apologize for her irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric," DeLay, R-Texas, said. "She apparently is so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk."

Putting American lives at risk. Other than extremely tenuous arguments like "in the Middle East a show of weakness will be exploited" there is no justification for that statement. Compare that to say, sending over fewer troops than generals request or putting them in shoddy, unarmored transports.

Is there ANY time period for when this "it's unpatriotic to critisize us" rule is going to cease being in effect? Or is it just a convenient permanent addition to our rules of debate?


There as also this gem, straight from Republican talking points 101:

The San Francisco/Boston Democrats led by John Kerry have now adopted 'Blame America First' as their official policy," RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said in the statement.

---

I guess the only thing we are allowed to say is "we trust in GW 1000%!!"

Thats the thing about the post 9/11 political climate.  You can do whatever the fuck you want internationally, and then blame the opposition of treason when they point out that things aren't going so well.  The ultimate irony, as you pointed out, is that detractors get blamed for endangering the troops.  

Meanwhile GWB makes vague assertions that America will "meet every challenge."   Thats great, Prez.  Um, how?  

But by then Bush is back at the Outhouse in Crawford and various and sundry GOP senators and reps are pointing and yelling "Aid and comfort!!! Right there!!"  at anyone with a question.

Actually, I think the rules of debate include the fact that you have to make trite anologys whenever you speak now:



But seriously, she makes a good point. She adequately points out the problems in the Bush administration and the policies with Iraq. I happen to agree with her that I think Bush thought that he would be considered a great savior to Iraq instead of still the infidel dog that he was before.

Still, what does that matter? The Democrats are still pounding on one key point, Bush has problems. DUH! Give me a plan in your speeches or something instead of constantly pointing out other's faults. It's complete reactionary politics. If they would just stop saying, here's what's wrong, and instead saying here's what we are going to do, that would be great.

Ya know I tend to agree with ya. If the detractors actually offered a fucking alternative it may help speed things along but to sit and scream "hey you suck" and offer no alternatibve or even assist in things gets 2 things accomplished Jack and Shit.

Hey man, after eight years of you fuckers bitching about Clinton, it's our turn, only we're right.

To be fair, Bush has recalibrated our concept of failure.  In 1998, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office was a catastrophe.  

Nowadays, getting involved on a war in the Middle East to find WMD, then not finding any WMD, then losing soldiers every day to an insurgency that gains momentum within 6 six weeks of a planned turnover of power while investigating torture at a US camp is a "difficult time."

I'm going to agree with Paelos once again. If Kerry focused more on a sensible alternative plan, instead of simply promoting himself as the Anti-Bush, I might actually give the guy a fair shake at the polls.

So far, from what I've seen, the dems aren't pushing their own plans....rather, they are just saying that the current plan sucks. Typical partisan watchdog bullshit...and I can appreciate it, as the GOP did it when Clinton was in office. But for that to become Kerry's platform in his presidential campaign is pathetic.

What's the average American know about Kerry? He's a senator from New England (I doubt most know the state), he served in Vietnam, and he isn't Bush. He's a sullen guy that bears a vague resemblance to a hound dog, and watching him speak is about as engaging as feeding pigeons at the park.

But particularly on foreign policy, all I see from Kerry's own site is that his plan is virtually identical to that of Bush. He talks about international cooperation, but then says that he won't let the international community handcuff us. Improve this, improve that....easier said than done. His primary plan is to "do it better".

The one thing I've liked when browsing his site is his plan to keep more jobs from going overseas. However, his plan, which he claims will cut corporate taxes for 99% of American businesses is hampered by the fact that he intends to repeal tax cuts for the high end. It counteracts itself....entrepreneurs make investments to make money, and to place higher tax burdens on them discourages them to take the risk...especially on any sort of a large scale. The plan helps John Q Public start his small town mom-and-pop business, but mom and pop aren't likely to create so many jobs....particularly in the manufacturing and energy sectors, as he suggests.

And the negativity that has just permeated everything he says....especially when his plans aren't so radically different....is just laughable. I just think that many of Kerry's supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening if he is elected....I don't think we're going to see the radical changes that I think so many expect.

Same pig, different dress....won't change the smell, because it's still a pig.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

I can sum up my whole problem with the current state of things with this quote:



Who said this?


If you don't know who this is or what the Nuremberg trials were then you need to go back to history class. Suffice it to say I was shocked when I ran across this quote as it is almost straight out of the Bush playbook.

"If we don't attack Iraq we're in imminent danger"

"All you people saying the war is in trouble are only aiding the terrorists!"

I'm a moderate who doesn't like Kerry or Bush but it doesn't take much to see the writing on the wall.

BTW, if you'd like more information about that quote you can find it here (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)

While it's a funny point and all....isn't this simply indicative of the vastly different circumstances expereienced by these two administrations?

It's not as if Clinton was blowing a wad onto Monica's dress as planes were colliding with buildings, or the very foundation of our economy was being rocked by unprecedented corporate scandals.

Hell, if Clinton had faced the same circumstances, I'd have been okay with Monica being the official presidential cocksucker, and being paid to "slick Willy" on a daily basis.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

I think this is a very key point that got glossed over in the other thread. I agree with DV here about the Kerry foreign policy being not that different from Bush's except for some vague generalities about doing more.

Bush isn't doing enough on the war on terror, so Kerry will do more. He'll do more to make better alliances. He'll do more to work with Arab nations to catch terrorists. He'll get us out the problems with Iraq by handing it to the UN.

Um, great that's all well and good, but it's campaign headlines. In a forum like a website where you can detail out your goals and strategies for your Presidency, I see very little there. All those things are kin to saying that we will "Win hearts and minds." Sure that's what we need, but how? We know what Bush is trying to do, he's playing macho politics, big stick foreign policy in the middle east. Kerry wants to have the big stick out there but also win hearts and minds. Maybe Kerry has more of a Nerf bat policy than big stick.

Would you vote for this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040517/en_afp/afplifestyle_cannes_film_040517173556

Or this:

http://www.thefirsttwins.com/

I was going to offer a response but somebody already fired up the Nazi Quote Engine for teh win, and now the thread feels like a swim in a waste treatment tank: all soiled and stinks to high heaven.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that 2/3rd of this thread actually heard what she said for themselves. I did, and she wasn't openly critical of the President. She was a tool, and made a fool of herself on television. Period, end of discussion. Democrats openly criticize the president daily, but most of them do it without making jackasses of themselves.

On Kerry's foreign policy, he says "I'm going to restore relations with other countries." Okay John, how? "By going to the UN and working with the UN and yada yada UN..." Translation: I'm going to do a better job than Bush, nevermind the details. Um John? Election year hello? We'd like a few details if you please.

We're still waiting for details on the Iraqi turnover that occurs in six weeks.  Doesn't look like either presidential candidate has their shit together.

As for Pelosi, I'm not buying she made an ass of herself.  If anything, these things needed to be said almost four years ago.

There is a real problem with the dems. They spoke up too late, and they don't have a good alternative.

They were deathly afraid that if they criticized and things DID go well they would look like cowards and idiots. People get fired (voted out) for making bad decisions, but they usually don't get fired for not making decisions.

It's easy to criticize after it's obvious things have gone wrong. Too bad they were too job-minded to speak up about their reservations up front.

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11 or corporate scandals?

I think the bottom line is that there is no simple solution.  Bush doesn't know what to do and continues to throw good money (and lives) after bad.  Kerry has no clue how to fix the situation as there really is no simple solution. We don't have any exit strategy and we have almost no support from the world community.  

The liberal stance against engaging in this conflict in the first place was founded to some degree on the idea that there was no plan in place for handling the aftermath.  We saw this in Vietnam... you send the troops in and then what?  The existence of guerrilla warfare demonstrated that there is local and regional support against US intervention.  It seems to me that Iraq is mixed on whether or not they even want us there.  Yes, we have done some good... some bad as well.

I also think it's naieve to think that the US is even involved in this because of a war on terrorism.  We're not there because we're some elite moral society, rather there are financial incentives for the US  entrenching a "friendly" political climate in the middle east.  There is an agenda for being there... I really don't get the feeling that we're proactively trying to save the world from terrorism as there are MANY places in the world filled with terrorist activities we have selectively turned our backs on.

Actually, the Nazi/Hitler thread killer only applies if you are doing something like saying Bush=Hitler. I'm not. I found the quote quite...enlightening. Face it. How many times have we gone to Code Orange? How many times before the war were we told that if we didn't Saddam was gonna give Terrorists WMDs? How many times have we heard the phrase "If you don't do X, the terrorists win." How many political commentators, IE Rush Limbaugh, have said that if you don't support the war you're anti-American?

Be honest now. Really, truly honest. I put up that quote not because it came from a Nazi (though honestly, what other regime in world history would have a better knowledge of what the quote says) but because, to be blunt, that IS the Bush Administration policy. Scare the public so we'll go to war.

Kerry's not any better from what I can tell, but, at this point I'd rather take a chance on the unknown than continue to be manipulated by Bush and Co.

No, I'm suggesting that Clinton didn't face problems anywhere near the scope of those experienced by this administration.

Has Bush made mistakes? Absolutely. He won't admit to them, mainly because it's an election year, and he doesn't want to provide footage or soundbits to be used in Kerry campaign ads.

Clinton's mistakes paled in comparison, but the stakes have been substantially higher under Bush's watch. Making a direct comparison is apples and oranges, despite the fact that they had the same job title.

It's the difference between the 100 meter dash and the 100 meter hurdles. Clinton stumbled but didn't fall, Bush has knocked over a couple of hurdles but has managed to avoid falling down so far.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

So, in other words, you aren't saying Bush = Hitler, and thus invoking Godwin's law. Instead you are saying that Bush = Goering and that Bush Administration policy = Nazi policy. It's Godwin's all the way man. You're making the inference that Bush = Nazi.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Kerry's problem is that he just isn't very smart.

The thing about Iraq (as of right now) is that there aren't a whole lot of different ways to approach it.  You can try to get the UN to take over, you can flat bail, you can half-ass the entire project, install a pathetic government that won't last a week and then bail, or you can commit to slogging it out and hope for the best.  And how many of those plans are viable as a campaign strategy?

Kerry doesn't help himself by hammering on the adminstration's management of the occupation because he's going to inherit that clusterfuck if he wins and he's not going to be able to do a whole lot differently than the Bushies unless he gives Kofi & Co. one hell of a good blowjob.

Bush's great weakness is that he got us into this mess in the first place, and if I were Kerry, I'd be saying that I intend to deal with Bush's mess in the best way that I can and guaranteeing anybody who'll listen that there isn't going to be an Iraq 2 while I'm in office.

I'd say that I intend to refocus our foreign policy efforts on fighting terrorism by finding some way to get out of Iraq (or at least reduce our presence) without fucking it over, cooperating with the UN in its own AT efforts and employing the full extent of US economic and political influence with a side of  the implied possibility of tactical military strikes (it's about time those idiots at the Pentagon learned what the true potential of transformation is) to lean hard on the countries that we know are the big problems (I'm looking at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and possibly Syria here).  There'd probably have to be a renewed commitment to Afghanistan somewhere in there, too.

Let's see, I'd also ramp up the efficacy of our foreign intelligence services (within reason) to allow us to better locate, track and assess both the terrorists themselves and their cashflow pipelines.  And I could go on all day.

Seriously, the man could talk for hours about all the shit that Bush should have done on foreign policy but didn't because he was too busy stumbling around in a messianic haze blabbering about freedom and democracy.

Not to mention all the shit that Bush seems to be just ignoring (or mostly ignoring).  North Korea, the fact that China is making imperialistic overtures toward Taiwan again, the Israeli/Palestinian shithole that continues to escalate, etc. etc.

Kerry just doesn't have his shit together.  BUT attacking him for not knowing exactly how he's going to secure UN help, etc. is just stupid.  Until he sits down with the relevant parties to see what it's going to take to bring them on board (last time I checked, we had pissed them off something fierce), how in the hell is he supposed to give you specifics?

So b/c he can't know details until he has the job, the plan is to elect him, then he'll figure out what do to?

Yeah, that inspires tons of confidence.  We're right back to "doesn't matter what he does, anything is better than Bush" line of thought.

I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two weevils.  Give me someone to vote postively FOR.  Else it may be better to leave the current guy in office just b/c he wouldn't be starting back on square 1 again with the same messes.  There is no easy answer here.

One minor point of order...



Attempting to scare the public into support of your position is hardly new, and not constrained to one single party.  See the politics of Medicare & Social Security for recent examples or McCarthy for older ones.

Xilren

The Bush admin tactics ARE very similar to Nazi tactics. You can invoke whatever moronic internet laws you want, that's still the case.

That doesn't mean Bush IS a Nazi or as bad as a Nazi...but the tactics are certainly very similar. Use fear and lack of information to get the public to support you.

Rather than invoking "Godwin's law" how about a REAL counter-argument? You haven't said anything that calls the analogy into question.

Well, actually, equating Bush to the Nazis is kinda the idea there.  If George Washington had said the exact same thing, it would have never been quoted.  Why?  Because the quote just states the tactic and a belief that the tactic works.  It doesn't even try to judge (morally, ideologically, etc.) the practice in any way, nor does it delineate between the practice and what the Nazis used it to do (and why), which is why it relies soley on Goering's connection to the Third Reich and the popular perception that the Nazis were the embodiment of pure evil for its impact.  It's guilt by degrees of separation (Bush > scare tactics > Goering > Nazis > bad things), which is almost always a total load of bullshit.

In other words, Nazi comparisons are meaningless rhetorical cheap shots that make any conversation they occur in a thousand times more stupid (hence Godwin's law).

Eh, act like a three year old, get compared to a three year old.  Act like a Nazi, get compared to a Nazi.  It's certainly not Margalis's fault that the Bush Administration borrowed their domestic policy from Hitler's Regime.

BTW:  Godwin's Law simply states:  "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Come on Cevik, you and I both know that Godwin's Law is actually used as an indicator of "thread decay" to such an overwhelming extent that the idea that a thread has outlived its usefulness at the moment someone mentions the Nazis is irreversibly wedded to the Law itself (especially considering that Godwin himself introduced the law as a counter-meme to people insisting on bringing Hitler into every discussion).

But we can place semantics ahead of reality if you want.  Just give me fair warning first, would ya?

And I'm hoping that the "act like a Nazi, get compared to a Nazi" bit is firmly tongue-in-cheek.  Because really, it's not like Hitler invented the idea of using scare tactics and ignorance/disinformation to get his way.  It's a time-honored political tactic that's actually been used by alot of people we currently lionize.  Have you ever seen some of the shit that some of the key players during the American Revolution said about the British?

I still haven't hear why it's a bad comparison.

When we went into Kosovo and the Balkans, it was NOT because of some induced fear in the public and purposeful misinformation.

It pisses me off that most Americans think most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. The Bush people have done everything they can, without outright lying, to support that. They continuously point out Saddam/Al Queda connections even after they are shown to be bogus, put them in the same sentence as often as possible (guilt by sentence proximity!), etc etc.

The first Gulf War was not about fear for our own safety. Neither was Kosova, or Somalia, troop action in Haiti, etc. There was no manufactured imminent threat in any of those cases.

If the Nazi comparison really bothers you, how about we leave it out and just say this: The Bush people use fear bred by misinformation to gain support for the war and silence their detractors.
---

It always used to annoy me when feminists would repeat "500 thousand women die a year of anorexia." Years after that statement was proven false, you would still hear it, and you would NEVER hear a feminist volunteer to correct it. They would either be saying it or be silent when someone else said it, even if they knew it was false. Because people believing that helped the cause.

The Bush people are the same way. They are either repeating the misinformation or making zero effort to correct what they know is false. (The Jessica Lynch stuff is a good example, the original "account" was total fabrication, and the actual heros in the story are Iraqi doctors) Instead they grudgingly admit that some bit of information linking Iraq and Al Queda was false, then have Condi rice repeat it weeks later in a Post op-ed piece.

Or how about Colin Powell proclaiming that he had a tape that showed Bin Laden and Saddam were working together, when in the tape Bin Laden expressly says he dislikes Saddam? That was complete fabrication.

Honestly guys... it was a quote to support his thinking on how the Bush Administration pushed the USA into war with Iraq. Forget Nazis, think <generic asexual being that would know> in place of whoever it was (don't care enough to double-check what nazi it was). It doesn't matter, his aim was "Bush Govt policy = cause fear to push war, heres a quote so I dont look like I pulled the idea out of my ass".

Personally I think the idea gives the Bush Administration too much credit, my impression is that they have been mostly rolling with the punches and pandering to what the people expect with all the code orange and whatnot.

Oh well, on with discussing nazis, you know you want to.

When you say that they spoke up too late, are you inferring that in the presence they got in the media was ill-timed, or are you implying there is a time limit after rhetoric is aired beyond which further rhetoric is not permissable?

While we're on the topic of the Nazi's, how about we bring Commies into the discussion too?

I don't think there's a limit after which further rhetoric is not permissible.  And when you say that "the presence they got in the media was ill-timed" it implies that somehow they had no control of WHEN they got said presence in the media, which is probably not true.

I think he means that they either decided too late to speak the right things, or they didn't figure out what to do till it was too late (and thus spoke too late).

The dems spoke up after things had obviously gone wrong, so it looked like Monday morning quaterbacking. They didn't start asking for a valid exit plan until after we were already in Iraq, and they all voted to give the President a blank check to wage war.

Some of them have been saying all along they thought the war was a bad idea, but most of their actions supported it anyway, because it was the popular thing at the time.

Now it looks like they are disagreeing in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

Thank god someone intelligent got it. (I believe one other of you also said I wasn't saying Bush=Hitler or Goering). I put the quote up because I was browsing Snopes (the Urban legend website) around the time this thread started and I saw that quote and was like "Holy shit, that IS Bush domestic policy".

I really don't care if it was a Nazi who said it or if it was Mr. Rogers. The fact is, it does feel like, especially with Iraq, that the idea is to keep the populace scared so they'll go along like sheep with what you say is "for the good of the country". Hell, mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh have been saying that if you don't support the war you're anti-American since the beginning. (Another part of that quote: pacifist=non-patriotic).

Oddly enough I like the results of the war (Saddam deposed, sons killed) I just don't like that my country was manipulated into it, and that we are most likely creating the next generation of terrorists right now.

But he MADE this problem.  If this was about the War on Terrorism or simply dealing with the economy, I would agree with you.

But if you run into the tiger cage at the zoo, kick the Bengal in the nuts and get mauled Roy Horn-style, you don't get to lay in your hospital bed waving your upper arms around complaining about how hard your life is.

This is why people are reluctant to criticize Bush - because people already critizing him are doing so by making ludcrious Nazi comparisons, and people who might actually have a valid point WORTH COUNTERING are afraid they'll be lumped into the same kettle as people who think "BUSH AER JUS LIEK GOERING!1!!" is a really clever point.

Indeed, I fucking hate Goering. But he was quite intelligent if completely amoral. Comparing him with Bush is not fair.

I'm beginning to see how Bush won. It seems that his voters cannot read. I understand it is easier to try to put people down and say "You're just saying he's a Nazi" instead of paying attention to the quote and the comparison made about tactics in the quote. NOTE: I never, nor did anyone else say "Bush is a Nazi. Bush is into genocide. Bush hates Jews. Bush gives speeches like Hitler! (Of course, as much as Hitler is hated, he gave awesome speeches, so that comparison would be truly ludicrous.)"

What was said, if you can READ, is that he uses tactics very similiar to the ones in that quote. He makes the public afraid to stir up a war and he decries people against the war as un-Patriotic.

Damn I hate debating with stupid people, it's just not fair.

Okay then, Herr Smartyman:

Quotes please where Bush suggests that criticism of the war != patriotism.

I think it's naive to think that tying quotes from Nazis to the actions of people isn't going to be construed as you calling them a Nazi. However, the idea the original quote discusses stems from a type of policy not originated by the Nazis.

The Romans, Pharisees, Catholic Church, English, etc. have used the idea of fear and misinformation sometime. Fear is a powerful tool that has been used to keep control for ages. Fear is what caused people to create tribes and governments in the first place. They were afraid of lawlessness or other people's might, so they banded together for strength and security.

Hell, if you really wanted to call Bush something with his foreign policy, I'd say its Machiavellian (sp?) in its form. That man really put into focus the effectiveness of that fear practice that existed for hundreds of years.

Hey dipshit, perhaps you're familiar with terms like INFER or IMPLY. Quoting a Nazi and comparing it to Bush policy...or flat-out saying that it **IS** Bush policy is obviously going to lead people to believe you are trying to infer or imply a comparison between Bush and Nazis.



I think you're attributing the "anti-war = unpatriotic" sentiment to Bush, simply because he has many supporters who feel that way. If you can produce a quote from Bush that says it, I'll concede the point.

Most of us saw the comparison, and understand what you are trying to say....but I personally felt that you were using a Nazi quote to paint the administration as insidious and evil.

Whether by virtue of being misinformed or by intentional manipulation, Bush's administration gained popular support for the war through the allegations of WMD stockpiles and terrorist connections. I still don't see how it creates a hidden agenda, other than the stated objective of removing a hostile oppressive regime and thereby improving our national security.

We can bust out the conspiracy theories and guess at how it's all about getting Iraqi oil, or payback for Daddy, or the insipid notion that it's about drumming up business for HAL so Cheney can make money on stock options.

Couldn't possibly be that he had faulty intel, and was going in there with the best of intentions, right?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Yes it probably was naive. I gave to much credit to the intelligence of other posters here. I don't know where the policy originated, that just happened to be a quote that I found at the moment and it fit.



Oh, it's an old tactic to be sure. Doesn't mean I don't disagree with it though.



Machiavellian? No. It's fear all the way. Machiavelli was damn good at manipulation and such but he extended it beyond his own borders. Bush is able to manipulate the American public mostly cause 90% of us are sheep and blindly follow our government. (True of the rest of the world too I imagine). He couldn't manipulate foreigners cause he pissed to many of them off.

Shit, I've been saying Bush is incompetent for years. I guess I'm putting American lives at risk too.

Theres no time for democracy now, Haemish.  We're at war.

Ummmm, let's see. While Willy was slapping man spunk on Monica's best fashion statement, Osama Bin Laden's terror network was blowing up embassies in Africa and battleships in Yemen, while dot.bomb startups were being passed around IPO's like the drunk cheerleader at the jock party and Timothy McVeigh was lighting fertilizer bombs in front of federal buildings. The only difference between the two time periods is that the bombs from the foreigners were landing on our turf during Bush's time.

Why is one better than the other?

Answer: Neither are, so let's talk about the fuckups in the right context.

I think with the stress of the top job, all our officials should be getting head on a regular basis.

Might have less wars that way.

You're probably thinking of Goebbels.

Goering was responsible for one of the two major fuck ups that probably cost the axis the war in Europe (Mussolini made the other when he attacked Greece) when he abandoned the ME109, leaving the Germans without a decent fighter plane.
I know; they'd probably lose anyway - but without these two errors of judgment an axis victory would still have been theoretically possible.
Claiming Luftwaffe could conquer Britain on its own doesn't seem like the smartest thing to say either...

I have a hard time picturing Goering as anything other than an overindulgent, arrogant jackass who was promoted way beyond his capabilities (even though I know he was a good pilot and he represented himself well at the trials).

While I agree that it might be unfair to compare Goering to Bush, it is not because I think Goering had a superior intellect. (sorry, couldn't resist) :-P

I think you're too full of yourself.  You've put "people here are stupid" in every single post you've made in this thread.  Confusing "they disagree" with "they just don't get it" again, are we?

If blowjobs were a part of the daily routine of the top job, I might run for it myself. How much more could I fuck up this country?

Comparing Bush to Goering was a valid comparison, especially with the quote used. However, as Arcadian said, it makes people associate you with (or makes it easier for conservative apologists to compare you with) whiney, loudmouth cockgobblers like Michael Moore. I personally think we should use Mike Moore as a cure for hunger in Africa; god knows his fat ass could feed twenty Unicef families for decades.

Bush may like to make it out that he's facing more stress than Clinton, but don't you fucking believe it. That job is pure stress in pill form, no matter what's happening. The 9/11 attacks happened on Bush's watch but could have easily happened on ANY president's watch. The box cutters the terrorists used to take over the planes WERE NOT RESTRICTED FROM USE ON A PLANE. Thus, the terrorists didn't break any laws of the time, the screeners at the airports didn't fuck up. The SYSTEM failed the screeners, not the screeners failing the system.

Which means nothing when you talk about Iraq, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Co. have commited the Orwellian sin. They've lumped all enemies of the state into the great entity for which we are ever at war. I mean, it's the same shit as the "War on Drugs." Wars are made to be won. How do you win a war against an ideal? How do you win a war against an enemy you can't even pinpoint from day to day? You don't. But you can sure as hell use the fear of said enemy to herd the sheeple into easily tractable pens.

As for Kerry and his lack of coherent thoughts on what he would do differently, I don't care. Change is not always good, but I can't see many people doing worse than Bush has done with the tools at his disposal. In this case, Anything But Bush is a valid campaign tactic.

Why oh why did you have to compare anything to the War on Drugs.

That's a derail topic of epic proportions.

TRAIN WRECK IN PROGRESS> FILM AT 11!

See hammy thats where we differ. I KNOW what to expect from the trunip however its the unknown in Kerry that scares me far more. Well that and the known policies hes espousing such as greater UN involvement in our military matters, etc etc.

Actually my people are stupid posts was referring to

1) The average voter in this country.



I agree with him. The average person is amazingly stupid. In groups we're worse. It's not mob mentality, it's mob stupidity.

2) The dumb fucks who ASSUMED that using that quote meant I was implying Bush was a Nazi or Bush was like Goering. It was not a case of "they disagree". It was a case of "We think you said something you didn't say and we'll continue to ignore all evidence to the contrary cause it's easier to try to win the debate that way than through logic." You think Bush doesn't use fear and doesn't say that it's unpatriotic not to support the war? Prove it. And don't say "well, Bush doesn't say that. X in his administration says it" or "Rush Limbaugh says it". One he is directly responsible for, the other is a mouthpiece for his party.

Sorry if it offends you.

I'll be frank. I WELCOME more UN intervention with our military.

Yep, you heard me. I welcome it. Why? Because it means we are "getting along" with the rest of the world better. It means that chances are the people we are attacking really do deserve getting the ever-living shit kicked out of them. If that bunch of back-biting, hand-wringing, self-righteous, hypocritical, double-dealing buch of shitmittens we call the UN has stopped its intellectual circle-jerk long enough to actually apply military force anywhere, then chances are the people who are the targets of said military force really are a threat to the entire fucking world, or at least one corner of it.

The only way the human race is going to grow itself out of the muck and mire of petty tyrants and dictatorial oppression is by working together for the common good. Those are the ideals that the UN is founded on, and despite their individual constituents' lack of any intention to further those goals, sometimes those goals are actually furthered by hook or by crook. The only way we as a race will keep from blowing the shit out of ourselves over territorial pissings is by working with people we'd much rather be blowing the shit out of for a common ground instead of actually blowing the shit out of them.

The problem most people, especially conservatives and Bush-whackers, have with the UN is that the UN doesn't always follow what we in the US say. And that irks the Bush-whackers to no end. After all, we pay for most of the UN's expenses, we host the goddamn thing, why can't they just listen to what we say? Because that's not how cooperation works. And foreign policy is about cooperation, not making the other guy see your side as the right side. You can tell me that my dog is a bloodthirsty killing machine all you want, then tell it to me again after you've nuked my dog's house with an RPG killing Fluffy and everything within a 10' radius, and believe it or not, I'll STILL be pissed off at you. You blew up my Fluffy, you pigfucker, and the neighborhood watch didn't say it was ok. They may be happy that Fluffy, Slaughterer of Cats, is dead, but they sure aren't happy about you taking matters into your own hands.

If you want the US to be Killer of Dogs, expect that Dog Lovers everywhere will call you a pooch-popper when you walk in the room.

And I too would like to take this moment to swear allegiance to our new Ant Overlords...

You need to loosen the chinstrap on your crash helmet, buddy. Seriously.

First of all, when you quote a Nazi, point out that he is a Nazi, and say "Holy shit, that IS Bush domestic policy", the implication is made. As if that wasn't enough, you go on to make the direct comparison.

Now you're backtracking, saying that it's unimportant that the quote comes from a nazi....which is patently idiotic. As another poster pointed out, if the quote had been made by George Washington or JFK or Winston Churchill, it would never have been brought into the discussion.



See, you're not saying the administration, or the GOP....you're saying Bush specifically. You've yet to produce a quote for us that affirms the allegation. You've even gone so far as to say that any such statement within the administration, or by Rush Limbaugh is indicative of the sentiments of Bush himself.

Bush is not directly accountable for statements about patriotism made by members of his administration, and he is certainly not responsible for the statements or actions of Rush frickin Limbaugh. If he were, I think we'd have already brought Bush down for that whole fiasco about Donovan McNabb and the hillbilly heroin addiction.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.........

Jesus F. Christ. you people are itching to bitch and bitch aren't you? It's not "OMG Bush is teh nazi" it's "The Bush administration is using tactics also employed by historical regimes we today look back upon in sadness".

Now, argue motives, argue if what has been said is true... Hell I don't really care.

Oh and make sure to vote Kerry people, he has the best chance to win apart from Bush, and who in their right mind can say G.W deserves more time on air?

You just lost the war. Log out now before you make it worse.

Actually the problem I have with the UN is that unless they need our help we are the evil capitolist motherfuckers in thier eyes but only untill they need an actual effective military then were number one. Fuck the UN with a huge pole. I have seen more idiocy come out of that building in the past 20 years than I care to remember.

Actually, the reason most true conservatives hate the U.N. is a simple principle:  We don't like big goverment.  We don't like it in the U.S., and we certainly don't like it on a global scale.  I think this latest scandal with the Oil for Kofi's Beemer Program is going to highlight that quite effectively.

Really? Where did I make this direct comparison? I just reread every single one of my posts on this thread and guess what? I never, ever compared Bush to any Nazi. In fact in the original post I never even used the word Nazi or Third Reich or Hitler. That's right. I didn't even point out Goering was a Nazi, I simply said



Yes, I do believe that is Bush domestic policy. Use fear to achieve his aims.



That other poster is making assumptions as are you. I almost used a very similiar quote attributed to Ceasar. The problem is, Ceasar never said it and I didn't want to use a false quote.



They are. You don't honestly believe Rush Limbaugh is totally independent of the GOP do you? He runs right down the playbook. I listen to him almost everyday. Some stuff he says I agree with. Some stuff I just sigh at like when I catch him in a lie.

Are you so naive as to think that things said within the administration don't have the approval of Bush? Come on. Be realistic. If he didn't want these things said he'd make sure it only happened once. The fact that it is said multiple times implies approval. Don't be stupid.



How does heroin addiction tie into official talking points passed down from a president? Bush, like any other President, IS directly responsible for any actions his administration takes and that includes statements made by those within his admnistration. I should clarify this by saying policy actions and statements. If a member of the administration is snorting cocaine that's not Bush's responsibility, beyond dealing with it. When you're the boss, you take the responsibility for what your employees do. That means if they speak for you and you don't agree with them you better damn well make sure they only say it once.

Anyway, this argument is silly. You're making assumptions and apologizing for Bush and I'm getting tired of it. I may or may not reply again, it depends on if you decide to use logic in any further posts.

For a group that really hates big government, the conservatives in this country seem awfully goddamn intent on providing just that. Examples:

1) Continual call for free speech restrictions such as no flag burning, FCC crackdowns on broadcast media, restrictions on violent content in video games and other entertainment media, as well as governmental oversight on the content of grant-funded artwork (BTW Lieberman is also one of the cockmunchers calling for this and even though he's a Dem, he's as conservative as they get), free speech restictions on Internet content - FOR TEH CHILDREN!
2) Continual calls for government surveillance powers such as those contained in the Patriot Act
3) Continual governmental oversight into private sexual and health affairs between consensual adults, such as restrictions on gay marriages and abortion rights

I've found that about the only place conservatives DON'T want big government these days is when it involves the money that corporations make and the methods they use to make it.



Yes, yes he is. Especially when those messages are used verbatim by every member of his administration to attack critics of the administration, such as Dick Clarke. The members of the cabinet that he appoints he is responsible for; their actions as members of the government, the policies they set, etc. He is the commander in chief, and the head of the cabinet. Nothing should go on with his cabinet, especially their public statements in regard to policy without his either specific or implied consent. When a member of his cabinet speaks for the administration, they speak as a member of the administration. That's the bitch of the job. You accept the leadership responsibility, you accept that the actions of your subordinates reflects upon that leadership.

As a conservative, I can tell you I don't give a shit about flag burning.  If you think that the only way to get your point across is to desecrate the flag innumerable Americans died for, power to you, that is your right.  As it is my right to call you flag-desecrating shitsucker.
Concerning the FCC, other than the dropping the F-bomb in primetime and tits during the Super Bowl, I could care less about that, too.  I believe the majority of the responsibility about children and what they are exposed to is incumbent upon the parents, not the goverment.  But the goverment should try to limit that kind of stuff to certain times and channels, that way the responsible parent can control what their child is exposed to.  And I don't think people expected nudity during the Super Bowl.  The FCC should keep and enforce it's standards, but a titty-flashing witch hunt that costs unknowable amounts of money is stupid.  They should have fined her, laughed at her flaccid body, then moved on.
And finally, what a person chooses to do in their own home is their business, and the government has no place there.  However, marriage is a religious and societal institution and there is nothing wrong with keeping it that way.  If two men want to hook up, give them their civil union, and the benefits thereto, and leave the term marriage out of it.  Then everyone gets what they want.  Unless, of course, what they want is an agenda issue, so they can showcase how evil and intolerant conservatives are.  That being the case, nothing would be satisfactory to them but the full acceptance of their terms.  That is not compromise, that is surrender.  
And as for corporations, yes, some of the do evil, and some of them don't.  As for me, when I compare the idiocy of goverment to the stupidity of corporations, I tend to pick what I consider the lesser of two horrors, and it ain't the goverment.  But that's just where I come down, everyone in a free society is entitled to voice whatever opinion they have.  And it is the flag that represents that freedom to me, which is why I choose to respect it.

You SURE you're a Conservative?

I agree with previous posters, conservatives tend to be against big government only when that conveniently coincides with something they dislike. They claim they are against big brother in your bedroom, then argue a case in front of the Supreme Court that officers should be able to LITERALLY go into your bedroom and arrest you for having gay sex.

Government has not shrunk under Bush at all.

The politicians are NEVER against big government. Big government is their livelyhood, the source of their power, and sets up all their buddies nicely.

---

You sound much more libertarian than conservative.

Quote a nazi, point out the context and then say that IS Bush's policy, and you've made a direct comparison. You can tapdance around it all you like, but quoting a Nazi describing their tactics, and then saying that Bush is doing the same thing is a direct comparison.




Why not just describe the tactic, without using a quote? Hell, McCarthyism is a great comparison, as would be the Salem Witch Trials or any of a dozen other examples throughout history. Fuck, you could even quote a recent song by A Perfect Circle that makes an identical assessment.



I don't agree that Limbaugh is Bush's personal mouthpiece. Believe it or not, not every Republican agrees with every other Republican 100% on 100% of the issues. Just because Limbaugh says anti-war = unpatriotic does NOT necessarily mean Bush feels the same way.



I think you're being naive. Members of the administration are allowed to have their own opinions, yknow. They are not obligated to spout the personal opinions of the President at all times. No administration today is stupid enough to take an official stance on anti-war protestors as being unpatriotic....and some press secretary or advisor expressing their own personal opinion does not make it the personal opinion of Bush or the official position of his administration. And as yet, you've not produced a quote where Bush equates anti-war protestors to being unpatriotic.



Limbaugh is NOT a member of the Bush administration.



Produce a quote where anyone in the Bush administration has said that Bush feels being anti-war=unpatriotic.



You're trying to put words in the man's mouth, and using that as a basis for your argument. Bush SUPPORTERS have made the statement many times....OTHER REPUBLICANS have made similar statements....that does NOT translate into BUSH HIMSELF making such statements or even harboring the same sentiment.

You made a crystal clear implication, one which many of us here saw and pointed out. Now you're trying to have it both ways....comparing statements by a nazi to Bush policy, yet trying to deny a comparison...and then trying to attribute a sentiment to Bush because he shares a party affiliation with Limbaugh. You deny an implied connection, and then try to make another one. It's laughable.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

So, for example, if Dick Cheney was asked about the NBA playoffs in an interview, and he said he thought the Lakers would win, that means the President feels the same way? Of course not. Personal opinions on patriotism are just that....personal opinions. Members of the administration, as well as people outside the administration (i.e. Limbaugh) are allowed to have opinions that diverge from that of the commander in chief.



Clarke wasn't simply anti-war, he was making some serious allegations about the administration and Bush....all the while, promoting a tell-all book about the subject. I don't see how criticisms of Clarke translate into calling every anti-war protestor unpatriotic, or even making an inference to that effect.



When are personal opinions about patriotism considered policy?



I agree here, but I still haven't seen that come out of the Bush camp. Where is the official stance of the administration regarding patriotism? If anything else, I'd like to know what criteria I have to meet in order to qualify.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

I am a libertarian conservative, with slightly moderate views on certain social issues.  That having been said, don't label me, man! *sob*
Seriously, though, I have and still do disagree with several of Bush's domestic ideas, I think they are too far-reaching and cost WAY too fucking much.  But given the choice of a Texas plain-speaker who I slightly disagree on some issues with or he's-covered-in-maple-syrup-he-waffles-so-much rich-bitch Nor'eastern Teddy Kennedy liberal, well, it's no contest.  Especially when you consider that no matter your opinion on the war, we are IN it, then I would rather have Bush at the helm than some guy who's best plan is kissing U.N. ass.  Now that is some stank ass.

Yep. That's exactly why I loathe the UN as it currently stands...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=524674
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

Then again, maybe not.

Please forgive the Bruceing


I'm all for flag burning as long as its legal for me to shoot you when you do.


Which is one of the reasons it was created and all but hey once you let shit slide for so long you are a zealot when you actually enforce the LAWS that have existed for years.
Because that kind of stuff is wholesome and whatnot.


Cause goddamnit they have no right to have a say in WHAT THEY FUCKING PAID FOR.

You have a right to free speech NOT that there are no consequenses for said speach. In general content that is being restricted is shit that anyone who isnt a depraved moron would usually not be compelled to look at. I mean yeah let the KKK motherfuckers spew hate everywhere. Please grasp a clue soon before they run outta tinfoil.


As stated before I have seen absolutly zero, nada, neit, zilch etc etc change in my life since TPA was signed. Course I tend to not do shit thats illegal so I really aint worried.


And this has changed in the last 4 years exactly how? Hell I'll be generous and give you the last oh 200 fucking years. If anything its gotten more liberal so explain how the evil conservatives are causing marriages between gays again? I have yet to see a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage and just because a conservative president says they would support it  does not mean that it will ever happen.


Not like the asshats responsible arent being tried and sent to prison and new laws are being drafted and all. You know the shit that happenes WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Sounds like a lot of governament oversight to me.




Unless you arent Bush then its ok not to take responsibility for others actions. God knows every other president in history has taken responsibility for the asshats under them. Yeah right.

Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly Hammy. It will be ok.

When they are used as political attacks on opponents of the President, or anyone who criticizes the president's handling of political matters, such as in the Dick Clarke instance, the attacks made on the head of the weapons inspection teams who said there were no WMD's in Iraq, when they are used to leak information about undercover CIA operatives to the press. The pattern of Fear and Distress messages that come out of every mouth in the cabinet is a pretty obvious tactic, and is being echoed by the President himself.

People who criticize the man and his actions as president are being treated as if they attacked the office of the president himself. Strangely enough, this is exactly how Nixon defended himself during the first inklings of Watergate.

EDIT: As for the UN Oil for Food Scandal:



That's the list of 2 people in the US who also participated in the scandal. Nice thing about the UN is that it involves all the countries that participate in it. When the UN fucks up, we're part of it too, and it diminshes us all. But again, just because some of its members fuck up, does not mean the whole organization is bad. Just because some idiots, probably up to and including the secretary of defense, perpetuated a system of torture and abuse on Iraqi prisoners doesn't mean that we should get rid of the military and the department of defense.

Just because the government grants money for art, that does not give it the right to dictate content. Content restrictions were not stipulated in the grant language, so no, the governemnt has not one goddamn reason to bitch about the content unless content restrictions are specific to the grant conditions. Government restricting artistic expression is censorship any way you like to cut it.

Why does all entertainment have to be "wholesome?" I daresay some of our finest examples of literature are nothing near "wholesome;" that's part of what makes them so great.

The formal charge of the FCC can be summed up in 30 words taken directly from their web site:



I see nothing in there that does or should have one goddamn thing to do with content, only delivery.

Hahaha Hammy do you sling drool when you rave anbout these things? I get this mental image of you as a rabid bulldog when you get into  that mood lol.

Other than take care of some overseas dirty work that (debatably in the case of Iraq) needed doing, I really haven't seen a single good thing Bush Jr. has done for this country.

All I can do as a responsible citizen of the US is not vote for Bush Jr in the upcoming election.    (Not that lack of popular vote really stopped him the last time.)

Then your view of artistic expression must be a fucked as thes dumbasses who think shitting in a can with a virgin mary doll and sealing it is art. Picaso, Davincci, hell even Warhol. Thats art.
As for the FCC one should read a tad farther into thier site and not pick out a very generalized statement. Try going into the regulations part and see what you see ok. Everything does not need to be wholesome but it does need to be rated and displayed at appropriate times.

The FCC is not talking about rating and displaying ratings. They are out and out talking about punishing people for saying words whether the show is labeled as racy or not. And they are doing it in such a ham-fisted, stupid way that it makes them look really silly. First they say that Bono saying "FUCKING BRILLIANT" is ok, since he isn't actually talking about the sex act, then months later they say "Well, no really that's not ok." Too late.

As for art, Warhol is shit, and I'd rather see the turd in a decanter than his garbage any day of the week. As for canned turds, there's plenty of art I don't agree with and don't like, but I firmly defend the rights of the artist to make that, with or without government funding. Art is a very necessary expression of freedom; if you don't believe me, look at the first thing most dictatorial regimes do. They destroy, alter or censor the art and history of a culture, because those things tell the truths that we sometimes DON'T want to face about ourselves and our culture.

I agree with you, Haem, except for the govermental funding of artists part.  It IS your right as a free person to express yourself artistically in pretty much any way you choose.  But, consistent with my earlier libertarianish statements, nowhere in the Constitution is there stated or implied that every idiot that pisses on a cross is entitled to goverment money.  I think the entire concept of goverment funding of the arts is ludicrous.  You don't want the goverment in the bedroom with you, why would you want them hanging out in your studio?  A true artist creates because the impetus to create is overwhelming, and you would be an artist no matter what, but I don't see how that translates to a citizen-funded government bearing the responsibility to keep your pasty ass in ramen noodles til you hit the big time...

Once the money is given to the artist, that ends the government's right to bitch about what the artist produces unless the government says it gets first right of "This sucks, you hack - get a day job" in the fine print.

I would agree with you about the government funding individual artists with grants, myself. I think it's a bad deal all around. I'd rather the government funded organizations that educate and display starving artists' work, like they did in the Mapplethorpe exhibit scandal. But then, I wouldn't fund an individual artist's career anyway. That's just bad business. Having been in art school with other artists, I wouldn't trust most of them to manage a shithouse, much less my money. They tend to spend as much money on cheap wine and ramen as on actual art supplies.

And to me, it's not so much about making artists suffer or some dreck like that, artists are unique and usually brilliantly eclectic people, but it's about finding ways to do a thing, and not having or expecting some kind of deus ex machina intervention, i.e. Uncle Sam with a fat check for your bad ass.  Hell, in the old days, artists found rich people and sucked off of THEM.  I am all for that.
As to funding exhibitions and things, I think you will find that real art will always find a venue, and a way to be shown, it doesn't require the federal goverment to intervene.  Again, I like art, and I don't ever want the arts to be discouraged or in anyway hindered, this is much more for me about limited, and by virtue of that fact, less-powerful government.

Funding for the arts in schools and stuff is fine with me. I do tend to agree that working artists don't deserve government money though. Most artists that have made a large impact on society either didn't benefit from government money or didn't need it.

If the government funds random artists, it opens the door to tons of other questions. What about garage bands, carpenters, etc? What about other people who vaguely enrich society? Street preachers?

Then again, the money we spend on the arts is pretty trivial, so practically speaking I don't care much either way.

Maybe it should be. Some believe the best art in the world comes from pain and the appreciation of simple things that most of us take for granted. The "starving artist" covers both of those bases, and seems to make for better art.

After all, who is going to paint a better picture of fruit...a guy that just finished a steak dinner, or a guy that hasn't eaten in 3 days?

Seriously, I'm all for funding art programs and education about the various arts. I'm not really for the government funding professional artists, unless they've been hired to do a portrait or whatnot.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............