Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Pelosi lays into Bush (Read 18335 times)
|
Arcadian Del Sol
Terracotta Army
Posts: 397
|
Okay then, Herr Smartyman:
Quotes please where Bush suggests that criticism of the war != patriotism.
|
unbannable 
|
|
|
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075
Error 404: Title not found.
|
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.
|
CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
|
|
|
Dark Vengeance
|
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.)" 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. 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. 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..............
|
|
|
|
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8046
|
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. 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. 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.
Oh, it's an old tactic to be sure. Doesn't mean I don't disagree with it though. 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.
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.
|
"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
Shit, I've been saying Bush is incompetent for years. I guess I'm putting American lives at risk too.
|
|
|
|
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359
|
Theres no time for democracy now, Haemish. We're at war.
|
...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god. -Numtini
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075
Error 404: Title not found.
|
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.
|
CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
|
|
|
ClumsyOaf
Guest
|
Indeed, I fucking hate Goering. But he was quite intelligent if completely amoral. Comparing him with Bush is not fair. 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
|
|
|
|
ajax34i
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2527
|
I gave to much credit to the intelligence of other posters here. 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?
|
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075
Error 404: Title not found.
|
Why oh why did you have to compare anything to the War on Drugs.
That's a derail topic of epic proportions.
|
CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
TRAIN WRECK IN PROGRESS> FILM AT 11!
|
|
|
|
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556
da hizzookup
|
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.
|
BWL is funny tho. It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
|
|
|
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8046
|
I gave to much credit to the intelligence of other posters here. 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? Actually my people are stupid posts was referring to 1) The average voter in this country. Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. These are the thoughts that keep me awake at night.
George Carlin 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.
|
"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075
Error 404: Title not found.
|
I'll be frank. I WELCOME more UN intervention with our military.
And I too would like to take this moment to swear allegiance to our new Ant Overlords...
|
CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
|
|
|
Dark Vengeance
|
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 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. 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. 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.........
|
|
|
|
Rodent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 699
|
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?
|
Wiiiiii!
|
|
|
Arcadian Del Sol
Terracotta Army
Posts: 397
|
Yes it probably was naive. I gave to much credit to the intelligence of other posters here.
You just lost the war. Log out now before you make it worse.
|
unbannable 
|
|
|
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556
da hizzookup
|
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.
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.
|
BWL is funny tho. It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
|
|
|
Aslan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 154
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8046
|
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.
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 Quote: -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If you don't know who this is or what the Nuremberg trials were then you need to go back to history class
Yes, I do believe that is Bush domestic policy. Use fear to achieve his aims. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
|
"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
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. 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. Bush is not directly accountable for statements about patriotism made by members of his administration 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.
|
|
|
|
Aslan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 154
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
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.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Dark Vengeance
|
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.*snip*
Yes, I do believe that is Bush domestic policy. Use fear to achieve his aims. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Limbaugh is NOT a member of the Bush administration. 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. Produce a quote where anyone in the Bush administration has said that Bush feels being anti-war=unpatriotic. 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. 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...............
|
|
|
|
Dark Vengeance
|
Yes, yes he is. 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. Especially when those messages are used verbatim by every member of his administration to attack critics of the administration, such as Dick Clarke. 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. 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 are personal opinions about patriotism considered policy? 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. 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..............
|
|
|
|
Aslan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 154
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Daeven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1210
|
|
"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -SMStirling
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion
|
|
|
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556
da hizzookup
|
Please forgive the Bruceing 1) Continual call for free speech restrictions such as no flag burning,
I'm all for flag burning as long as its legal for me to shoot you when you do. FCC crackdowns on broadcast media, 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. restrictions on violent content in video games and other entertainment media, Because that kind of stuff is wholesome and whatnot. 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), Cause goddamnit they have no right to have a say in WHAT THEY FUCKING PAID FOR. free speech restictions on Internet content - FOR TEH CHILDREN! 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. 2) Continual calls for government surveillance powers such as those contained in the Patriot Act 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. 3) Continual governmental oversight into private sexual and health affairs between consensual adults, such as restrictions on gay marriages and abortion rights 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. 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. 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. Bush is not directly accountable for statements about patriotism made by members of his administration 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. 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.
|
BWL is funny tho. It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
|
|
|
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666
the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring
|
When are personal opinions about patriotism considered policy? 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: United States Samir Vincent: 7 million Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million 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: ensure that the American people have available, at reasonable costs and without discrimination, rapid, efficient, Nation- and world-wide communication services; whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable I see nothing in there that does or should have one goddamn thing to do with content, only delivery.
|
|
|
|
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556
da hizzookup
|
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.
|
BWL is funny tho. It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
|
|
|
geldonyetich
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2337
The Anne Coulter of MMO punditry
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556
da hizzookup
|
When are personal opinions about patriotism considered policy? 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: United States Samir Vincent: 7 million Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million 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: ensure that the American people have available, at reasonable costs and without discrimination, rapid, efficient, Nation- and world-wide communication services; whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable I see nothing in there that does or should have one goddamn thing to do with content, only delivery. 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.
|
BWL is funny tho. It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
|
|
 |