When does it become 'politics'? by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suppose it depends on if you believe that politicians have some obligation to be "better" than the rest of us.

Well, not 'better' than the rest of us....
I just expect a pizza-maker to know and respect the pizza.
Likewise, I expect those that uphold the law to know and respect the law.

It's the little things like that that will keep bird-shot out of your face...

"I can't break the law, I AM THE LAW!!!" Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's raining. Is that a political statement?

In the RWED forum, it can be.

I wager Auraptor's response would be: "Thanks for that very one-sided statement, Chris. Well, as far as I can tell, it's not raining where I am, but your statement isn't about the weather, is it? By "raining" you mean what you liberals call "the gloom that Bush has spread over this country". Well, where I'm sitting, things are shiny, so kindly keep your misguided liberal beliefs to yourself!"

OMG, now I need a tissue I'm lingol so hard!!!

Regaining homeostasis Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:07 AM

Personally, I think it's just something that makes the man look stupid. He mistook his 78 year old companion for a bird. The jokes write themselves, as Jon Stewart so eloquently proved. The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

It's all part of the way politics has evolved in America. We have set up a sort of pseudo-cult of personality for our elected officials. It's become a situation where a good chunk of the electorate no longer votes for the candidate with the platform that he/she personally supports, but instead on which one he/she "likes." As soon as a candidate does something to undermine that, he/she loses. See: Howard Dean's whooping. Point is, it's become a situation where the leaders' policies are less on trial than the leaders themselves.

Of course, there's also the issue of the knee-jerk reaction of both parties to attack the other at the slightest sign of weakness, or just for the fun of it. See also: Election Wars, a Republican made spoof video featuring the brave Republican Alliance versus the evil Democrat Empire led by Darth Nancy (Pelosi).

God, I wish I was making that up.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I still say it's due to the US not having a parliamentary government.

In a parliamentary government, if you run on a platform and mess up, you can be gone. It helps keep them honest. They don't make blatantly bogus promises b/c they know they'll be held accountable in office.

In the US the game is to say ANYTHING to win the election. And then do what you want afterward. It makes people cynical about platforms. So they vote for people rather than on issues.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

ChrisPV, I get your points and agree with them, but I have to say, I don't like or dislike the men, I judge their actions or inactions.
Clinton lied to cover up illicit sexual activity.
Bush/Cheney lied about (or were wrong about, which in my eyes is worse) WMD's to start a WAR.

I don't hold with people dying to further some lame-ass geo-political agenda.
Calling someone on giving orders plainly aimed at preserving economic status quo while getting good soldiers killed under the false notion of national defense of imminent dangers just ain't political, it's realistic assessment of deceit and wasted life.

Or so I believe, anyway.

The too-serious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"When does it become politics?"

When it becomes fun????

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:59 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

I mention this at all for one reason. If you are the kind of person that feels that Clinton's private life and failings are Clinton's business then you should really see Cheney's accident as Cheney's business and have done with it. If you are the kind of person that believes that Presidential power requires a higher standard than applies to normal folk then Cheney's actions after the shooting should make you uneasy.

Of course that won't happen, Clinton bashers will start bleating the "he LIED under oath" mantra (like many "normal guys" lie about affaires? How many have a prosecutor assigned to find anything to trip them up in court?) and these will be the same people that think Cheney's actions are none issues. Likewise most of the folks that thought the Monica thing was a none issue with Clinton will be talking the Cheney thing into the ground.

Good point. There is a double-standard on both sides most of the time. One which I admit to being guilty of. I personally pretty much loathe Cheney, and when I first heard about this incident I was ready to string him up like a lot of other people.

But, when it comes down to it, I do think this was an accident - a stupid, potentially negligent accident, but in the end just an accident. And since the man on the other end of the barrell seems more or less okay, I'm not going to worry about it anymore.

My only problem with the entire issue at this point is not that he had an accident, they happen, but the way in which he dealt with the aftermath. 24 hours is too long to wait before reporting something like this.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
24 hours is too long to wait before reporting something like this.

Didn't Jlo's ex-boyfriend have a similar hunting accident? In Brooklyn, I think (or was it L.A.?). He had to answer questions pretty fast...well, until the high priced laywers threw up a forcefield...

Feelin' the effects of the virus now Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
ChrisPV, I get your points and agree with them, but I have to say, I don't like or dislike the men, I judge their actions or inactions.
Clinton lied to cover up illicit sexual activity.
Bush/Cheney lied about (or were wrong about, which in my eyes is worse) WMD's to start a WAR.

I don't hold with people dying to further some lame-ass geo-political agenda.
Calling someone on giving orders plainly aimed at preserving economic status quo while getting good soldiers killed under the false notion of national defense of imminent dangers just ain't political, it's realistic assessment of deceit and wasted life.

Or so I believe, anyway.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I find Cheney to be a profoundly unlikable character, but that has nothing to do with this situation. It was an accident, albeit a rather stupid one for the VP. However, I personally see no bearing here on how this would affect his standing as the VP. If one does want to torch him, and I have done so with this administration on numerous occasions (No Child Left Behind is the biggest pile of go-se you're EVER going to see), I simply think this is a very poor choice of tactic. Especially when, as you said, there's that whole "No WMD" thing to use, to say nothing of the Halliburton no bid affair, Valerie Plame, etc.

My point is, there's a lot of meat out there to question his capabilities, and by extensions those of the Bush White House. By comparison, this particular incident isn't worth mentioning. It just happed that a man did something stupid and pepper his friend with birdshot, and he happened to be the Vice President.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
My point is, there's a lot of meat out there to question his capabilities, and by extensions those of the Bush White House. By comparison, this particular incident isn't worth mentioning.

Thanks, ChrisPV, you've helped me find the answer to my original question, I think.

Politics n. 1. Relates to unimportant matters or discussions dressed up to look as if they have some bearing on the real or immediate issues at hand. 2. Nonsense weaved into legitimate discourse. 3. Felgercarb (see: go-se).

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
However, I personally see no bearing here on how this would affect his standing as the VP.

The appearance of a cover-up of illegal activities is a legitimate question. There is also the exercise of special privilege unavailable to the most everyone else. that makes a mockery of "equal under the law". As I heard elsewhere, sure Cheney took responsibility, but only after escaping consequences.

In another thread I posted my opinion that the shooting per se wasn't the issue. I still maintain that opinion.

And then again there is the pure personal reaction. Cheney comes across as a conniving weasel. It has nothing to do with his performance as a VP or any legal matters.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
that makes a mockery of "equal under the law".

Make that "equal under the $dollar sign$"

Fortune and glory, kid Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:43 PM

Everything is politics.

Politics can mean the interpersonal relationships between individual humans, the interactions between nations I've even seen it used in conjunction with the interactions between animals.

Anything that isn't a natural event (rising setting of the sun, earthquakes, assuming their not caused by dr evil, et al) is politics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:14 PM

Personally, I don't really buy the "cover-up" thing. Primarily because I like to think that, if the government did want to hide this, it'd do a much better job. They were able to keep the shooting under wraps for, what, 24 hours? Less? That's not exactly the kind of media control I want from my oppressive regimes.

In addition, I doubt anyone could have reasonably expected this to be swept under the rug. Word would have gotten out. I cast my vote for a combination of Cheney, perhaps, actually wanting to make sure this fellow was alright, and him not wanting to jump right out into the press when he wasn't quite prepared. I doubt that anyone, even Dick, could just shoot a human being and walk it off like nothing happened. He'd want to be at his most charming for the big reveal.

Well, as charming as Dick Cheney gets at any rate.

Oh, and Citizen, stop playing semantic games. You know what Chrisisall meant. I know your games, I've seen you tearing apart those poor souls in the "Islamic cartoon riot" thread. You little heathen.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Crispy-VEE

(that's how it reads)

Quote:
Personally, I don't really buy the "cover-up" thing. Primarily because I like to think that, if the government did want to hide this, it'd do a much better job. They were able to keep the shooting under wraps for, what, 24 hours? Less? That's not exactly the kind of media control I want from my oppressive regimes.

Oh no, the cover-up wasn't for the shooting. It was for something else.

One scenario, after Whittington got carted off, Cheney went and had a little drinky-pooh back at the ranch (fact). The only thing I can think is that IF he'd been unable to dodge being breathalyzed, he would have been able to claim - no you see officers, I wasn't snookered at them time, I got snookered afterwards.

Another scenario is that the long delay was about getting all the stories straight.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

What the fuck! my post was relevant to this fucking thread! Jesusfuckingchrist!

AUCitizen

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
Oh, and Citizen, stop playing semantic games. You know what Chrisisall meant. I know your games, I've seen you tearing apart those poor souls in the "Islamic cartoon riot" thread. You little heathen.

Is erm huh?

Confused as too your meaning
CitizenIsSlow on the uptake

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Crispy-VEE

(that's how it reads)

Actually, that's pretty much accurate. In fact, it's a little abbreviation for my proper name, Christopher Peavey. "PV" is the brand we use on our cattle on the family ranch, and it's become family shorthand for when we're too lazy to spell our last name.

Quote:
Oh no, the cover-up wasn't for the shooting. It was for something else.

One scenario, after Whittington got carted off, Cheney went and had a little drinky-pooh back at the ranch (fact). The only thing I can think is that IF he'd been unable to dodge being breathalyzed, he would have been able to claim - no you see officers, I wasn't snookered at them time, I got snookered afterwards.

Another scenario is that the long delay was about getting all the stories straight.

In all honesty, I hadn't heard about the drinky-pooh (like that term) bit. Did you get that from an outside source, or are you speculating? I'm just curious, not trying to condemn or such.

As for getting all of the stories straight, that I'd be willing to give him, even if there wasn't any outside influences such as drink involved. He probably knew how this would explode, and I don't think it would be too terribly unreasonable to try and have a unified defense up when the opposition turned the shooting into an issue.

In any case, this just isn't big enough, comparitively, to cause me to change my (already low) opinion of the man as the VP.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Is erm huh?

Confused as too your meaning
CitizenIsSlow on the uptake

I was teasing, ever so slightly, regarding your debates on whether or not Islam is evil. During the course of that, you wound up mixing with a few folks (I don't want to mention names) who, rather vehemently, disagreed with you. I'm inclined to agree with your standpoint, but even if you weren't, you had my vote for arguing your point most effectively.

It was just a little jab, no offense meant.

ChrisPV looks like he's sucking up rather badly

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 2:22 PM

Ahh, none taken, just the sarcasm doesn't always come over so well on posts sometimes, so I didn't want to assume. I've had my fill of flame wars for awhile, not really up for sparking another

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 2:32 PM

Let's just say I can relate. I have a friend who, bless her heart, will straight facedly claim that God puts fossils in the Earth that look as old as they do because, quote, "God has a sense of humor." After awhile, the argument comes to naught.

Incidentally, the

was actually my somewhat lame attempt at getting the joke across. It's my way of saying I'd insert a sarcastic emoticon here, but there isn't one. It's an old habit I have of creating smileys that don't exist.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 2:40 PM

Quote:

What the fuck! my post was relevant to this fucking thread! Jesusfuckingchrist!

AUCitizen

Well, I did not expect that. Now my tummy hurts.

Laughter keeps you young; now I'm 2 Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Everything is politics.

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall

Didn't we warn you about that? Do it again and we WILL send you hunting with Dick Cheney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Didn't we warn you about that? Do it again and we WILL send you hunting with Dick Cheney.

lol, Don't force me to employ a defensive pre-emptive strike!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 4:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/cheney/

Armstrong, a longtime friend of the Cheney family, told CNN before the vice president's interview that she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house."

Two elements here - getting the story straight and drinking afterwards.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:13 PM

Chirs,

You are, as usual, correct. I used to say things like 'Clinton is a bad democrat' or 'Bush is a bad republican' because I meant 'not in line with the ideals that their party purports to stand for. Sure, both are, objectively, bad presidents, particularly if you feel that presidents should not tarnish the image of America, or kill people wholesale.

I once got into an argument with a couple of liberals who were not nazis, yet were defending the position 'Hitler was a good leader of Germany.' I don't think the flaws in such a position need exosure, but these were educated people, one had a PhD. The thing is, taking aside the net effect, and the qualification of 'who exactly is a German' ...where does this leave us?

I guess ultimately, what is or isn't political and what is objective is subjective.

Fletch,

The thing about Monica is that the GOP was looking to get Clinton on anything they could, not because he was a democrat, but because he was evil. It had been widely known for some time that Clinton had a habit of whoring around, and using his position and connections to force women into sex with him. There were a few cases of missing children, turning up dead, and I'm sure Pirate News knows more about this than me. But the point is, this was a long series of cases about Bill Clinton, personally, as a career criminal, and it culminated in Monica.

To me, this is one of the great failings of the right. We tend to focus on what matters to us, and not what matters to the opposition. Any attack on Clinton, to be successful, would have to have struck a nerve with the left. I find, for myself, the idea that Bill Clinton was most probably involved in cocaine smuggling, abusive relations, and possibly child murders, that he is a truly depraved individual, tells you everything about him, and what he will do if in a position of power, and that his genocidal policies in Iraq and gun-running to Al Qaeda and all are sort of par for the course when you understand what kind of guy he is.

But this is a conservative perspective, a character-based assessment. Conservatives can try until they're blue in the face to convince the left that Clinton is a bad guy, but my guess is that for the most part they won't care as long as he supports the platforms that they want to vote for. I mean, point of fact, the democrats have Ted Kennedy, and they've known for years that he was a depraved individual, and don't care, because he votes the party line.

What we *should* have done, instead, was attack Clinton directly on policy decisions. We should have gotten him for the inhumane barring of food and medical supplies to the people of Iraq, or sending Hatian refugees back to be shot. Something that would have human appeal that the left would say, 'oh, we get it, he's evil.'

Similarly, I think the left misunderstands the right in the same way. Kerry was busy attacking Bush on the details of his health plan and whether or not no child left behind was a success. What he probably should have said way 'This is a cokehead who's cheating on his wife to sleep with his secretary... (of state)'

Anyway, Re:Cheney

Fletch, you are correct, the Cheney shot thing is a serious issue. The reason the whitehouse and press are trying to spin it is it's a devestating blow. My postmaster was one of the last die-hard Bush fans until just now. He says he just can't bend his mind around it. Cheney is a schmuck. He broke the hunting rules because either A) he was so into it he thought he was in 'Nam hunting cage raised quail, or b) he was drunk. I believe the VP when he said he had just 'one beer' but someone else at the scene said he had just 'one mixed drink.' What if it was one beer, one mixed drink, two glasses of wine, a shot of vodka, a double shot of tequila, and he's on heart medication. Anyway, Cheney lost the postmaster, the most stalwart republican I know, on the hunting accident. I now know no (zero) solidly pro-Bush republicans, and I'd say I know a lot of republicans. As a qualifier, this *is* New York, so he may still have fans other places. But it is trouble. Cheney went off to the hunting trip half cocked, and so some conservatives, for the first time, are realizing that he actually *did* go off to Iraq half cocked.

Rue,

I used to think we needed parlimentary govt., but now I prefer having an open primary. I think that the party should have the right to recall their own president and hold an emergency primary if he strays from the platform he ran on. They could just announce in 6 mos in advance or something, like in March, and then say 'okay, in Nov., republicans can vote for their party leader. If they still want Bush, fine, but if he gets ,50% there will be a runnoff.' etc. Anyway, something like that would be good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm not picky. Whatever would hold the politicians feet to the fire.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:34 PM

More random rant from me:

1. It may have been 48 hours. Whittington, in his at-gunpoint apology for getting in the way of the divine bullet, referred to the incident as happening on friday. Someone else at the scene had referred to it as 'the friday accident' which then had been disregarded when everyone else said saturday. But now the press is looking into that.

2. The point of Clinton lying under oath was that a) this was a long line of crimes, and b) it was proof of what had long been suspected: that everything Clinton said was a lie.

3. Bush is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following. Or, bah, phooey, Bush is a monkey and isn't doing anything. Let me start over...

3. Cheney is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following an agenda to establish a mideast union, which is part of a larger plan. It's a political agenda, just not one which is ever discussed, because cause they have everyone thinking that this is about a) terrorism, b) oil. To some extent it's about oil, but only to a limited degree. Cheney seeks to monopolize the global oil market in order to leverage the world.

I want to clarify a point. Cheney is stealing oil from Iraq and giving it to his friends who helped get him elected. This makes them 10s of billions of $. But this is not about that. If it were, Cheney would just give them the money he is spending on a war in Iraq. Cheney seriously cares about his twisted agenda of global domination.

What I find is curious is that my friend Frank was willing to give up on Cheney after supporting him for years because it was showing him as a flawed character, and that lefties here are willing to call it an accident, thus supporting my whole character vs. platform points theory.

Rue,

Armstrong is not a credible witness, she's a corrupt lobbyist who will say anything to forward the agenda of her clients. If that means lying about what transpired to keep Cheney out of trouble, of course she will do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And in fact her testimony does differ from that of others, which also differ in detail among themselves. And she did use weasel words like 'I didn't SEE any drinking ..." I don't give her testimony any special credit.

OTOH if there really were drinky-poohs back at the ranch, that would have been made to be seen by several people. And if Cheney had been breathalyzed, everyone would have said - yes indeedee-doo, Cheney did steady his shaken nerves.

OR, the cocktail back at the ranch was a story concocted to account for BAC just in case.

Either way, they were strategizing for potential discovery of alcohol.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:58 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If I say "Clinton was a bad President", or "Bush is a bad President", and back it up with how many they got killed, or what LAWS they've broken, how is that a political belief?

If you assume the issue is that simple then it is probably a political belief rather then a fact. Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents? Because either one of them “got” far more people killed then Clinton and Bush combined. And as far as what “LAWS” are broken, what laws are broken? Accusing someone of breaking a law is not the same thing as breaking it. It’s political because it is vastly oversimplified. To suggest that Bush or Clinton are bad presidents because they got people killed in wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president to wield in defense of American national security is to jump way ahead of the facts and assert something that is not necessarily true based on the evidence. Now we can argue about whether it is true or not, or about what the limits of the presidency should be, etc but that will be a political argument, and you can believe that it is true, but that will be a political belief not a statement of fact.

There is nothing wrong with political debate or political opinion. In fact I believe they are both very healthy and necessary for a liberal society. The problem enters when people attempt to draw conclusions without merit. It is one thing to have an opinion; it is something entirely different to assert that that opinion is true. Statements that assert that Bush or Cheney are evil or the “dark lord” or some similar moronic comment or referring to Cheney as “Cheney the Dick” step way beyond even political debate and enter into the realm of character assassination. I like political debate, but I don’t care anything about the kind of idiotic and childish discussion that often dominates the Bush and Cheney/Iraq discussion on this board. I don’t see the problem as being political opinion but rather irrational and even bigoted hatred of Bush and Cheney. That kind of stuff completely deflates the intelligence of the discussion, and that is unfortunate, because there are many very intelligent and well read people on this board who are unable to form a cogent and critical opinion of Bushs’ policies or the Iraq Campaign due to the distortion caused by their hatred of Bush and Cheney.

And I’m not talking, necessarily, about people who make humorous or impetuous comments that they know aren’t necessarily valid. Political humor is rife with unfair and inappropriate criticism, and it’s often very funny because of it. But there’s a difference between political humor and the constant drone of Bush hating. I commented to a friend a few weeks ago that the one thing that I could never forgive the Bush haters for was making Bush jokes passé. I was being somewhat facetious, of course, but it’s true that the constant drum of irrational and hateful nonsense directed at the Bush Administration has left nothing, it seems, for the political humorist.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:57 AM

Quote:
Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents?

WTF? They were terrible. Wilson was arguably the worst president this country ever had. Wilson is almost singlehandedly responsible for WWII, and he made the poor tactical decision to go to war with Germany, and another one to go to war with Russia, and wanted to sign the US back up as a subject of the British Empire, which is what signing the league of nations charter would have de facto done. His creation of the concept of a 'War Debt' was the catalyst for world economic collapse. He was a disaster. An unmitigated disaster.

Roosevelt, for his part, refuse to intervene to stop the holocaust, and instead went on a long bloody and utterly pointless war with Japan, thus tying up all American resources, not to mention staying in power forever like a dictator. I don't know if he fixed elections or anything, but ack. Also, concentration camps on US soil.

Yes, I would take that they were both worse than Bush without question.

Quote:
wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president

Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."

Lying is not a political opinion.

I agree with Chris.

A political position is X is an important problem, and Y is a way to deal with X that I think would work.

'Al Qaeda hates America' is not a political point of view. It's a statement of fact. 'Castro is a dictator' is a statement of fact. 'The US should remove Castro from power' is a political point of view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:03 AM

Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.
My only problem is the 'above the law' syndrome. Both Clinton and Bush broke laws (Whitewater, illegal wiretaps, etc., Signy and Rue could make ya a real big list, I'm sure), and I don't see that it's necessarily 'political' to say they shouldn't break laws, and question their validity in office because of just that.
Imagine a call of 'foul ball' when it's clearly a home run. If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't be in the game, right?
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?

I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:24 AM

Quote:
Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.
Quote:

Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.

Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.

Damn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:38 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?

I don’t know that everything is always corrupt, but I do think that things are often not that black and white. What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome? This is a rhetorical question. The point is that the question is not only about whether the president may have instituted a policy that resulted in a law being broken, but rather what, as the People, are we prepared to accept in the defense of our country, our livelihood and even our lives. And is that a question that we our only interest is in attack a person whom we harvest an irrational hatred of?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?

That’s a legitimate question, and an important one. But if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong? It is critical to our liberal democracy that we criticize our government, but it is equally critical that we do so rationally.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."

The Constitution also defines the President as the Commander and Chief of the military and as such it is his Constitutional purview under the provision of civilian power over the military to wage war.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome?

Okay, at least you acknowledge the breaking of laws by presidents. But let's remember the reports pointing to an Al Queda attack didn't get enough attention to help avert 911, so why do you think secret wire taps are all of a sudden going to be so effective? (rhetorical question also).

Quote:
if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong?

I don't know the men, therefore I can't love or hate them. I don't hate Charles Manson, nor do I love Jessica Alba; I don't know them.
*looks off* Well, Jessica....

No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.

"(Presidents) are either a benefit, or a hazzard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem,"

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.

I don’t know that I would necessarily disagree with either of those statements, certainly not the second one.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.

Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.

Damn.

Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
I once got into an argument with a couple of liberals who were not nazis, yet were defending the position 'Hitler was a good leader of Germany.' I don't think the flaws in such a position need exosure, but these were educated people, one had a PhD. The thing is, taking aside the net effect, and the qualification of 'who exactly is a German' ...where does this leave us?

I guess ultimately, what is or isn't political and what is objective is subjective.

I agree, it depends what your criteria for a good leader is. If a good leader is someone who prevents mass death and war, Hitler is about the worst leader who ever dared to lead.

If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived. Both the British and Roman empires, lets be honest they were the big ones, took centuries to carve out, and were largely created from lands taken from people a hell of a lot less technologically advanced than the aggressor. By comparision Hitler took a country litterally on it's knees and in a few short years turned it into a nation that threatened to take over most of the world, including nations as technologically advanced.

So it depends on where you're coming from.

This is kinda where I got my idea that everything is politics...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:44 AM

Finn,

Not a chance.

I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.

What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.

Quote:
irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney

Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.

Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.

The truth is the wealth and good name of America have been trown away, treated as worse than dog excrement by this administration. The end effect of this has been a marvelous hallelujah jihad hiring bonanza Al Qaeda's new Terrorists 'R' Us Supercenter: Iraq.

I think the only patriotic thing to do is to burn Bush to the ground, and anyone who tried to follow in his footsteps. Bear in mind that Bush's Supreme court nominations were not his own, or the those of Cheney. Bush had made it perfectly clear that he wanted Harriet Miers instead of Alito, and nixed out Alito's name the first time it was given to him, and the instead of Roberts, Bush had wanted to nominate Gonzalez, a point that was so clear in his mind that he had twice made unmistakeable hints about it publicly.

The fact is, Bush was at a political weakpoint, and was these picks, which I agree with, by a group of GOP Senators led by Arlen Spector. I know that the lefties are never going to be happy with the right, but they don't have to be, the point is, these republicans who did this are the good guys, and they did it pretty close to over the dead body of Bush. So before you go and give him more credit than is due him...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn:

Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.

Finn,

Sometimes I suspect that you actually have more tact than I do. I don't think it does a lot of good. My own position on Bush, which to be fair is my position on Cheney. I know people who know Bush, personally. He's a pretty morally bankrupt individual, delusional, with a serious drug problem. I hear he's a nice enough guy, but sick, mentally disturbed, but also, and more importantly, not in any way in power. All of Bush's own personal faults are not helping the country to fall apart because Cheney is actually pulling the strings.

But the thing that I've noticed here is that if anything, my opinion has been effected probably more negatively here on the forum than positively. People on the far-pro-bush end consitantly lost my support for the admin by never having anything to say other than the mindless rhetoric of the admin. I'm slowing beginning to accept the possibility that this administration might be a whole lot worse than just 'bad for a republican' which is more or less what I came in with. In all fairness, the administration itself has done a fair job towards making me feel that.

But people on the far left here have done the same thing, pushing me away from their position. I can think three or four who have made me less likely to vote for a democrat in '08. At the moment my positions is "only if it's russ feingold." I'd also consider a vote for barbara boxer, if she ran. But otherwise, I'm liable to vote for Jeb/Condi over Kerry/Hillary or however it comes down.

I also am becoming increasingly concerned with the Iran situation. I read Cheney's whole mideast attack plan. Long before Iran did anything, or the president said 'Iran', when we invaded Iraq and people said "oh yadadada, it's vietnam" I said "no, Iran is vietnam," Iraq is basically target practice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:16 PM

Quote:
...it depends what your criteria for a good leader is.

Citizen,

I've got to go with Chris on this one. Good leader isn't subjective. A good leader is one who makes life better for his subjects, and doesn't kill them.

An excellent leader goes out and makes life better for people who are not directly his subjects, though not at the expense of his own subjects.

Bush's own subjects include the people of Iraq, and have from the moment the Hussein govt. fell. Since Abu Ghraib happened after that, which we know because before that, Abu Ghraib was run by Saddam Hussein, then this was a horrible abuse of power against his own subjects. Everything Bush does to the Iraqis, he does to his people, because they are his people.

Whether or not they elected him is irrelevant. Democrats didn't elect Bush, but they are subject to his policies, just as people who are under 18, or live on Indian Reservations. It's entirely possible that republicans didn't even elect him.

Damn, I meant to say Cheney. I was going to stop using the "B" word. On the grounds that he's not really president.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:18 PM

But what if that isn't your definition of a good leader?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:29 PM

Quote:

If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived.

You mean territorial, not material.

But you're still wrong. I'm not going to have this argument over again, but this is where the left shoots itself in the foot.

What you should have said was "Yes, there's somethign objective that makes Nazis bad." By the constant devil's advocate, you lose me. This is what makes you one of the people who, and I say this with all due respect, because I like you fine personally, one of the people who is probably more likely to make me vote for the other guy by your argument.

Every time your own argument loses votes, you should re-examine your strategy. I think Kerry worked long and hard for Bush. If Kerry had kept his mouth shut Bush would have gotten a lot fewer votes. Mr. Plywood Plank probably had a better shot of beating Bush. He might've even won.

I want to make another point. Just because I thought of it. Whether or not Bush/Cheney won the 2000 election against Gore fair and square, he cheated the 2000 primary. Technically, Steve Forbes was working for Cheney at the time, as his underling in the PNAC think tank. Without getting into an argument with anyone about that, the conflict of interests is clear, and the fact that Forbes entered the race, cloned McCain's platform, and split his vote, causing a Bush victory, does mean that he cheated. Forbes was not actually a credible candidate, but was still working for Cheney at the time.

Anyway, the short argument is this: At he end of the term, regarless of the interim possession, the Nazis left the country divided in 2, over 1/3 of their people dead. Conquest isn't about temporary ownership. Anyone can invade and occupy the Earth. Mongolia, for example. But holding territory is another matter. Even so, conquest is not an achievement. When the left figures that out, they can start campaigning for the people's votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:48 PM

DT, erm, huh?

Where in my post did you get the notion that I was trying to say Hitler was a good leader? I thought I stated quite clearly both sides, he's a bad leader because X, but if you think a good leader is Y rather than X than he was actually quite successful, in your eyes. Where you say "I should have said..." I think I did say that, and I thought it was fairly clear.

I mean at the end of the day there was two big turning points in the Second World War, the Battle of Britain and America joining the war on the side of the Allies. If the Battle of Britain had been lost, then the war in Europe would have been won by Germany, I have no doubt. The reason that it wasn't won was Hitler's own stupidity, I'm not trying to say he was a good leader, either as devils advocate or anything else. If a few events had changed (like Churchill ordering the bombing of Berlin in responce to the accidental bombing of London by the Luftwaffer) it's a very real possibillity that the Nazis would still be around today and in control of Europe if not America as well.

I think Material is a good word for it, since I wasn't just talking about territory, but other aspects as well. But in the cold light of day Territorial gain is a material gain.

My 'devils advocate' had nothing to do with Hitler, more to do with why someone may say he was a good leader, which I thought was more or less your point to be honest.

In the end I never tried to start an argument over whether Hitler was a good leader or not, I don't want that argument and I don't believe it anyway.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:06 PM

Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:02 PM

Quote:
Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.

No, it's not. It's really really not. And just because Bush/Cheney were elected on a republican ticket, doesn't make it so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:22 PM