Bush article in 'Rolling Stone' by aussay

Quote:
Originally posted by aussay:
Even if you are pro Bush, it's interesting to see how he measrues up to past presidents

I heard it was a hatchet job. I didn't read RS before and don't think I will now either.

If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt. Perhaps the measure of Republican Presidential greatness is how much the Democrats dislike them. If so, Bush may be the greatest President we've had since Lincoln.

It doesn't really matter. If we take a real look back at the good and bad of history we should realize that greatness or failure is best judged through the dispassionate eye of history.

H

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:01 AM

Maybe we should stop worrying about what somebody labels themselves. Republican. Democrat - all that really matters is whether or not the person can do the job not - the ambiguous title they hang over their heads.

You have to admit though (if you know anything about political history) the republican party of Lincoln isn't the republican party of today. The party made a switch (a flip flop if you will) because of civil rights and the like.

The only problem I have with some Bush supporters (not all of them, just some of them) is that they try to make excuses for his failures.

Time and again I hear "He has good intentions" or "He's trying." Well, guess what good intentions don't mean doodly-squat if you don't have the brains and resources to follow through and produce good results.

And how is it that we impeach a president for lying about who he slept with but when a president neligently gets us into a war where people are killed, has obvious leaks and corruption in his administration, and has possibly broken the laws of the consititution we do nothing. There should at least be an investigation.

If he is innocent the investigation will find that, if not then we kick him out. Remember "We the People" run this country - not Bushy.

Ok - that's all for my political ranting for today.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
And how is it that we impeach a president for lying about who he slept with but when a president neligently gets us into a war where people are killed, has obvious leaks and corruption in his administration, and has possibly broken the laws of the consititution we do nothing. There should at least be an investigation.

Clinton was impeached for obtruction of justice, and lying under oath, both arising in a civil case brought by a private citizen and which had little to do with his affairs in office.

Your characterization of Bush is one sided. Here's the other side: In war people die, and it has been handled very well over all. The President in legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified). And the electronic terrorist survelance program does not violate the Constitution and in fact is a continuation of similar programs that have been in existance since before WW2.

The Clinton impeachment never had more then one side. Clinton lied under oath, he addmitted it. He instructed his secretary to conceal and destroy evidence. He engaged in a systematic scheme to deny justice to a private citizen who had the basic American right to have the merits of her case decided in court and not by the misued power of the nation's most powerful man. Sure, there was poltical motives in the effort to get Clinton by the Republican Congress, but it doesn't change what he did.

Your standard would have any President impeached for any misfortune that happens during his term. For example, Columbia burned up, people died, impeachment. 77 year old man dies of cancer, impeachment. House fire claims family of five, impeachment. Ten-year old shoots up classroom, impeachment. Anything, impeachment. Or is the standard: do I like the President and support his political position? If no, impeach.

H

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:58 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...The President is legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified)...

This is a good point and why I was never really concerned about the legal particulars. Rules are meant to be broken, especially when you're making them up as you go. "It's good to be the king". The thing that always bugged me about the whole affair was the president using state secrets as a way to punish those who publicly challenged his policies. At best it's petty and at worst tyrannical.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:10 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So is yours.

Quote:

Here's the other side: In war people die, and it has been handled very well over all. The President in legally incapable of leaking classified information because any information he authorizes the release of is no longer classified (in other words he is the final arbiter of what is and is not classified).

If that's the case, he should have admitted to leaking the info from the start. Instead he promised to fire whoever leaked the info. Lie.

Quote:
And the electronic terrorist survelance program does not violate the Constitution and in fact is a continuation of similar programs that have been in existance since before WW2.

Wire-tapping American citizens, without a warrent and without proof of terrorist activity is unconstitutional. If they had evidence indicating the people under surveilence were tied to terrorists, they could easily get a warrent, even retroactively, yet they don't.

Quote:

The Clinton impeachment never had more then one side. Clinton lied under oath, he addmitted it. He instructed his secretary to conceal and destroy evidence. He engaged in a systematic scheme to deny justice to a private citizen who had the basic American right to have the merits of her case decided in court and not by the misued power of the nation's most powerful man. Sure, there was poltical motives in the effort to get Clinton by the Republican Congress, but it doesn't change what he did.

Yes, what Clinton did was wrong. But the extreme over-reaction from the Right, which led to a massively expensicve witch-hunt was a waste of time and taxpayer money that ultimately served no purpose beyond Republicans going "nyah-nyah".

And Bush did lie about the reasons for going to war. The fact that we've found infractions that justify it after the fact does not change the fact the we were led into war under false pretenses. And investigation should be in order.

Quote:
Your standard would have any President impeached for any misfortune that happens during his term. For example, Columbia burned up, people died, impeachment. 77 year old man dies of cancer, impeachment. House fire claims family of five, impeachment. Ten-year old shoots up classroom, impeachment. Anything, impeachment. Or is the standard: do I like the President and support his political position? If no, impeach.

That's a rediculous conclusion to draw. There is a big difference between something bad happening on his watch, and a string of lies, corruption, and botched programs stemming directly from the Oval office.

"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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:32 AM

HERO --

While I agree that Clinton did break the law, your defense of Bush is laughable. First of all, I think most experts agree that the war is not going all that well. Second, we have legal experts on both sides admitting that the warrentless wiretapping might be legal and might be illegal. That is why we need an investigation. We have evidence that suggests that we were going to war no matter what (british documents). Now, I agree we don't know the validity of this, which is why you HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! I never called for Bush's impeachment (try reading and stop being a moron). All I'm asking for is an investigation.

yes, if the president declassifies something then he isn't accountable for releasing classified info - however, you have to wonder about the movites. If his motives were intimidation or saving his political behind, then, I think he should be held accountable for abuse of power.

All I ask for is transparent government and investigations when politicians appear to act improperly. That's all.

And don't imply I don't see both sides of the argument. Just because I present one side - don't assume I haven't looked at the other.

All I'm saying is the people need to be aware of what officials are doing - and we need to keep the power in check. The constitution is written that way and I think that is the way it should be.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The thing that always bugged me about the whole affair was the president using state secrets as a way to punish those who publicly challenged his policies.

But its ok if he uses noncritical intellegence to set the record straight after Mr. Wilson deliberately ommitted key facts from his press interviews. Wilson said one thing in the press and another in his own classified reports, so the President declassified the reports.

Now we know that Iraq tried to by nuclear materials from Nigeria, Wilson's report agrees with that conclusion, yes, he ommitted key facts, although to be fair they were classified. Its interesting that the whole 'Bush lied' debate got its start with Wilson's deliberate effort to distort what he knew to be true.

H

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So is yours.

Yeah, what part of "Here's the other side" tipped you off?

Quote:

If that's the case, he should have admitted to leaking the info from the start. Instead he promised to fire whoever leaked the info. Lie.

Actually it was an empty promise, not a lie. Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration who "broke the law". Since he declassified the info and authorized its release, no law was broken and his promise was not a lie.

Quote:

Wire-tapping American citizens, without a warrent and without proof of terrorist activity is unconstitutional.

They only listened in on international calls where one party was a know terrorist. Signals intellegence is part of the President's war making power and has been recognized as such since this issue first came up in WW2. No one, not even the Democrats in Congress has said that this program should be stopped, or that any domestic calls were monitored, or that any calls not involving one party being a known terrorist has been monitored. Its been labled a "Domestic Wiretapping Program" by the press and liberal activists and the "Terrorist Surveilance Program" by the administration and conservative talk show hosts. As a lawyer, I figure anytime your talking to a terrorist or an enemy operative during time of war, you have no expectation of privacy, so a warrant is not needed.

Quote:

There is a big difference between something bad happening on his watch, and a string of lies, corruption, and botched programs stemming directly from the Oval office.

Yeah, "big difference". One is Bush with disasters, war, and such. The other is Clinton with too many scandals, bad economic policies, and so much corruption you don't even know where to begin...even if you ignore all the sex stuff.

H

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:58 AM

HERO -

You still don't get it. When we talk about the warrentless wiretapping, we aren't talking about this president - we are talking about a policy. By supporting this, you are supporting every president from here on out to have the same over reaching power.

This is why the consitution is direct about search and seizure. Checks and balances keep a democracy working - again "we the people" run the country. We can't really do that if we put blind trust in a president or other elected officials.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding some of the issues here. I don't care what wilson said or what bush said. If he used wilson's wife's name for retribution or intimidation then there is an abuse of power. I don't mind him declassifying info to defend his position - so long as it was to show evidence and not for political reasons.

Second - according to FISA, the president could wiretap a suspect and then had 3 DAYS to get a warrant that was retroactive. When congress (republicans and dems alike) said what he was doing might be illegal, wrong, whatever, Bush's response was basically "i don't care i'm doing it anyway" No one is above the law and the additude is the problem. We have a system for a reason and to buck it out of blind trust if foolish.

I don't care if you support Bush, just be smart about it. Don't be blind.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
First of all, I think most experts agree that the war is not going all that well.

Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.

Quote:

We have evidence that suggests that we were going to war no matter what (british documents). Now, I agree we don't know the validity of this, which is why you HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! I never called for Bush's impeachment (try reading and stop being a moron). All I'm asking for is an investigation.

Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.

Quote:

yes, if the president declassifies something then he isn't accountable for releasing classified info - however, you have to wonder about the movites. If his motives were intimidation or saving his political behind, then, I think he should be held accountable for abuse of power.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)

Quote:

All I'm saying is the people need to be aware of what officials are doing - and we need to keep the power in check. The constitution is written that way and I think that is the way it should be.

We agree on this. Aint that somethin?

H

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:15 AM

Quote:

Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.

I think you need to examine the situtation a bit more. Experts all over have issues with the way the war is being handled. There have been concerns in both parties and on the left and right with how things have been handled. You make a blanketed statement that the war is going well - yet you have no evidence of this. Then you attack me for disagreeing and say I have no evidence - don't be a hypocrit.

Quote:

Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.

I admitted there is no solid validity to the British documents you doofus. That's why you investigate them instead of just dismissing them.

Also, don't assume to understand my implications. I was simply comparing one action against a president to the inaction against another. I don't necessarily think we should impeach Bush (but if we find he did anything illegal then we do otherwise we don't), but I do think we should investigate to understand the job he is doing. We don't know what has happened until we investigate - that is how you gather information and learn things - you should try it.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)

The motives might not be criminal, but the people decide who runs the country and we have a right to try and understand those motives. Besides, I'm not sure your understanding of the issue is all the complete. Motives play a huge part in law (involuntary manslaughter v. murder...)
QUOTE]
We agree on this. Aint that somethin?

Its a miracle! Of course, by agreeing to that you sort of give validity to my other arguments and in a way undercut your own...

Good luck.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:15 AM

Quote:

Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.

Quote:

Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)

Quote:

We agree on this. Aint that somethin?

Its a miracle! Of course, by agreeing to that you sort of give validity to my other arguments and in a way undercut your own...

Good luck.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:17 AM

Darn you Bill Gates and your Internet Explorer!!! Sorry for the double post.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I heard it was a hatchet job. ...If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt. Perhaps the measure of Republican Presidential greatness is how much the Democrats dislike them. ]

what a crock.....people, conservative, liberal, indifferent...should be able to understand that when an elected official lies through his teeth in order to futher his own misquided agenda, he is a bad leader, period. Bush has lied his way into a war that has done nothing for the good of the U.S. or Iraq....and he continues to lie everyday. He should be held responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children who had no part in the attack of 9-11. Bush and his minions had plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11 and that event was all they needed to begin their unjust and immoral war.

So, as you say Hero, if it is the Democrats who recognize the failings of a president, perhaps we should all listen a little more carefully to what they say. I happen to agree with them on the point about Bush being a bad president. I do not agree with everything the Dems. preach.

I do know this, I have lived in this country for 50+ years, and never have I seen such corruption and dishonesty from an administration. I'm talking about harmfull corruption - not just hiding sexual indiscretions (which have no affect on national security).... I've read the article and I have to agree with its conclusion. The gap between conservatism and progressive liberalism is at such a level that there may never again be a middle ground in this country. And, that's where we need to be. We need to find a neutral point where everyone can at least be comfortable with one another. I really dislike having to disagree with people who should be my friends - I only see this president and his administration tearing this nation apart more and more each day, and I have concluded that this is what they want. They want to divide this country to keep the citizens fighting with each other while they persue any agenda they please.

As a nation, we should stay together. That will make us strong. Not tearing down your neighbor because he didn't vote for bush or for kerry - I honestly don't see anything good coming from this administration.

Bush has my vote - for worst president of all time. And yet, I still have a few more years to kick around. Perhaps a new contender is just over the horizon....

peace

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:25 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

If I remember correctly, Lincoln was only a "Republican" for 8 years of his life. He ran under the National Union ticket in 1864.

And the terms Republican and Democrat meant something entirely different them.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!

Nathan doesn't know it yet, but I am his one true love! Is that weird?

(he will believe, he will believe)

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:41 AM

I failed to make the point I wanted to make in the last post.

I don't buy the "Democrats hate Bush" logic... the way I see it is, they, and I, hate what Bush has done to this country.

Bush would have you believe that to say anything negitave about his presidency is tantamount to being un-American. Bullshit.... Desent and rebellion is what this country was built on.

Bush has taken what good will that had been built by previous administrations and pissed it away. He is bad for the country.

But, I don't hate the man. Hell, I have a ranch myself and I would really like for George to come over and help clear some brush. It seems to be something he enjoys and perhaps it is the one thing he might be good at.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:14 PM

JMB9039:
You can delete the contents of one post, and get FireFox ( http://www.firefox.com/) or Opera ( http://www.opera.com/).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:33 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Actually it was an empty promise, not a lie. Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration who "broke the law". Since he declassified the info and authorized its release, no law was broken and his promise was not a lie.

Sounds like quibbling over what the definition of 'is' is.

Quote:

They only listened in on international calls where one party was a know terrorist.

How do you know that? There's no oversight whatsoever, so you don't know jack about who's getting spied on. Hoover pulled the same crap. At least Hoover wore a pretty floral bonnet when he did it.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:44 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H

Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.

Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:05 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H

Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.

Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:07 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H

Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.

Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

Maybe there is hope for Bush's reputation yet !

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:09 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

double post

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

Maybe there is hope for Bush's reputation yet !

Sounds like an implied threat. Is someone advocating the murder of an American President? Perhaps it was only a slip of the finger or a thoughtless offhand remark. Either way, I'm sure the boys from the NSA who follow our discussions closely, hey guys, anyway I'm sure they've got a bed at Club Gitmo with your screename on it.

H

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:45 AM

CITIZEN -

Thanks, I have firefox at home, but wrote the post at work (IE).

.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves.

Kind of glossed over the 1850's in your history class, huh?

The Republican party came into existence in 1852 with a single issue, slavery. Within 10 years they had congress and the Presidency. As for Lincoln, I suggest you look up a little something called the 'Lincoln-Douglas' debates from 1858. Slavery was Lincoln's issue from the start, saying that aint so is like sayin Hillary Clinton is a man simply because she hasn't yet made an issue of her being a woman in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Quote:

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist.

From 1895 to 1945 only three American Presidents truly understood the 20th Century and the role America would play: Roosevelt, Wilson, and Roosevelt.

Teddy made this country a world power and gave us a national sense of just what America was all about. Since then we have bottled Roosevelt vison of America and exported it in some degree to every nation on earth.

Quote:

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed

...to defeat the Soviet Union, revitalize the American economy, inspire the innovation that led to the Information Age, and give a vision of hope to a generation of Americans and an entire world yearning for freedom and liberty in their own country. You may not like Reagan, but history loved him from the start.

H

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:59 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And Bush did lie about the reasons for going to war. The fact that we've found infractions that justify it after the fact does not change the fact the we were led into war under false pretenses. And investigation should be in order.

Firstly, for the record, I don't believe the President lied about Iraq. Everyone knows Iraq had WMD's, and there are no records of their destruction. Logically, as there is no record of their destruction, they still must exist. Don't forget, the UN stalled and ran cover for Saddam for four months. If only every dictator had four months warning of impending invasion.

That point aside, regarding the being "led into war under false pretenses" claim, from my study of American history, it seems that in nearly every case, the USA to war under false pretenses.

If we look back at how the British treated the American colonists, the colonists really had no beef to rebel against them -- heck, we're paying exhorbitantly more taxes now to a government which (it can be argued) still isn't properly "representing" the people who put it there.

The Mexican War was a shame to grab more territory, in which our reasons for entering the war were totally "arranged" and fabricated. I don't recall hearing of anyone crying for an investigation into Polk's administration.

The Civil War is bit more murky -- but I believe that the righteous cause of ending slavery was something added later on (as someone here has already said), and not the initial reason. (Yes, the southern states may've seceedeed because of that specific issue, but I believe the U.S. went to war against the Confederacy more to maintain the union than to abolish slavery -- even though Lincoln was clearly an abolitionist.)

The Indian Wars and Spanish American War were both likewise fought over manufactured issues. No calls of investigations into Grant's or McKinley's administrations (although, Grant's administration did have its share of scandal -- it wasn't because he was killing native Americans).

The U.S. had absolutely no reason to get involved in WWI. The excuse our government used (the sinking of Lusitania) really was a non-issue to the U.S. Firstly, the Lusitania was a British (not American) ship, and it was sunk nearly two full years prior to the U.S.'s declaration of war.

And while it can be argued that Hitler certainly had to be stopped, Hitler didn't attack the U.S. -- Japan did. Granted, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler stupidly declared war on the U.S. (to which we had to reciprocate), but anyone who's studied this war knows that FDR was itching for an opportunity to enter the war in Europe, but didn't want to commit political suicide by doing so when (prior to Pearl Harbor) the vast majority of Americans were dead set against entering the war.

One can also argue about the reasons given for entering Viet Nam (and Korea, for that matter), but it should be clear that our reasons for entering a war are rarely as clear cut as people like to think they are.

Personally, while I consider myself an avid supporter of the President (on most issues), I don't believe we needed to preemptively invade Iraq. I do believe the world is better off with Saddam gone -- but I'm not sure it had to be done when and how it was done.

That being said, I wholeheartedly disagree that the war is not going "well". Could it be going better? Certainly. But, compare it to any other war the U.S. has ever been involved in, and the number of wounded and killed doesn't even compare. And regardless of what you see in most of the media (who hates the President), I've talked with soldiers who have been there, and every single one of them says it's nothing like the way the media is portraying it. They feel they're doing a good job, and that the vast majority of the Iraqi people support them and are grateful for their service in their behalf. Of course, you'll never hear that in the media.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
the vast majority of the Iraqi people support them and are grateful for their service in their behalf

yes, i'm sure...like the woman who lost her entire family in the inital bombing raid on Bagdad.... we really won her over.....

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 5:26 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Logically, as there is no record of their destruction, they still must exist.

...as Spock turns in his grave...

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 6:17 AM

As ussual Cartoon turns up to talk shit and chew bubblegum. It's really not worth refuting anything he says, since he's too stupid to bring up a coherent argument, treat his posts like those of PirateNews, complete and utter senseless crap spouted by someone with less brains than a stuffed Iguana.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 6:27 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
...That point aside, regarding the being "led into war under false pretenses" claim, from my study of American history, it seems that in nearly every case, the USA to war under false pretenses.

Oh, that makes it alright then. No need for an independant investigation. We'll all just do as we're told. Grat idea.

"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, April 21, 2006 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

yes, i'm sure...like the woman who lost her entire family in the inital bombing raid on Bagdad.... we really won her over.....

Maybe not her. But probably her daughter who was tortured in Saddam's jail, her other son who was executed for failing to win an Olympic medal, or every man, woman, and child in a 20 square mile radius who either directly suffered or had an immediate family member that suffered physical abuse at the hands of the tyrannical Hussein regime.

Most Iraqis think things are better now and most believe that the war was Saddam's fault although a fair number wish we'd done this in 1991).

H

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 7:08 AM

Quote:

Everyone knows Iraq had WMD's, and there are no records of their destruction. Logically, as there is no record of their destruction, they still must exist.

Hmmm... I think you are playing a little loose with the facts. Your opinion is a bit unsupported. I dont' think the Pres lied either - I just think he is too dumb to be patient and look at all the facts. You logic is rather pathetic.

Quote:
That point aside, regarding the being "led into war under false pretenses" claim, from my study of American history, it seems that in nearly every case, the USA to war under false pretenses.

So what? Because it might have been done before that makes it ok? Sorry, we used to keep slaves, does that mean slavery is ok? At some point in time we need to become more educated, enlightened, stop making the same mistakes...

Quote:

it should be clear that our reasons for entering a war are rarely as clear cut as people like to think they are.

So true, which is why we, as a nation, need to open our eyes, use our brains, and speak up when we think those reasons are not justified.

Quote:
while I consider myself an avid supporter of the President (on most issues), I don't believe we needed to preemptively invade Iraq. I do believe the world is better off with Saddam gone -- but I'm not sure it had to be done when and how it was done.

Most issues? Really? You don't believe in science either? Or the constitution? Or the first amendment? Or Christian morals? Or changing your mind when you learn facts? Interesting...

Quote:
They feel they're doing a good job, and that the vast majority of the Iraqi people support them and are grateful for their service in their behalf. Of course, you'll never hear that in the media.

True - a lot of soldiers think they are doing a good thing - and they are - now. So, we need to concentrate on handling things better from here on out. Many soldiers I know who were in Iraq don't have the same view that things are all sunshine and puppy dogs over there. Why do you think so many Iraq verterans are running as Dems... Sources are bias (as they should be) and sometimes have attachment to issues which makes it difficult to see them clearly.

Oh, and HERO -

Quote:

Regan -- to defeat the Soviet Union, revitalize the American economy, inspire the innovation that led to the Information Age, and give a vision of hope to a generation of Americans and an entire world yearning for freedom and liberty in their own country. You may not like Reagan, but history loved him from the start.

Regan also, broke US policy and committed treason to our ally by giving weapons to the enemy (can anyone say Iran Contra), did NOT defeat the Soviet Union (he might have helped, but so did the natural problems involved in communistic economics and the Pope), was lucky to have been president when the information age started up, taught americans to be arrogant and boastful, drove us into debt, nearly massacred the middle class, left too many to count unemployed, destroyed our public school systems, gutted any attempts at environmental reforms... should I continue? And history kind to Regan? In some ways yes, in others no. Depends on who you read. I'm still not sure that Regan wasn't just a figure head.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 7:10 AM

you mean like the way this country is suffering at the tyrannical hands of the bush administration??.... these guys have honed torture to it's most vulgar form.... what gives this country the right to dictate to other countries? world police? more like world class assholes....

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 7:39 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
So what? Because it might have been done before that makes it ok? Sorry, we used to keep slaves, does that mean slavery is ok? At some point in time we need to become more educated, enlightened, stop making the same mistakes...

Uh, there's this thing called "reading comprehension", which if applied to my statement would see that my very first paragraph stated that I don't think we entered the war under false pretenses.

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
So true, which is why we, as a nation, need to open our eyes, use our brains, and speak up when we think those reasons are not justified.

Or when we believe everything an anti-Bush press spoon-feeds us, as many apparently do.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 7:51 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Or when we believe everything an anti-Bush press spoon-feeds us, as many apparently do.

Which is no better than beleiving everything pro-Bush supporters spood-feed us, as many apparently do.

"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, April 21, 2006 7:52 AM

Are they anit Bush or are they just smart? I like how when people think or question they are just seen as Anti Bush. Well constructed defense since is requires no actual thinking on your part.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 8:04 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Okay then,

could one of you Bush apologists explain away these things for me?

Why did the White House continue to say that the aluminum tubes were certain evidence of weapons of mass destruction, when they'd already been corrected on that count?

How can you really continue to say that it was justified to leak classified information to discredit the person who was right all along about the yellow cake? Why Did George Bush stand there and let the investigation with our tax money go on for a year, if he in-fact knew who declassified Valerie Plame the whole time? Why did he tell reporters that he would get to the bottom of the leak and FIRE anybody who was involved in it? Why, if he knew the answers to these questions during an expensive inquiry, is this not in your mind, obstruction of justice, at least in principle if not in law?

Why did Bush and General Casey lie around the time of the debates about whether Osama Bin Laden was in Tora Bora when he let him slip through our fingers? He was there, he was penned in, and Bush outsourced his capture. Why did Bush basically say when asked about Bin Laden later, that he didn't really think much about him..that he'd been marginalized?

Why do you not care that American Citizens are being wiretapped? On one hand Gonzales and Bush will tell the American people that they are only Wiretapping cross-country phone calls, but when asked that directly under oath, Gonzalez refused to answer. Jesus Christ, that is an answer!

If our bloody news is so damned liberal, how come none of the usual suspects you call liberal rags touched the Downing Street Memo for a month and a half after it was being circulated with fury on the internet? And when they did finally touch it, they did so begrudgingly, with no follow-up. Why did that bastion of liberal thought, the New York Times, wait until a year after the election to break the story about the Bush wiretapping,just because the administration asked them to,when clearly it would have changed a close election if they had released it at the time?

Tell me again why big moneyed companies want democrats in office? So that they can be more regulated? Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, doesn't it. But keep eating the same shit getting shoved down your throats BY that 'liberal' media. They after all, are the ones who call themselves that, so it must be so.

Where the hell is the outrage for any of this? HOw much double-think does it take to make this all sound right in your heads? How many facts do you continually have to ignore in favor of talking points straight from Limbaugh? Or, if you say you are basing these things on facts, then where the hell are they? Say something factual. Don't tell me the media is liberal and that it is making the war look like it is going bad... All it would need to do would be to cover the damned thing, and it would look bad. It's ongoing aint it?

Turn on CNN right now. You can be damned sure it ain't covering it. There are no body counts on these channels. Oh, that's right. They aren't covering it because it's going so well over there. That's it. Bush's Press converence basically confirmed that this administration has no exit strategy. When asked about a time table, he told us that future presidents would have to decide that. We have gone from a few weeks to six month's tops, to "who knows". We're on our way to losing as many men and women in iraq as we lost on 911, in our effort to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", and by the pentagons own estimation, we have created more terrorists than we have killed. We've got some GOP dipshit telling his would-be constituents that everything is being distorted over there and he'll give us a picture to prove how good everything is doing, and even the picture turns out to be a lie, a different country entirely.

By the way, they told us that the oil we seized would help us to pay for the war. What the hell happened to that? We have a ceo retiring from Exxon Mobile with like a 400 million dollar severance package, and our gas prices have never been higher, nor has oil company profits, and none of our war expenses are being covered. Truman said that war profiteering was treasonous, but that's the only reason we go to war now days, isn't it?

Your unflagging resolve to follow this President right of a cliff should be examined. He's got a million dollar parachute on. We don't.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Or when we believe everything an anti-Bush press spoon-feeds us, as many apparently do

Mr. (or Ms. - not sure here) Cartoon, i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I really wish things would work out to everyone's satisfaction, but there are such strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

I'm not really one to just sit here and bash the president of the united states for no good reason. I was raised to respect this country and all that it stands for, which includes whomever the commander in chief at the time. But, I can not sit by and do nothing while the fabric of this great country unravels at the seams.

I see no reasonable solutions to this war in Iraq being presented by the president...just more of the same thing that hasn't worked before. All indications are that the greater the presence of U.S. forces (who i fully support), the worse the situation becomes. Something has to change, and I fear that this administration is a little too trigger happy when they have their backs to the wall. I fear that too much aggression on our side will eventually come back to bite us in the ass, if not start an all out war in the Middle East - WWIII....please - how could any sane person want that.

But, as far as the 'liberal media' complaint goes...how can you say that when a large portion of the airwaves are in the pockets of right leaning conservatives?...i mean Fox, for crying out loud...and now I understand that the prez is set to announce Tony Snow as press secretary... a Fox talking head.... it seems to me that if we are being spoonfed anything it's the Bush/Cheney hysteria.....

A government based on fear, one that rules by fear and hatred, can not last...sooner or later (later i fear), the population will, (must) see through this web of lies and put this country back to the path of hope and good will to all men - not just the rich and powerful.

As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I have a sincere desire to find some common ground on which we can all agree and begin to restore this nation to its former standing in the world.

peace

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 10:03 AM

sorry about the multiple posts... a ghost in the machine...

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 10:04 AM

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:21 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I really wish things would work out to everyone's satisfaction, but there are such strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

I suppose.

But we probably agree more on this than we disagree. As I said, I don't agree with everything the President has done (or any human being for that matter), and I don't think we needed to preemptively go into Iraq when we did. However, I do not believe (as the media would like us to believe) that we were lied to.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
I'm not really one to just sit here and bash the president of the united states for no good reason. I was raised to respect this country and all that it stands for, which includes whomever is the commander in chief at the time. But, I can not sit by and do nothing while the fabric of this great country unravels at the seams.

Me neither. I was taught to respect the office, even if loathed the occupant. While I could disagree with policy (or personal conduct), I often found myself having to bite my tongue when it came to respect for the office -- which was made much more difficult with certain occupants than others.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
I see no reasonable solutions to this war in Iraq being presented by the president...just more of the same thing that hasn't worked before. All indications are that the greater the presence of U.S. forces (who i fully support), the worse the situation becomes. Something has to change, and I fear that this administration is a little too trigger happy when they have their backs to the wall. I fear that too much aggression on our side will eventually come back to bite us in the ass, if not start an all out war in the Middle East - WWIII....please - how could any sane person want that.

Personally, I believe the problem of the Middle East will never be solved. I believe it's a problem well beyond the abilities of mankind. That being said, we can only try our best in individual situations as they arise, and hope that the more "moderate" nations which have a reasonable relationship with us (and the west) will better help moderate situations in more unstable regions as best as humanly possible.

My hunch is that eventually the next world-wide conflagration will arise out of the Middle East -- whether in this generation or the next. I hope I'm wrong, but that seems to be my feeling, given the whole history of the region, and particularly the events of the last 30 (or so) years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
But, as far as the 'liberal media' complaint goes...how can you say that when a large portion of the airwaves are in the pockets of right leaning conservatives?...i mean Fox, for crying out loud...and now I understand that the prez is set to announce Tony Snow as press secretary... a Fox talking head.... it seems to me that if we are being spoonfed anything it's the Bush/Cheney hysteria.....

Most major newspapers and all but one of the TV networks are decidely left of center. And while many liberals tout Fox News as conservative, as a conservative, I'd say Fox is more middle than conservative. On a scale of 1 to 10, me being a 10, I'd rate most TV news to be somewhere between 1 and 4, with Fox a 5 or 6. So, if one's personal political leanings are below a 5, then a 5 or 6 seems "right" to them. If one's personal political leanings are above a 6, then a 5 or 6 seems "left" to them. Politics are relative.

Yes, a lot of the talk shows have a conservative bent. But, given the nature of the print and television media (as well as radio "news")-- not to mention the "entertainment" media which is (to a large extent) even hostile to conservative ideals -- it's still an uphill battle for anyone leaning "right".

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I have a sincere desire to find some common ground on which we can all agree and begin to restore this nation to its former standing in the world.

peace

That would be nice.

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 4:45 PM

computer's a tad buggy today...what else is new...

I don't know why I get into these political/religious arguments anymore... like a co-worker told me around the last election...'you're not gonna change my mind, and i'm not gonna change yours...' which is fair enough.

The thing that always comes back to me, no matter how upset i can get with politicians, is that we live in a free country and we are all free to have our own opinions... and that's something.

But the thing i don't understand, or don't appreciate anyway...is the seemingly lack of compassion by some of the most conservative right-wingers. Sure, it's fine to do well, make lots of money, have a secure future and provide for your family, but often it seems that this grand idea of getting all you can, while you can is usually to the determent of the less fortunate citizens of this country. While some will say that it's not the governments job to provide for people who won't help themselves, i will always disagree. What is a government but an institution set up to ensure the well being of all of its citizens. I'm not a socialist, but i do lean heavily to the more progressive way of thinking. That is, a government should be of the people and for the people. From what I've seen from many of the leaders of the Republican party, it seems that only the richest and most powerful are considered worthy of citizenship.
I suppose many democrats would fall into that same catagory, but through the years, it seems that that party was a little more concerned with the well being of everyone, and not just those who agreed with them.

I don't know, maybe i would feel differently if i had Dick Cheney's millions...but I'm just a middle class guy who pays his taxes and waves the flag on the 4th of July and I just can't help but have the feeling that the guys up in the White House could care less for me or almost half of the country who disagree with their policies.....

just my opinion

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 5:14 PM

RUE

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

Zero, you have some faulty neurons. You need to get that checked out.

Quote:
we really won her over.....

Quote:
Maybe not her. But probably her daughter who was tortured in Saddam's jail, her other son who was executed

80% of Iraqis want the US out. I guess the US did a smashing job winning people over!

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

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

Friday, April 21, 2006 5:55 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
The U.S. had absolutely no reason to get involved in WWI. The excuse our government used (the sinking of Lusitania) really was a non-issue to the U.S. Firstly, the Lusitania was a British (not American) ship, and it was sunk nearly two full years prior to the U.S.'s declaration of war.

Actually the U.S. entered WWI because of the Zimmermann note. The Germans sent an offer to Mexico that they would help re-take California and other territory the U.S. had conquered, in exchange for Mexico's declaration of war against the U.S. The British intercepted the message and told America.

The Lusitania was a British ship, but it was transporting over 100 U.S. citizens. The sinking outraged many Americans (even though the British were using it to illegally transport ammunition, making it a legitimate target). Even so, it was only one of many incidents that drove the U.S. to war with Germany.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

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

Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:06 AM

Cartoon - again your decision to use opinions as facts is hysterical! Most TV and newspaper outlets are liberal and Fox is more "central"? Hillarious! The battle between left and right about what outlets are liberal and which are conservative has never been decided. Some argue that the Washington Post has gotten very conservative - same with shows like Hardball, et al. It is no secret that for a long time conservatives ruled the radio (that most people would agree on). Look, you can believe anything you want, just don't confuse opinion with fact.

Hollywood? Decidedly left? Yeah, maybe, but is that because they had conservatives or because they have that more social/compassiate view of society? I think sometimes we misinterpret things because of our own biases. It is the job of artists/writers/etc to discuss social issues - writers have been doing it for centuries.

Dayve: As for people have the attitude "you won't change my mind, I won't change yours"... I've heard that too - it is, in my opinion, the thing that is most wrong with our country. We should be open to change our minds when we here new information or a new viewpoint on an issue. Good for you for staying in the conversation.

Persoally, I don't think voters should be allowed to declare a party. Then, maybe, people would vote for who was more qualified rather than what party the candidate belonged to.

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

Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:26 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Personally, while I consider myself an avid supporter of the President (on most issues), I don't believe we needed to preemptively invade Iraq.

That is, until we pre-emptivly invade Iraq, at which point you'll say you supported it all along, Bush is the Man, America right never wrong, it's our holy mission to weed out terrorists, blagh, blagh, woof, woof.

Try thinking outside of the cereal box, Bugs.

Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That is, until we pre-emptivly invade Iraq, at which point you'll say you supported it all along, Bush is the Man, America right never wrong, it's our holy mission to weed out terrorists, blagh, blagh, woof, woof.

Try thinking outside of the cereal box, Bugs.

Chrisisall

Cartoon, thinking! Good luck, if he's not told what to think about a situation by the Bible he NEEDS GWB's guidance, no inderpendent thought see.

That's why he won't respond to me, know's I'll rip him apart, because I have a brain, and he doesn't.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:22 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Yeah,

Again, I have to call you out on that liberal media thing. Most news is NOT decidedly left of center or it would sound like Air America. Listen to that radio station and then tell me CNN sounds like that. FOX is NOT middle of the road or it would not sound exactly like Limbaugh...sadly they get the same talking points memo, they use exactly the same analogies, exactly the same excuses, exactly the same phrases...etc.

If you're going to call commentators like O'reiley, and 'journalists' like Hume moderate, please indicate something they have ever said that makes them so...

Hell, Hume tried to tell us that it was safer for the soldiers in Iraq than it was to live in California, based on number of deaths within a certain period of time, WITHOUT actually considering the ratio! Either he's an idiot or he's intentionally misrepresenting facts in favor of the war. And he is supposed to be unbiased.

O'reiley? I've only heard him complain about the President when either backed into a corner, or when immigration is the topic. He pretends he's his own man, but his words don't back up his claim.

We don't even need to bring up Cavuto or Hannity now do we?

And no, you don't get to use your own scale for determining what is moderate and what is liberal. Just because you are far more right-wing than anything out there does not change the fact that FOX news is a propaganda engine for the current administration, which is not moderate, which is not cooperative, which is not uniting in its policies or practices, which is not open to left ideas, bipartisanship, or even letting bygones be bygones.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong..

I look forward to your post citing evidence for any of your claims.

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

Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:46 AM