I support Bush because .... by rue

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

Hey there Slick !

Back from hunting? I presume no one pulled a 'Cheney'.

Anyway, I've been waiting for you to comment on why you support Bush.

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

Monday, October 16, 2006 11:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey there Slick !

Back from hunting? I presume no one pulled a 'Cheney'.

Anyway, I've been waiting for you to comment on why you support Bush.

Yep. Back from Montana, where I..

- helped reduce the Proghorn Antelope population to a sustainable level by exercising my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,
- provided much-needed income to three family-owned farms and ranches by utilizing the 'Block Management' program, which pays them for allowing hunters to hunt their property,and
- filled a chest freezer with healthy, low-fat, all-natural, non-hormone treated, grass-fed, yummy antelope meat.

And as I traveled across this great nation, from Virginia to northwest Montana and back (some 5,000 miles), I found out several things:

- All Chinese restaurants west of Chicago and east of Idaho have an "American Food" section in their menu.

- Political ads on the radio are interchangable nation-wide.

- Thanks to Starbucks, it is now possible to get a decent cup of coffee in the West. Despite the legendary 'cowboy coffee' myth, most western coffee I experienced pre-Starbucks was weak and semi-transparent. Now there are drive-up espresso kiosks in every little burg.

- Anywhere in the USA, you can find a classic rock station. Hip-hop, on the other hand, sorta dies out after Milwaukee.

- If you're on a major east-west Interstate and drive more than two hours without passing a Harley-Davidson dealership, you're in an alternate universe.

It may take a couple of days to get out of road mood, but I'll be back in the game shortly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:45 PM

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

Slick,

I just thought I'd bump this up as a reminder that I'm still waiting for your reply.

Rue

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

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:20 PM

BRWNCT

Bush is a President with very, very close ties to both American and outside wealth. He lies for convenience and control. I am not an extemist, communist, arab or terrorist but I do have to say that Mr. Bush is a Monster. How many civilians have died in his "war" on terrorism? Remember the Geneva convention? America signed it, hell, drafted it! Tortue in interrogation? What???How many enemies can we afford? Great and True American author Kurt Vonnegut, American P.O.W. of WWII has a Current book out, "Man Without A Country".Why would a true patriot title his work so? Because he knows what and who Bush is. You might want to read it.

Brwnct

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

I just thought I'd bump this up as a reminder that I'm still waiting for your reply.

Rue

As noted above, sometimes I support Bush's policies, and sometimes I don't. Some of those I support I do so in general, without agreeing with every specific.

What I don't do is toe your "Bush is part of an evil cabal, bent on world domination, which was(at least) complicit in 9/11, invaded Iraq on false pretenses solely to get the oil, quickly tailored the response to Katrina to prevent people of color from returning to New Orleans, rigged presidential elections nationwide(twice!), killed the Easter Bunny(j/k), and managed to do all this without leaving enough evidence to convene a grand jury or impeachment hearing." line.

Saying I don't believe Bush blew up the WTC doesn't mean I support him 100% on everything. It just means I don't believe he blew up the WTC.

So, somewhere above I believe I wondered who you support.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:36 AM

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

Ah, well, I have to be out in the field today, all day. Keep this up top for later. If it gets down the list, I fergit.

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:41 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ah, well, I have to be out in the field today, all day. Keep this up top for later. If it gets down the list, I fergit.

Since you avoided going into the field after all, perhaps now would be a good time for you to enlighten us as to who you DO support, and why. Just remindin'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:26 PM

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

Thanks. Bump it once more in a couple of hours. I assigned myself lab work today. Just taking a short break and will re-immerse there.

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:32 PM

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

Well Slick, here is part of my response.

I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found.

You freely demonized 'liberals' as a group, their institutions and individuals. You never criticized Bush; not for lying his way into Iraq, for torture, for dirty political tricks, incompetence, or even for his abysmal service record.

You lied many times over, and when you got caught - abandoned the thread only to say the same things elsewhere. You derailed discussion by trying to redirect it, by ad hominem attacks, and other rhetorical schemes.

Below is a SMALL sampling of your partisan whining. And you know, I miss Ghoulman. He was crude, and rude, but most important, he proved RIGHT. Unlike you.

------------------

9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
silence

The Seven Minutes
silence

Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees
silence

Fantastic Speech
-(You're talking about George Dubya. A man so basically stupid he can't be trusted to cross the street without someone holding his hand.)
-Do you have a cite for that?

Well, we might have found WMD...
-Sanctions worked in Iraq? Explain, please.
-Sanctions in Libya didn't work until after we invaded Iraq. Coincidence?

Lining the Pockets of Big Business?
-Kerry's (energy) plan would:
* Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' and give consumers a $5,000 tax incentive to buy energy-efficient vehicles.
Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? Not saying it's a bad idea, but...

Bush = Dumb Ass
-Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.
Also defends CPA carving up of Iraq and its corruption

Moscow's waking up..finally
-Look out ConnerFlynn!! It's a trap!!!
You'll say "Sure, they were evil bastards and terrorists of the first stripe, and I hope they burn in Hell for eternity." Then SignyM will inform you that the USA supported all of them at one time, and hence we are terrorists too.
-(Oh BTW Geezer- you revealed your colors as a partisan rather than an unbiased seeker of truth. I specifically chose two of three examples to be leaders that we did NOT support.)

It's called "torture" Mr. Bush
Silence

Leading expert used by CBS didn't verify documents.
-Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
Bush’s real record of service? Silence. In Slick’s eyes the most important fact was Dan Rather

Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot
Here Slick defends tens of thousands of republicans signing petitions to put Nader on the ballot

War is peace
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7427
Slick really goes into overdrive here
-Then the 'irrelevant' UN worked, I take it.
-Until the bribes got big enough
-One theory you'll probably see from the administration (just guessing here) is that if Blix had found no WMD, the Oil-for-food bribees (Russia, France, China, etc.) would have pressed for removing sanctions. … with three Security Council members in Saddam's pocket.
Then someone … would help Iraq with nuclear development. Hence Iraq with WMD.
-Not actually too implausable, and that's all they need.
-We often jail people ahead of time for conspiracy
(ignoring that requirement for concrete steps taken)
-… see Iraq as analogous to Germany in, say, 1937
-No WMD ?
-tyrants and dictators left alone to build their forces
-Ok, you're right. We should let the UN deal with it.
-(We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world.)
-Got a list of bases?
-Actually, we (the WWII Allies) did have to invade, liberate, or bomb into rubble six or seven countries just to deal with Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.
-we should do what you'd have preferred with Iraq and continued to let the UN handle it. The UN is handling it, Right?
-(Just to demonstrate how you cherry-pick your information, when you listed the "top ten" Air Force Bases in Japan as family housing, you just "happened" to use the list that was sorted by function which listing FAMILY HOUSING AND ADMIN FIRST. I guess you didn't "happen" to notice that??? Even though you had to go past the first 170 pages or so to find it??)

Michael Moore BRIBES voters with... underwear...?
Slick’s major issue and only comment

TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election
Says it’s OK

Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat
Long post with link citing deliberate lies the administration spread to claim Iraq had WMDs
Slick’s reponse? Silence

Dick Cheney - Darth Vader unmasked!
Here Slick evades the issue by claiming no journalists were involved a critical report, oh, and they lied anyway, and btw, there’s no such thing as a fact. And too, Slick never actually read the report.
-(Oh, and since you didn't see this report I'd ask you didn't blow off something you didn't see.)
Derails the discussion about a news report to Moore, and compares him to Goebbels.
-Goebbels could have learned a lot from Mr. Moore.

Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?
-(Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier claim that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.)
-Colombian soldiers in Saravena, who are presumably fighting these guerillas who've been besieging them for a long time, in counterguerilla tactics? Yep. Sounds like another conspiricy to me.

Bush's Mysterious Bulge
-I'm still betting on body armor

Jon Stewart to appear on 60 Minutes
-I hope they verify that it's the real Jon Stewart, and not a clever forgery.
Again referencing Dan Rather, and not Dubya’s stellar record of service.

GUINEA: UN funds payment of arrears to army mutineers
Here Slick again tries to demonize the UN by ‘wondering’ why the UN would pay soldiers who had not received 5 months worth of pay form their government for UN service.

USA please read.....
-(I hate to throw political stuff on here but any of you guys who are voting tomorrow have the chance to make the world a better place than it is right now. So please - get rid of that lying dumbass!)
Didn't know that Michael Moore was running
-I think Annan's statement (Iraq war was illegal) was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan.
-If we'd left Hussein alone, he might have … decided that since no one was stopping him, it was time to invade someone else's country again, or wipe out the Kurds or Shia once and for all.
-If we had slapped Hitler down in 1937, or took out the Soviets in the late '40s, or taken care of Iran right aftr the Islamic revolution, things would have probably turned out better. Probably should have kept Italy, Germany, and Japan after WWII. then your concern about global domination would have actually been justified.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=6990
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
-Graydon Carter by numbers:
1 Bush-hating editor with way too much time on his hands.
Rather than address the actual article, Slick chooses ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares criticize his master.
-just because I don't swallow your bullshit
Here Slick again fails to address the article, and dismisses everything in it out of hand as bullshit without evidence.
-Facts can always be used as propaganda
This is a precious quote of Slick’s. You see, here he admits that the article might actually be factual, but then says it doesn’t matter.
-I wasn't convinced Bush "Lied" about WMD

Useless Complaining
-You lost the election because you couldn't convince enough folks to vote for Kerry.
-you'd rather bitch and moan and make excuses. "Oh, Diebold fixed the election."
Which they did.
If the Democrats had picked up less than one million votes in swing states in either if the last two elections, -we'd have a Democrat in the White House or ready to move in. Why didn't this happen?
Democrats did have the votes.
-I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat.
Amazingly, whether Democrats hoped for it or not, it’s the one thing Slick said that was accurate.

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:07 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well Slick, here is part of my response.

I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found.

You freely demonized 'liberals' as a group, their institutions and individuals. You never criticized Bush; not for lying his way into Iraq, for torture, for dirty political tricks, incompetence, or even for his abysmal service record.

You lied many times over, and when you got caught - abandoned the thread only to say the same things elsewhere. You derailed discussion by trying to redirect it, by ad hominem attacks, and other rhetorical schemes.

Below is a SMALL sampling of your partisan whining. And you know, I miss Ghoulman. He was crude, and rude, but most important, he proved RIGHT. Unlike you.

------------------

9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
silence

The Seven Minutes
silence

Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees
silence

Fantastic Speech
-(You're talking about George Dubya. A man so basically stupid he can't be trusted to cross the street without someone holding his hand.)
-Do you have a cite for that?

Well, we might have found WMD...
-Sanctions worked in Iraq? Explain, please.
-Sanctions in Libya didn't work until after we invaded Iraq. Coincidence?

Lining the Pockets of Big Business?
-Kerry's (energy) plan would:
* Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' and give consumers a $5,000 tax incentive to buy energy-efficient vehicles.
Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? Not saying it's a bad idea, but...

Bush = Dumb Ass
-Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.
Also defends CPA carving up of Iraq and its corruption

Moscow's waking up..finally
-Look out ConnerFlynn!! It's a trap!!!
You'll say "Sure, they were evil bastards and terrorists of the first stripe, and I hope they burn in Hell for eternity." Then SignyM will inform you that the USA supported all of them at one time, and hence we are terrorists too.
-(Oh BTW Geezer- you revealed your colors as a partisan rather than an unbiased seeker of truth. I specifically chose two of three examples to be leaders that we did NOT support.)

It's called "torture" Mr. Bush
Silence

Leading expert used by CBS didn't verify documents.
-Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
Bush’s real record of service? Silence. In Slick’s eyes the most important fact was Dan Rather

Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot
Here Slick defends tens of thousands of republicans signing petitions to put Nader on the ballot

War is peace
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7427
Slick really goes into overdrive here
-Then the 'irrelevant' UN worked, I take it.
-Until the bribes got big enough
-One theory you'll probably see from the administration (just guessing here) is that if Blix had found no WMD, the Oil-for-food bribees (Russia, France, China, etc.) would have pressed for removing sanctions. … with three Security Council members in Saddam's pocket.
Then someone … would help Iraq with nuclear development. Hence Iraq with WMD.
-Not actually too implausable, and that's all they need.
-We often jail people ahead of time for conspiracy
(ignoring that requirement for concrete steps taken)
-… see Iraq as analogous to Germany in, say, 1937
-No WMD ?
-tyrants and dictators left alone to build their forces
-Ok, you're right. We should let the UN deal with it.
-(We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world.)
-Got a list of bases?
-Actually, we (the WWII Allies) did have to invade, liberate, or bomb into rubble six or seven countries just to deal with Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.
-we should do what you'd have preferred with Iraq and continued to let the UN handle it. The UN is handling it, Right?
-(Just to demonstrate how you cherry-pick your information, when you listed the "top ten" Air Force Bases in Japan as family housing, you just "happened" to use the list that was sorted by function which listing FAMILY HOUSING AND ADMIN FIRST. I guess you didn't "happen" to notice that??? Even though you had to go past the first 170 pages or so to find it??)

Michael Moore BRIBES voters with... underwear...?
Slick’s major issue and only comment

TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election
Says it’s OK

Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat
Long post with link citing deliberate lies the administration spread to claim Iraq had WMDs
Slick’s reponse? Silence

Dick Cheney - Darth Vader unmasked!
Here Slick evades the issue by claiming no journalists were involved a critical report, oh, and they lied anyway, and btw, there’s no such thing as a fact. And too, Slick never actually read the report.
-(Oh, and since you didn't see this report I'd ask you didn't blow off something you didn't see.)
Derails the discussion about a news report to Moore, and compares him to Goebbels.
-Goebbels could have learned a lot from Mr. Moore.

Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?
-(Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier claim that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.)
-Colombian soldiers in Saravena, who are presumably fighting these guerillas who've been besieging them for a long time, in counterguerilla tactics? Yep. Sounds like another conspiricy to me.

Bush's Mysterious Bulge
-I'm still betting on body armor

Jon Stewart to appear on 60 Minutes
-I hope they verify that it's the real Jon Stewart, and not a clever forgery.
Again referencing Dan Rather, and not Dubya’s stellar record of service.

GUINEA: UN funds payment of arrears to army mutineers
Here Slick again tries to demonize the UN by ‘wondering’ why the UN would pay soldiers who had not received 5 months worth of pay form their government for UN service.

USA please read.....
-(I hate to throw political stuff on here but any of you guys who are voting tomorrow have the chance to make the world a better place than it is right now. So please - get rid of that lying dumbass!)
Didn't know that Michael Moore was running
-I think Annan's statement (Iraq war was illegal) was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan.
-If we'd left Hussein alone, he might have … decided that since no one was stopping him, it was time to invade someone else's country again, or wipe out the Kurds or Shia once and for all.
-If we had slapped Hitler down in 1937, or took out the Soviets in the late '40s, or taken care of Iran right aftr the Islamic revolution, things would have probably turned out better. Probably should have kept Italy, Germany, and Japan after WWII. then your concern about global domination would have actually been justified.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=6990
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
-Graydon Carter by numbers:
1 Bush-hating editor with way too much time on his hands.
Rather than address the actual article, Slick chooses ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares criticize his master.
-just because I don't swallow your bullshit
Here Slick again fails to address the article, and dismisses everything in it out of hand as bullshit without evidence.
-Facts can always be used as propaganda
This is a precious quote of Slick’s. You see, here he admits that the article might actually be factual, but then says it doesn’t matter.
-I wasn't convinced Bush "Lied" about WMD

Useless Complaining
-You lost the election because you couldn't convince enough folks to vote for Kerry.
-you'd rather bitch and moan and make excuses. "Oh, Diebold fixed the election."
Which they did.
If the Democrats had picked up less than one million votes in swing states in either if the last two elections, -we'd have a Democrat in the White House or ready to move in. Why didn't this happen?
Democrats did have the votes.
-I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat.
Amazingly, whether Democrats hoped for it or not, it’s the one thing Slick said that was accurate.

Can you be a bigger tool? Do you ever get laid? You are a slithery dildo lick-er. If given the chance I wouldn't allow your head to be a stool for my round ass.......reread what I just wrote to you...read it again....and again..........and again.....

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

Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- It's obvious to everyone that by and large you mainly support Bush. According to you he's an intelligent, honest, farsighted supporter of American liberties and safety.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:10 AM

DREAMTROVE

BRWNCT

Not to nitpick or anything, but to blame Bush for the Iraqi genocide comes across as one sided. Bush is only just now getting up to the Clinton era casualty figures on the iraqi genocide. I'd personally count bush sr. our as there was a war going on, and bush sr. was counter-attacking saddam hussein, and the story about dick cheney telling saddam that the us would do nothing if he invaded kuwait doesn't make it all a big conspiracy. cheney wasn't president, and he and the president weren't on speaking terms so much as yelling terms. IMHO

Vonnegut is right w. doesn't give a damn about america. I think that maybe harrison bergeron would be a better system.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well Slick, here is part of my response.

I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found...

Well, I have to admit that you have conclusively proven that I disagree with you on many issues, and have often had the temerity to propose alternative scenarios to the "Bush is the wellspring of all evil" platform.

I notice you didn't mention my oft-stated disagreement with the Bush policies on stem cell research, gay rights, marriage amendments, HIV-Aids treatment, faith-based initiatives, closeness to fundamentialist Christians, etc. Seems like you've come up with a new version of the old 'Jim Crow' laws. One drop of Bush-supporting blood...

Anyway, we've established pretty well that I sometimes support Bush's policies - and sometimes don't. Whose policies do you support? Are you having a hard time coming up with anyone you can agree with?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- You support:

Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?
Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?
The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?
The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?
Torture?
Election fraud?
Massive deficits?
American oil dependence?

Just want to be clear about this....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- You support:

Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?
Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?
The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?
The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?
Torture?
Election fraud?
Massive deficits?
American oil dependence?

Just want to be clear about this....

And have I stopped beating my wife? But, OK...

"Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?"
If you specifically mean intercepting calls made from the US to known terrorists overseas, then, yeah. In general, no.

"Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?" If you specifically mean in cases of terrorism suspects where revealing the accuser may get them killed or vital intelligence sources may be lost, then yeah. In general, no.

"The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?" If we all knew then what we know now, I'd say no. Given the information available at the time, yep. Please don't copy reams of post facto articles. We've pretty much beat this one to death.

"The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?" Never was too happy with that myself. Should have kept the Iraqi military and civil service intact (after a good cleaning).

"Torture?" But my wife likes it when I beat her!

We're back to defining the line between "interrogation" and "torture" again. The stuff at Abu Graib, for example, was over the line and quite properly was punished.

"Election fraud?" Of course not. If there's evidence, then indict.

"Massive defecits?" Having lived through periods of defecits and surpluses, I gotta say I don't much care.

"American oil dependence?" Not quite sure what you mean here, but, if we were to conquer Venezuela...

Got any more loaded questions for me?

And BTW, who do you support, if anyone?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Most favorite well-known politicians: Russ Feingold, John Conyers. They had the guts and the foresight (like me!) to say ahead of the fact that invading Iraq was bullshit.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Most favorite well-known politicians: Russ Feingold, John Conyers. They had the guts and the foresight (like me!) to say ahead of the fact that invading Iraq was bullshit.

Interesting guys. Based on what I read at http://www.ontheissues.org I'd probably disagree with them on defense policy, immigration, gun control, drilling in ANWR, and some tax and budget issues. I'd agree on education, gay rights, abortion, and most civil rights issues.

Overall probably a bit too liberal for me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 9:50 AM

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

"I notice you didn't mention my oft-stated disagreement ..."

And here is why I don't often get into extended discussion, especially not with you. For you truth is a flexible thing.

In the entire period I looked at, you mentioned ONCE that you disagreed with Bush on religion in government, discrimination against gays and abortion. You never argued against them in any way, you just mentioned once that you diasagreed. So did you ever POST a argument on these issues? No. On related issues like the Supreme Court nominations, did you post anything at all? No. On other pertinent issues, for example torture, WMD claims, 'seven minutes', and ghost detainees, you posted nothing at all. There is a legal maxim - silence is consent. And then you spent well over 95% of your posts either defending, excusing, minimizing, lying, derailing, or otherwise engaged in pro-Bush propaganda.

"Anyway, we've established pretty well that I sometimes support Bush's policies - and sometimes don't."

Out of 46 quotes, you mentioned you disagreed once. You mentioned you disagreed 2.7% of the time. YOU are the reason why I said (far above) when someone agrees 95% of the time, they are a de facto Bush supporter. ("So for example, someone who posts roughly 20 slightly to highly supportive Bush comments for every slightly negative one on this board could fairly be said to be a Bush supporter.")

".. (I) have often had the temerity to propose alternative scenarios to the "Bush is the wellspring of all evil" platform."

When something is provable - for example, Bush did lie the US into an Iraq war of aggression - do you not believe in calling it the evil that it is? Or would you rather ignore, lie, minimize, excuse, derail and propagandize in support of it? When Bush repeatedly does these kinds of things, do you not think truth should be told? Tell me, how do you excuse the evil that he does?

WHY DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH?

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 10:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH?

You haven't figured it out by now?

JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!

Quote:

When something is provable - for example, Bush did lie the US into an Iraq war of aggression - do you not believe in calling it the evil that it is? When Bush repeatedly does these kinds of things, do you not think truth should be told?

Once again, if this stuff were provable; actually legally provable, instead of just a patchwork of allegations, why hasn't someone stepped forward with an indictment or bill of impeachment? I find it hard to believe that there isn't one liberal state attorney general, Senator, or Congressman who wouldn't file papers if they thought there was a good chance of convicting, or even embarrassing, the Bush administration. But I guess that Conspiracy Theory World operates on different rules than the real world.

Maybe that's why you won't mention who it is that you support. There is no one pure enough to gain your blessing: no one who's not in on the conspiracy to keep Bush in power.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 11:01 AM

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

"Once again, if this stuff were provable; actually legally provable, instead of just a patchwork of allegations, why hasn't someone stepped forward with an indictment or bill of impeachment?"

DUH! Republicans impeaching republicans? Don't you wonder why they're so afraid of losing control of Congress? Oh, and BTW, the republican congress killed the office of the independent counsel in 1992 by not reauthorizing it. It was reinstituted by the republican congress in 1994 to 'investigate' Clinton, and allowed to lapse again in 1999. That's why there are no indictments. DUH!

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 11:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Once again, if this stuff were provable; actually legally provable, instead of just a patchwork of allegations, why hasn't someone stepped forward with an indictment or bill of impeachment?

How can somebody so smart be so stupid????

Oh, that's right.... you're not stupid. But that only leaves a couple of other options as to why you would even post this, and neither one of them is pretty...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:59 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Once again, if this stuff were provable; actually legally provable, instead of just a patchwork of allegations, why hasn't someone stepped forward with an indictment or bill of impeachment? I find it hard to believe that there isn't one liberal state attorney general, Senator, or Congressman who wouldn't file papers if they thought there was a good chance of convicting, or even embarrassing, the Bush administration. But I guess that Conspiracy Theory World operates on different rules than the real world.

well for one, its incredibly difficult to provide evidence of conpiracy with intent; regardless of the subject matter. but throw that charge at the federal government, and the international central banking institutions, at which point it takes a divine miracle to initiate an investigation(let alone an independant one.. as the 9/11 commission is evidence to).

to start, you guys in the mainstream would actually have to cover what we consider to be the 'loose ends' that give our conspiracies credibility, rather then denegrate us and call us loony toons; like building 7s mathmatically impossible collapse and the oh-so-coincidental CIA insider trading prior to the attacks. unless the public is made aware of all the facts, and not solely those that conform to the official fabrication, then we cant rightly be expected to bring those responsible to justice. the next time OReilly covers the 9/11 conspiracies, take notice that he cant even seem to comprehend our the allegations, but instead just verbally assualts his guests rather then debate them on the merits of the information; clearly many people do not care what evidence points to government complicity, because that would then expose certain individuals for their gullability in buying the governments stricly emotional claims about evil arabs.

it would take a media circus, something beyond OJ Simpson or the CLinton-Lewinsky scandal, to really rally the public behind a real independant investigation of organisations like the Fed and CFR, two groups i dont doubt are privy to the NWO conspiracy(as they are Americas main proponants). in all reality, to expose one facet of the NWO conspiracy would be to illegitimize our entire political landscape, and show it for the fraud that it is.. which will quite frankly never happen. there is far too much of a vested interest in the status quo, and too many nazi drones who think whats good for the party is good for America

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:35 PM

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

Slick,

To answer your question and put your agitation to rest -

"Maybe that's why you won't mention who it is that you support. There is no one pure enough to gain your blessing: no one who's not in on the conspiracy to keep Bush in power."

I don't support ANY ONE person. I support ANYONE who looks like they have a good chance of getting in office who's better than Bush. That's a low standard, not a high one.

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

Friday, October 20, 2006 9:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rue, I'm going to quote you extensively because I think you make a good point

Quote:
In the entire period I looked at, you mentioned ONCE that you disagreed with Bush on religion in government, discrimination against gays and abortion. You never argued against them in any way, you just mentioned once that you diasagreed. So did you ever POST a argument on these issues? No. On related issues like the Supreme Court nominations, did you post anything at all? No. On other pertinent issues, for example torture, WMD claims, 'seven minutes', and ghost detainees, you posted nothing at all. There is a legal maxim - silence is consent. And then you spent well over 95% of your posts either defending, excusing, minimizing, lying, derailing, or otherwise engaged in pro-Bush propaganda... Out of 46 quotes, you... disagreed 2.7% of the time. YOU are the reason why I said (far above) when someone agrees 95% of the time, they are a de facto Bush supporter.

Geezer- it's not that you support Bush. It's that you lie about it... either to yourself or to everyone else.

Be loud and be proud! YOU SUPPORT BUSH BECAUSE...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 4:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Be loud and be proud! YOU SUPPORT BUSH BECAUSE...

...IT PISSES YOU OFF.

I get endless giggles out of imagining you and Rue spending all your spare time either fuming in anger over some minor point or fixatedly poring through years of old posts to come up with an exact percentage of the time I've defended Bush's positions. I'm proud to consider myself at least partially responsible for your increasingly radical and extremist views.

But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed.

As for Bush? Hell, I didn't even vote for the guy, in either election. I doubt he and his cronies are bright enough to carry out the complex, secretive, and sinister plans you credit them with. I consider him a below par President presented with problems greater than he can handle. I actually have some sympathy for his plight, which is what lead me to expound alternatives to the "Evil Bush" in the first place, but then it just became too much fun to stop.

Well, it's been real(or maybe surreal), but every game must end. I'll leave you guys on Conspiracy World and see if there's any rational discourse left out there in RWD land.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:06 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Geezer, given that you don't credit Bush or his Cronies with much intelligence, a point on which we are in agreement,

Wouldn't you still respect the posibility then, that barring getting into the whitehouse on his own merits, there are bigger players behind the scenes that helped to prop him up as President?

Most of us on the left do think he's too stupid to be the devil, but this man's policies are evil, even if he doesn't understand that. True he is no Lex Luther criminal mastermind, but his lack of intelectual curiosity is a type of evil.

we could spend all day separating the sinner from the sin. We could bother to distinguish between what Bush does and what Bush is, and maybe that's all worth debating, but the fact of the matter is he does lots of evil, even if he isn't.

The same distinction could be made for the powers-that-be that helped to get this man into office - that's the major corporate donors, the media complicity...etc. All by themselves I'm not sure which of the contributors are evil incarnate - their intentions certainly have nothing to do with good or evil, but with money(the source of all evil...huh).

'Dark-side of the force conspiracy theories' are hardly what most of us on the left subscribe to. But self-interest is a dark force in-and-of itself, and when the selfish interests of the few have like a hundred times more representation(the power of the mighty dollar) than the needs of the rest of the populace, I don't care how evil these people themselves are, their actions are greedy, their results are evil.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm proud to consider myself at least partially responsible for your increasingly radical and extremist views.

That's funny, I've actually become increasingly moderate.

Quote:
But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed.

Huh? (think Scooby Doo)

Geezer, when you asked "Why hasn't Bush been indicted yet?" I wonder why someone as bright as you- someone who has repeatedly claimed to know the intimate workings of government- would say something so utterly brainless? If I had said something that idiotic it would jolt me into backtracking to find exactly where my thinking had gone wrong.

You OTOH take a purely Rovian appraoch: Turn attention by calling your opponents names - paranoid, radical, extremist, dancing to your tune. How long did it take for you to craft THAT little gem of a reply?

It... and all those other little rhetorical tricks of yours ... are so ingrained and gosh-darned predictable that I wonder where you picked up such nasty habits.

And in such a smart man, too. tsk tsk

My advice- Lose the political operative approach. It's not your views that are disgusting it's your dishonesty.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:39 AM

ATIGDNG

lol... I don't think any politics thread has ever been nice...

Oh, and I support Bush cause he IS our president and is doing a better job than any here would do!

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:59 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Hmmm.
I could do better.
I just have'nt been asked to.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Geezer, given that you don't credit Bush or his Cronies with much intelligence, a point on which we are in agreement,

Wouldn't you still respect the posibility then, that barring getting into the whitehouse on his own merits, there are bigger players behind the scenes that helped to prop him up as President?

There always are. Under present campaign finance laws, unless you have backers with deep pockets, you don't get elected to national office. I suspect that the Democrats who win congressional seats in November and the Presidency in 2008 will be beholdin' to George Soros and the like bigtime. I am uncomfortable with the thought of a world as Mr. Soros would like it.

Quote:
Most of us on the left do think he's too stupid to be the devil, but this man's policies are evil, even if he doesn't understand that. True he is no Lex Luther criminal mastermind, but his lack of intelectual curiosity is a type of evil.

we could spend all day separating the sinner from the sin. We could bother to distinguish between what Bush does and what Bush is, and maybe that's all worth debating, but the fact of the matter is he does lots of evil, even if he isn't.

Thinking about it, I believe I have more trouble with the incessant use of the word "evil" than anything else. Just because someone disagrees wiht you over policy does not make them evil. Misguided maybe, wrong, foolish, supporting different values. But "evil" implies both a black/white dicotomy and a presumption of malice on the part of the one you disagree with. I don't see this as a useful paradigm in realworld politics, when used by either side.

Quote:
'Dark-side of the force conspiracy theories' are hardly what most of us on the left subscribe to. But self-interest is a dark force in-and-of itself, and when the selfish interests of the few have like a hundred times more representation(the power of the mighty dollar) than the needs of the rest of the populace, I don't care how evil these people themselves are, their actions are greedy, their results are evil.

I don't know. I've seen folks here segue seamlessly from Iraq to election fraud to disaster relief to 9/11 complicity to plans for world domination to mind-control and pedophilia conspiricies embracing the highest ranks of both parties as well as major politicians around the world. All these things delivered with the same strident, true-believer tone of a fundamentialist Christian announcing the coming of the Rapture. At some point it gets so wacky I just can't take any of it seriously any more.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thinking about it, I believe I have more trouble with the incessant use of the word "evil" than anything else. Just because someone disagrees wiht you over policy does not make them evil.

When someon chooses to enrich a small group at the expense of everyone else and kills hundred of thousands in the process, is that not "evil"? Was Hitler "evil"? Where does "disagreement" and "different values" end and "evil" being? Or does "evil" even exist in your world view?

Quote:
I don't see this as a useful paradigm in realworld politics, when used by either side.

Yet another reference to your vaunted knowledge of politics.So tell me again Geezer- why hasn't Bush been indicted yet?

Quote:
I don't know. I've seen folks here segue seamlessly from Iraq to election fraud to disaster relief to 9/11 complicity to plans for world domination to mind-control and pedophilia conspiricies embracing the highest ranks of both parties as well as major politicians around the world. All these things delivered with the same strident, true-believer tone of a fundamentialist Christian announcing the coming of the Rapture. At some point it gets so wacky I just can't take any of it seriously any more.

I've seen folks segue seamlessly from "WMD east west north south somewhat of Baghdad and Tikrit" to "democracy on the march" to the flypaper theory of GWOT to "last throes" small government to massive deficits and the system works that at some point it gets so whacky that I can't take it seriously anymore either. Sorry if I've lumped you in with the fools and nutjobs, it's just so hard to make distinctions anymore.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So tell me again Geezer- why hasn't Bush been indicted yet?

Well, I can see two options.

1. There is some powerful mysterious force preventing even the most rabidly anti-Bush Democratic legislators from making valid impeachment charges which, even if they didn't result in a vote for removal, would politically embarrass the President and his party weeks before the Dems best chance to regain control of Congress in the past decade.

2. He hasn't done anything for which he could sucessfully be charged, much less indicted.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

...Sorry if I've lumped you in with the fools and nutjobs...

Hey, leave us fools and nutjobs out of this!

Quote:
When someon chooses to enrich a small group at the expense of everyone else and kills hundred of thousands in the process, is that not "evil"?

Look, I'm left of ...Marx, but I gotta' agree with Geezer when he says President Bush isn't evil. In my home state, I am most certainly in the minority in regards to political ideology. I am, therefore, surrounded by Bush supporters. Not conservatives, as those are two very different things.

Of the many Bush supporters that I know, very few are evil. They do have different priorities, but most believe, as does Bush, that they have the country's best interests in mind. They believe that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate the economy. They believe that fighting the terrorists in Iraq will keep us safe at home. They believe that socialized medicine will be a disaster and ruin our system, etc, etc, etc...

While they're wrong (

), that doesn't make them evil. Instead, I would argue that they are mislead and myopic, as is the President.

As to whether or not Geezer is a Bush supporter, I think I may have a very simple way to find out. Geezer's hunting story above may have indicated that his hunting vacation began and ended here in the Old Dominion.

If that is the case, Geezer, are you planning to vote Maccaca or sluts at Annapolis? A Maccaca vote is, most assuredly, a proxy vote for President Bush.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:12 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

I agree that throwing the word evil around is not very useful when it is undefined. So lets define it a little.

Maybe how we define evil should be results oriented. Lets say Poverty and hunger are evils in the world. De facto slavery is evil. Faccism is evil. No holds barred destruction of the biosphere is evil. And by 'evil,' I mean that all or most of us can agree that such results are bad.

Then activities and policies, no matter what their supposed intent, which cause more of these things, are evil. We even say in discussion, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," so to absolve people of doing harm because they do not see it is fair to a point...

but when you continue to try to educate them and they refuse to see because the facts are in contradiction to their own self-interests, when they even misrepresent or obscure the truth in order to further their own interests,

why can't we define their behavior as evil?

As was said in Batman Begins - "It's not who you are inside that matters, but what you do that defines you."

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of the many Bush supporters that I know, very few are evil. They do have different priorities, but most believe, as does Bush, that they have the country's best interests in mind. They believe that cutting taxes for the rich will stimulate the economy. They believe that fighting the terrorists in Iraq will keep us safe at home. They believe that socialized medicine will be a disaster and ruin our system, etc, etc, etc...

"Typical Joe" Bush supporters are by and large misguided or so terribly frightened that they'll do anything to feel safer. But the WEALTHY and POLITICAL Bush supporters- the DeLays, Abramoffs, Cheneys, etc. know EXACTLY what they're doing. Do you really think that they're trying to "stimulate the economy" through tax cuts??? Believe me, they're not as stupid as Bush.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:21 PM

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

Quote:
I get endless giggles out of imagining you and Rue spending all your spare time either fuming in anger over some minor point or fixatedly poring through years of old posts to come up with an exact percentage of the time I've defended Bush's positions. I'm proud to consider myself at least partially responsible for your increasingly radical and extremist views.

OOHHHhhhhh Slick, you are so misguided. My views are and have always been far more extremist than you know. You give your self far too much importance in my political views and life.

Quote:
But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed.

You know, middle age paranoia tends to start in retired men of 'some' accomplishment who feel a englarged sense of importance. That sounds an awful lot like you.

Quote:
As for Bush? Hell, I didn't even vote for the guy, in either election.

So you've already said.

Quote:
I doubt he and his cronies are bright enough to carry out the complex, secretive, and sinister plans you credit them with. I consider him a below par President presented with problems greater than he can handle. I actually have some sympathy for his plight, which is what lead me to expound alternatives to the "Evil Bush" in the first place, but then it just became too much fun to stop.

I do not think Bush is even average intelligence, and additionally there are some serious holes in his character and neurology. Bush is a pawn, and he will be exposed over time by the political machine that put him there so that the next person in line will look good by comparison. I don't think everyone else is either that bright or that united. I call Iraq 'the perfect storm of mendacity'. Everyone had some unclean interest in the same thing and overdetermined the result.

Quote:
Well, it's been real(or maybe surreal), but every game must end. I'll leave you guys on Conspiracy World and see if there's any rational discourse left out there in RWD land.

Please explain this conspiracy to me. I'd be interested in what you think it is.

So anyway, I'd also be interested in why you think you're so pivotal to anyone.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Notice how Geezer avoided the whole embarassing "what is evil?" question? That's another pile of shit stuck to his shoe.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:09 AM

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

Yeah, that was another classic 'Slick' move.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:33 AM

Righteous9,

For the most part, I can't disagree with your post. The results of this Administration's policies has been, by any objective measure, disastrous. More than hundred thousand innocent people have had their lives snuffed out. Wages have been stagnant. The number of poor people in the States has grown exponentially. The Constitution has been soiled. Capital has excelled at the expense of labor. Since President Bush's inauguration, in a very real way, each day has been better than the next.

However, I do believe that intent is a factor. In our society, what we mean to do vs. what happens is often taken into consideration. That is not to say that results are insignificant, but they are only part of the equation.

In regards to "when they even misrepresent or obscure the truth in order to further their own interests", I would whole heartedly agree that this is pure evil and pray that come the first Tuesday, following the first Monday this November, that the people of this country will finally be able to see through the subterfuge and fear-mongering and hand the reins of government to men and women with a more noble purpose.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

"Typical Joe" Bush supporters are by and large misguided or so terribly frightened that they'll do anything to feel safer. But the WEALTHY and POLITICAL Bush supporters- the DeLays, Abramoffs, Cheneys, etc. know EXACTLY what they're doing. Do you really think that they're trying to "stimulate the economy" through tax cuts??? Believe me, they're not as stupid as Bush.

You got me there, SignyM. To put in SciFi terms, I rather think of Cheney as the Sith Lord with President Bush playing the role of Anakin. You know, not terribly bright and easily manipulated.

So, perhaps what I mean to say is that the President didn't start off evil, but has been seduced by the dark side. Yet, in his stupidity, he is unaware of the transformation...

EDIT- Meaning he still thinks he is doing the right thing.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I agree that throwing the word evil around is not very useful when it is undefined. So lets define it a little.

Maybe how we define evil should be results oriented. Lets say Poverty and hunger are evils in the world. De facto slavery is evil. Faccism is evil. No holds barred destruction of the biosphere is evil. And by 'evil,' I mean that all or most of us can agree that such results are bad.

Then activities and policies, no matter what their supposed intent, which cause more of these things, are evil.

Well, you just put 99% of the world's population in the "evil" column, so I guess that by your definition, yeah, Bush is evil.

Quote:
We even say in discussion, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," so to absolve people of doing harm because they do not see it is fair to a point...

but when you continue to try to educate them and they refuse to see because the facts are in contradiction to their own self-interests, when they even misrepresent or obscure the truth in order to further their own interests,

why can't we define their behavior as evil?

If you're absolutely sure that your facts and your truths are the only valid facts and truths, then of course you can call their behavior evil. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do it all the time.

If a man wants to cut down some rainforest so he can grow enough crops to feed his famly and maybe sell a bit to get out of poverty, is he good or evil? He's destroying the biosphere to further his own interests, but at the same time reducing poverty and hunger. Which wins out?

Yeah, I know. Cleared rainforest is crappy for farming, but this is just a simplistic example.

What if all you see is a guy out chopping down trees and clearing brush? You don't know his motivation, but as someone completely committed to biosphere preservation, you know he must be evil. What if you only see some guy selling his surplus crops and starting a bank account? As an anti-poverty crusader, you admire his good work.

I know that this little example will draw plenty of "...but Bush did this and that" from folks who think they know his motivations - who are SURE they know his motivations. I'm not that clairvoyant. I know some of his actions have, in my opinion, been wrong. Some have had good intentions but failed in execution. Some have been all right. I don't think that it adds up to evil.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Notice how Geezer avoided the whole embarassing "what is evil?" question?

Nope. Just had other stuff to do.

Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:11 AM

Aaawww, come on Geezer, Maccaca or sluts?

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:13 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?

No, you'd be a loser, so it's lucky you didn't stoop to the sad sad level of petty spelling correction eh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:22 AM

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

My thoughts.

Even though our legal system factors 'intent' (the thoughts ahead of time) I'm not sure I apply it.

First of all, 99.9% of the people have no control over the system, and hence no choice. They're just trying to survive in a system built and controlled by others.

Second, it's fairly difficult to go back in time and try and figure what was on someone's mind when they started.

And third, you don't have to try mind-read. You can glean intention from action over time. If you have a choice and you really intend to do good, you pay attention to feedback. Is this working, is it headed in the right direction. If you really intend good, you alter what you do to keep on course. So, negative results create a change in behavior for those intending positive results.

The administration clearly has the power, and choice, and is therefore subject to judgement. While there are clear records in some cases that the administration intended to lie and intended to enrich themselves at the US's expense, it's only for a portion of instances. So you have to look at the third factor to assign the label of 'evil', and that is action over time. So, in Iraq for example, while over half a million Iraqis have died and the consistent feedback has been 'this is making things worse, not better', Bush's informed response is 'stay the course'. What do you glean his intentions are from these years of actively pursuing destruction, death, insecurity, and, oh yes, bankruptcy?

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:25 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

To clear things up Geezer, because you make valid points,

I edited my original post before you saw it for the very things you mentioned. It originally said destruction of the biosphere was 'evil', and then I amended it to say that no-holds-barred destruction of the bioshpere is evil.

Admittedly, this is a vague definition. To clear it up further, I mean decisions that do more harm than good overall are doing 'evil.' That doesn't mean the farmer that needs to clear wildlife and forest so that he can provide for his family is evil, and far from it. But the overall result may be evil as I have defined it, if cumulatively we are hurting more people than we are helping by our choices, in the long run.

Small countries that feed their people by selling off their rainforests...etc. hardly have a choice in the matter, and to some extent, big countries are competing amongst each other for those resources, using the rationale that if they don't harvest those trees somebody else will.

I can't disagree there, and I can't necesarily define that as evil. But when we could be making a difference on the policy level, when America in particular could be on the global scene, curbing global consumption of rainforests and looking into treaties involving conservation, but we choose not to, even in the face of catastrophic results, simply because such an action would damage profit margins of some of our most powerful companies, that's entering into my definition of 'evil' once more.

To continue to absolve ourselves of any guilt and act like we are but one cog in a great machine, is cynical and a cop-out. America has enoromous power on these issues. So often, we excercise that power to destroy.

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Aaawww, come on Geezer, Maccaca or sluts?

Gonna be an interesting race. I try not to make my vote in congressional races a proxy for my like or dislike of the president, so I'll probably go on issues of more local interest. If I want to get rid of the Republican in the White House, I'll vote against him in 2008.

Looking at Webb's site, he only has one paragraph which specifically references Virginia. Everything else is national or international policy. His biggest issue is (surprise, surprise) the Iraq war. I'm in general agreement with his views on abortion, gay rights, and other equality issues. Not too many solutions proposed on immigration, just a suggestion to seperate the issues border security and illegals already in the country. Nothing much on crime or drug policy.

Allen mentions benefits to Virginia quite a bit more and has more content. I have problems with his reproductive and gender rights stands. I do have the natural disinclination to remove a Senator who has tenure, as he can bring more local benefits.

On some issues, such as gun control, it's pretty much a wash, with Allen getting A+ from the NRA and Webb an A.

The Macacca vs. Sluts is also a wash, although Allen only directly insulted one individual, where Webb insulted all women attending service academies.

So. Does my dislike for Allen's family values stand overwhelm my disinclination to cave to the "Bush is evil" crowd? That's why it's called a secret ballot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:57 AM