Bush's Speech: A Critique

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

I’m posting my original critique again because not one post here has tried to refute my comments, instead it just turned into a left vs. right political gimping match as usual.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush596.html

[quote]President George W. Bush
Documents & Texts from the Washington File
06 October 2005
President Bush Calls for Firm Resolve Against Terrorism

Vowing to confront the “mortal danger” of terrorism, President Bush spelled out three aims of radical Islamic terrorists and five countermeasures the United States and its allies are taking to defeat them.

Bush spoke October 6 at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington as part of a ceremony commemorating the victims of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. He declared, “We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.” [/quote]

I would like to see the ‘war on terror’ won but that is clearly impossible. Also I find the name ‘war on terror’ insulting as it implies that before someone invented that little soundbite everyone in terror plagued countries just sat round ignoring it and the US has been the first place to confront terror. I’m sorry, but when the IRA was terrorising my country it was pretty hard to ignore. Rant over.

So many extremist goals exist this is clearly a fabrication. Bin Laden explicitly stated his goal was to remove the US military footprint from Saudi. World domination never came into it. Other groups may have that goal, but I’m sure many in Iraq simply want the coalition forces out. Chechen rebels want the Russian forces out. Each group has its own goals meaning accross the board they are far from ‘clear and focused’. To say ‘clear and focused’ is simplistic at best.

I whole heartedly agree, of course I would suggest Bush fits this profile exactly. The terrorists must be stopped AND Bush’s perpetual war must be stopped.

I truly hope he believes this and it isn’t just some politically correct PR.

[quote]WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT

Bush spelled out what he described as the terrorists’ three main goals:

? to end U.S. and Western influence in the broader Middle East; [/quote]

Maybe, but I would say not so much ending ‘influence’ as military presence. Personally if Britain was crowded with Iraqi soldiers I would want rid of them too. We need to pull our troops out because it has become an occupation force now. Not a liberating force, an occupational force.

Terrorists already target many moderate Muslim governments. This would not be a new situation, just look at Egypt. In Iraq much terrorism is aimed at other Iraqis. They’re concern is internal. Spending more money on Iraqi govenrment security would ensure the trans-national terrorists could be dealt with.

Can anyone say ‘conspiracy theory’? Its like ‘reds under the beds’ all over again.

The implication being that they they aren’t human? Oh my God, I thought Area 51 had the aliens under control! Ahh! Hand me a copy of the constitution and 14 Uzi’s!

But there weren’t terrorists in Iraq before we entered there, now there are hundreds and Iraq provides a perfect torrorist recruitment ground so in essence we created the central front and made the problem worse. Nice.

I want to know where these goals came from and which groups! Did Bush go on terrorist.com and find out? I’m not saying certain groups don’t have big ambitions, but equally as many groups just want the coalition to leave, or to cause mayhem or whatever. There’s such fragmentation Bush shouldn’t make such sweeping statements. And blackmailing the US government into isolation?! I’m sorry but the US began with colonial roots, reinforced them with westward expansion and then has continued to ‘spread its influence’ accross the globe ever since. I don’t think that while its rich it will ever be isolated!

[quote]THWARTING TERRORIST AMBITIONS

The president laid out five countermeasures the United States and it allies are taking against the terrorists:

? First, prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. [/quote]

This requires a sustained intelligence investigation. Invading Muslim countries just makes the intelligence community’s job harder due to the extra terrorist recruitment. The people who suffer are innocents, like those in London.

The largest nuclear stockpile and the only nation to have ever nuked anybody are one and the same. Just a thought. Anyway, the way to diffuse nuclear problems is not with aggression, that’ll get us all fried. Again, it’ll be the innocents who die.

Like the Saudi money which supports so many terror groups? Except going after Saudi’s would piss them off, then they might withdraw the huge monetary investment they have in the US and Europe. D’oh. What will you have Bush, a real confrontation of terror and the risk of fiscal problems, or the ineffective crap we have now, but a decent economy?

We need to build a good relationship with these nations so that they can be persuaded to be on our side, like other Muslim nations Jordan, Oman, the UAE etc. We can coexist with even fairly strict Muslim states, just look at the Western relationship with many Emirites.

The Taliban is gaining power in Afghanistan again and if theres one thing you could say for Saddam its that he would let his nation be taken over by terrorists. In fact he actively hunted down extremist groups- he was sectarian after all. Now it is us who have to keep terrorists under check in a broken and chaotic nation. Its a far bigger mess now.

Yea, we’re doing great at that! We’ve won no hearts and minds and the Iraqi democracy has shown itself to be a sham due to ethnic rivalries and the coalition forces ignoring the requests of the Iraqi government.

We’d be in less of a mess without Iraq. Thanks W.

Its the new Cold War. So many have noted America’s reliance on the military-industrial complex for economic stability such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Niall Ferguson, John Pilger and even Neo-con poster boy Francis Fukuyama. Islamic radicalism is nothing like communism, except that it gives the US a traget for perpetual war. Either Bush is triumphantly pointing out he has succesfully created a new ‘Red threat’ as required, or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of communist ideology.

Again I hope he genuinly respects Islam and wasn’t just looking for a cutesy sound bite.

82

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
…
Yet I’m fairly sure people like Chechen rebels have a different view, as do the Real IRA or the myriad other groups. If he were astute he would also realise that out invasion of Iraq created that front, greatly bolstering terrorist numbers and we have in effect made our bed, now we must lie in it. I mean thats just a little snippet of why I dont rate his intelligence.

Chechnya and Ireland do not produce a product that is of prime importance to the worlds economy. Iraq and the Mid East do, that is why we are fighting there.

You accuse him of being dumb and then your example illustrates that he is smart enough to figure out that you should fight battles of strategic importance, not in relatively unimportant areas.

Just because you don’t have the first clue why we are fighting this war reflects poorly on your intelligence, not his.

But I thought it was a war on terror as a whole! Finally you’ve admitted something the whole world has been saying for years, that this is economically motivated, not some philanphropic exercise to ‘protect freedom’ or whatever! Now, the PR says ‘War on Terror’ yet we can all see it for what it is- a war of profit, hence my claim of illigitimacy! Finally we connect![/quote]

The sarcasm doesn’t become you. Oil is vital to the worlds economy, but this war isn’t for profit.

We did not go there to steal the oil. If we did we would be stealing it.

83

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
…

True, yet the philanthropic rhetoric continues. Hey, if you’re happy with the government lying like that then ok for you, I just hold people to higher standards. Actually you should talk to Zap because he thinks its an economic war, not one against radical Islam. Good right-wing debate though: is it sleazy or racial? Discuss.[/quote]

If you don’t understand how oil ties in with the Islamic radicals then there really is no point in discussing this with you.

I am not sure if you are just being intellectually dishonest for the purposes of this discussion or perhaps you really don’t understand.

84

I am finally coming out and saying it after so long…I look at vroom’s avatar and just want to punch it square in the face. I know! How can I? It is a silly little picture of some semi-good looking guy trying to look intelligent, yet it makes me want to just throw a jab out there. Vroom, not trying to be mean or nasty, just had to finally get it out there. I’ll eventually put a picture of my Tommy-Boyesque face on this forum and you can want to do the same, until then, I have printed out your avatar and put it on my dartboard, my speedbag and the bottom of my toilet.

85

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq and ten thousands have died as a consequence.

But, and this is very important. HE DIDN’T GET A BLOWJOB.

So that make it allright.

I don’t think Bush lied. There are a bunch of us that don’t think he lied. Just because you think he did doesn’t make it true. Prove it well enough to get Bush impeached - or to even have charges brought up against him, and you have a point. SHort of that - you are just spewing ABB kool-aid.

As for Clinton - he was impeached by the HOR. He was disbarred. I have proof on my side and all you and the rest of the “Bush lied People died” nutjobs have is propaganda.

[/quote]

Bush has lied. They have proved it. People like you either don’t listen or don’t care.

I think Clinton would have handled 9/11 better, but his policies weren’t all that great either way.

As for people criticsizing all the Canadians and English guys because they talk shit and don’t live here…open your fucking eyes. It’s nice that in this country we are fed rah-rah America bullshit by Foxnews and Rush “fucktard drug addict” Limbaugh.

But if everyone from all the other countries thinks Bush is wrong and we are wrong, doesn’t that say something? All you guys from Texas and the rest of the Bible Belt (I say Texas because you guys are most vocal) might not be right…and no amount of cheerleading will help that.

86

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
I’m posting my original critique again because not one post here has tried to refute my comments, instead it just turned into a left vs. right political gimping match as usual.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush596.html

President George W. Bush
Documents & Texts from the Washington File
06 October 2005
President Bush Calls for Firm Resolve Against Terrorism

Vowing to confront the “mortal danger” of terrorism, President Bush spelled out three aims of radical Islamic terrorists and five countermeasures the United States and its allies are taking to defeat them.

Bush spoke October 6 at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington as part of a ceremony commemorating the victims of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. He declared, “We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.”

I would like to see the ‘war on terror’ won but that is clearly impossible. Also I find the name ‘war on terror’ insulting as it implies that before someone invented that little soundbite everyone in terror plagued countries just sat round ignoring it and the US has been the first place to confront terror. I’m sorry, but when the IRA was terrorising my country it was pretty hard to ignore. Rant over.

The president said it would be a mistake to dismiss the Islamic radicals’ beliefs and goals, calling their ideology “clear and focused.”

So many extremist goals exist this is clearly a fabrication. Bin Laden explicitly stated his goal was to remove the US military footprint from Saudi. World domination never came into it. Other groups may have that goal, but I’m sure many in Iraq simply want the coalition forces out. Chechen rebels want the Russian forces out. Each group has its own goals meaning accross the board they are far from ‘clear and focused’. To say ‘clear and focused’ is simplistic at best.

“Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously – and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply,” Bush said.

I whole heartedly agree, of course I would suggest Bush fits this profile exactly. The terrorists must be stopped AND Bush’s perpetual war must be stopped.

“[T]his ideology is very different from the religion of Islam,” Bush said. It “exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision ? of a totalitarian empire,” he added.

I truly hope he believes this and it isn’t just some politically correct PR.

WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT

Bush spelled out what he described as the terrorists’ three main goals:

? to end U.S. and Western influence in the broader Middle East;

Maybe, but I would say not so much ending ‘influence’ as military presence. Personally if Britain was crowded with Iraqi soldiers I would want rid of them too. We need to pull our troops out because it has become an occupation force now. Not a liberating force, an occupational force.

? to use the vacuum created by an American retreat from the region to gain control of a country to use as a base from which to launch attacks against nonradical Muslim governments; and

Terrorists already target many moderate Muslim governments. This would not be a new situation, just look at Egypt. In Iraq much terrorism is aimed at other Iraqis. They’re concern is internal. Spending more money on Iraqi govenrment security would ensure the trans-national terrorists could be dealt with.

? to control one country in order to rally ?Muslim masses? to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire “from Spain to Indonesia.”

Can anyone say ‘conspiracy theory’? Its like ‘reds under the beds’ all over again.

“The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity,” Bush said.

The implication being that they they aren’t human? Oh my God, I thought Area 51 had the aliens under control! Ahh! Hand me a copy of the constitution and 14 Uzi’s!

“And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.”

But there weren’t terrorists in Iraq before we entered there, now there are hundreds and Iraq provides a perfect torrorist recruitment ground so in essence we created the central front and made the problem worse. Nice.

If the terrorists achieved their goals, they could use their enhanced economic, military and political power “to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation,” Bush said.

I want to know where these goals came from and which groups! Did Bush go on terrorist.com and find out? I’m not saying certain groups don’t have big ambitions, but equally as many groups just want the coalition to leave, or to cause mayhem or whatever. There’s such fragmentation Bush shouldn’t make such sweeping statements. And blackmailing the US government into isolation?! I’m sorry but the US began with colonial roots, reinforced them with westward expansion and then has continued to ‘spread its influence’ accross the globe ever since. I don’t think that while its rich it will ever be isolated!

THWARTING TERRORIST AMBITIONS

The president laid out five countermeasures the United States and it allies are taking against the terrorists:

? First, prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur.

This requires a sustained intelligence investigation. Invading Muslim countries just makes the intelligence community’s job harder due to the extra terrorist recruitment. The people who suffer are innocents, like those in London.

? Second, deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.

The largest nuclear stockpile and the only nation to have ever nuked anybody are one and the same. Just a thought. Anyway, the way to diffuse nuclear problems is not with aggression, that’ll get us all fried. Again, it’ll be the innocents who die.

? Third, deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes.

Like the Saudi money which supports so many terror groups? Except going after Saudi’s would piss them off, then they might withdraw the huge monetary investment they have in the US and Europe. D’oh. What will you have Bush, a real confrontation of terror and the risk of fiscal problems, or the ineffective crap we have now, but a decent economy?

“State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror,” Bush said.

We need to build a good relationship with these nations so that they can be persuaded to be on our side, like other Muslim nations Jordan, Oman, the UAE etc. We can coexist with even fairly strict Muslim states, just look at the Western relationship with many Emirites.

? Fourth, deny the terrorists control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror.

The Taliban is gaining power in Afghanistan again and if theres one thing you could say for Saddam its that he would let his nation be taken over by terrorists. In fact he actively hunted down extremist groups- he was sectarian after all. Now it is us who have to keep terrorists under check in a broken and chaotic nation. Its a far bigger mess now.

? Fifth, deny the terrorists future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East.

Yea, we’re doing great at that! We’ve won no hearts and minds and the Iraqi democracy has shown itself to be a sham due to ethnic rivalries and the coalition forces ignoring the requests of the Iraqi government.

“This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there’s no alternative to it,” Bush said.

We’d be in less of a mess without Iraq. Thanks W.

The president also drew parallels between Islamic radicalism and communism,

Its the new Cold War. So many have noted America’s reliance on the military-industrial complex for economic stability such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Niall Ferguson, John Pilger and even Neo-con poster boy Francis Fukuyama. Islamic radicalism is nothing like communism, except that it gives the US a traget for perpetual war. Either Bush is triumphantly pointing out he has succesfully created a new ‘Red threat’ as required, or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of communist ideology.

and elaborated on Iraq’s importance in the fight against terrorism. He called on “all responsible Islamic leaders” to denounce “an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.”

Again I hope he genuinly respects Islam and wasn’t just looking for a cutesy sound bite.

[/quote]

I can’t believe you had the patience to go through that speech and dissect it. More power to you, and your insights are right.

But to read a GW speech, and have to go through it, is like sitting on the ice next to the devil in Dante’s Inferno. Its my personal hell I think

87

Same old shit…

I can’t see the forest for all of the swinging phalli. (Which is really kind of gross.)

Someone criticizes Bush for what he is doing/has done during his two terms and suddenly the old straw man Clinton gets brought up. What Clinton did or didn’t do is irrelevant vis a vis what Bush IS doing, right now. Bill Clinton does not control George W. Bush. (That’s Karl Rove’s job.)I fear we have to just hold Bush responsible for his errors and his successes, whatever they may be. Except for ZEB and Rainjack. Finding out the world is round AND that George Bush is fallible would be too much for them to handle at the same time.

Incidentally, GeeDub signed Executive Order 13233, preventing the personal papers of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush Senior, Dubya himself and all presidents that follow from being released to the public record. We may never know why they made the decisions they made. I’m sure some of you think that Clinton’s memoirs are an uncensored tell all but I would bet a few things got redacted or omitted to “protect National Security”.

Allow me to point out that bad planning on the part of the President and his advisers has cost many more American lives in Iraq than it did in Mogadishu. You might want to try not shooting yourself in the foot when you’re slamming Clinton to support Bush.

I don’t think either one of them was or is all that great a president. I do know that under Clinton we had a surplus, a solid economy and no war. Not so much with Dubya.

WMD

88

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But if everyone from all the other countries thinks Bush is wrong and we are wrong, doesn’t that say something? All you guys from Texas and the rest of the Bible Belt (I say Texas because you guys are most vocal) might not be right…and no amount of cheerleading will help that.[/quote]

Hey, I’m from Texas. Well, actually, I’m from Austin, which I’m beginning to think is not really part of Texas at all but a piece of the East coast caught in some sort of geopolitical-temporal warp.

WMD

89

[quote]ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date?

No one is blaming Clinton for the attacks. They are blaming him for not responding appropriately to the attacks. Do you see the difference?

[/quote]

Sorry, but I just saw this. I understand now, you guys would’ve preferred it if Clinton invaded some country under false pretenses.

90

[quote]slimjim wrote:
ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date?

No one is blaming Clinton for the attacks. They are blaming him for not responding appropriately to the attacks. Do you see the difference?

Sorry, but I just saw this. I understand now, you guys would’ve preferred it if Clinton invaded some country under false pretenses.[/quote]

Only if he was republican. There would have been no public support to invade any other country during President Clinton’s term. The only reason the “war in Iraq” had public support, is because most associated it with the attack on the WTC and everyone wanted revenge. This was played on well by the current administration as Bin Laden was slowly replaced with Saddam as if they were interchangeable. Telling yourself that it didn’t go down like this doesn’t make it so. Anyone paying attention could see what was happening. There were simply enough people acting like cattle to rope the United States into going after a country that was not coming after us.

Further, we are not “fighting them over there”. Anyone with the potential to do the US harm is more than likely already here. Our actions simply create more of the people we are supposed to be getting rid of.

91

[quote]slimjim wrote:

Sorry, but I just saw this. I understand now, you guys would’ve preferred it if Clinton invaded some country under false pretenses.[/quote]

No, actually I would have preferred a direct strike on the terrorist country as Bush did with Afghanastan. Clinton did nothing. Do you think Clinton doing nothing encouraged or discouraged more terrorism in the US?

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:

Sorry, but I just saw this. I understand now, you guys would’ve preferred it if Clinton invaded some country under false pretenses.

No, actually I would have preferred a direct strike on the terrorist country as Bush did with Afghanastan. Clinton did nothing. Do you think Clinton doing nothing encouraged or discouraged more terrorism in the US? [/quote]

I think it encouraged LESS terrorism than our current efforts in the middle east. We are giving new reason for the creation of more terrorists. I am not sure how you could think otherwise. If people aren’t afraid to die, why do you think they are afraid of us?

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:

Sorry, but I just saw this. I understand now, you guys would’ve preferred it if Clinton invaded some country under false pretenses.

No, actually I would have preferred a direct strike on the terrorist country as Bush did with Afghanastan. Clinton did nothing. Do you think Clinton doing nothing encouraged or discouraged more terrorism in the US?

I think it encouraged LESS terrorism than our current efforts in the middle east. We are giving new reason for the creation of more terrorists. I am not sure how you could think otherwise. If people aren’t afraid to die, why do you think they are afraid of us?
[/quote]

X, you are asking ZEB to use his intellect in a rational way. This will never happen. He is madly in love with George W. Bush and does not understand why this president’s penchant for blowing things (and people) to bits could possibly turn other people towards radicalism. Nor can he imagine anyone preferring death to domination by a foreign country.

You’re just talkin’ crazy.

WMD

94

Does anyone else picture Zeb as Slim Pickens riding the nuke at the end of Dr. Strangelove?

“Yeeeeeeeeee-hah! Give war a chance, ya yella-bellies!”

95

That’s where you’re wrong professor, clinton invaded 3 countries and placed us in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. He fled Somalia because he had no real plan and 19 Rangers and Delta operators were killed and dragged thru the streets. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo. For the record when we invaded Kosovo in '99 they wanted a stable Government on the ground and running in by 2000. See thats where you are just wrong great professor there are 3 invasions during the clinton admin. I wasn’t in Bosnia so I don’t know if there were any fire fights. I know for a fact there were in Somalia and Kosovo, extended periods of US involvement in battlefield operations in both.

96

I almost forgot Haiti, Haiti makes 4 foreign countries invaded during clintons’ admin. Throw in the USS COLE, WTC one, Kohbar towers in saudi arabia, and the US embassies in kenya and tanzania. There you have an administration that invaded 4 countries -well now it’s really five if you include operation Desert Fox in ‘98- failed to act in 6 separate terrorist attacks against American interests and lied under oath to save face. Let’s also not forget that OBL didn’t plan 9/11 in GW’s first 8 months in office, I’m not saying Bushs’ admin doesn’t receive some blame but that was 8 years of clinton admin failing to respond to terrorism.

97

[quote]WMD wrote:
Hey, I’m from Texas. Well, actually, I’m from Austin, which I’m beginning to think is not really part of Texas at all but a piece of the East coast caught in some sort of geopolitical-temporal warp.

WMD[/quote]

If you are from Austin, please don’t defile the word Texan by calling yourself one. You are many things, but you are not a Texan.

98

[quote]snipeout wrote:
That’s where you’re wrong professor, clinton invaded 3 countries and placed us in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. He fled Somalia because he had no real plan and 19 Rangers and Delta operators were killed and dragged thru the streets. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo. For the record when we invaded Kosovo in '99 they wanted a stable Government on the ground and running in by 2000. See thats where you are just wrong great professor there are 3 invasions during the clinton admin. I wasn’t in Bosnia so I don’t know if there were any fire fights. I know for a fact there were in Somalia and Kosovo, extended periods of US involvement in battlefield operations in both.[/quote]

You’re right, we did invade Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. I apologize for only focusing on Iraq. Bosnia showed the end of restraint by the Clinton adminstration when it comes to the instigation of war. Millions died before we stepped in 1995. Going back through the history books, I am amazed even further now at those who claim that Clinton did nothing during his time as president, even though his efforts to resist going to war could be described as going too far leading to disasters.

“The October 3, 1993 U.S. raid on Somalia, in which 18 soldiers and two Black Hawk helicopters were lost, is often remembered as a tragic fiasco.” ?Wall Street Journal

Kosovo showed that Clinton had nothing in mind but the defense of human rights. He could have sat back and allowed the Serbs to finish off the Kosovo Liberation Army. He didn’t.

You mentioned that Clinton fled Somalia because he had no real plan. It appears that some would disagree as far as that mission being a total failure:

“[I]t’s not America’s darkest hour, but America’s brightest hour.” ?Joe Roth, head of Revolution Films, makers of Black Hawk Down

from
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060941

It seems we pulled out because Clinton didn’t want more Americans dead. Am I wrong for not finding him completely wrong for his action?

99

[quote]You believe it is so, but that’s not what you are arguing. You are simply arguing that it COULD be so, because the reasoning for saying it couldn’t be so is faulty. WOW

The subtle difference in arguing against anothers viewpoint because it differs from yours–yet you are not arguing your viewpoint is just a ridiculous position. For once vroom, admit a stance and argue on its merits. Not some one shot sniper bullshit that you believe yourself to be so great at.

So you do believe the guy’s a moron, but you’re not manning up for that type of discussion. You’re just shooting down those that think the guy has any intellect at all.

CLASSIC!![/quote]

That’s pretty sad Sasquatch.

You don’t get it do you? Here we are arguing with people that have rabid cheerleading viewpoints and you expect both sides to simply state their viewpoint and move on?

No, we talk about what is wrong with the others viewpoint… why they are incorrect.

However, if you are too stupid to notice the difference between arguing against an issue and arguing for the opposite issue, I guess that is your problem. It’s a common though, I have to say.

If you want to have any chance at getting someone to think about what you are saying, you have to pry your way into their mindset. Getting them to see a logical fallacy in their thinking is great way to do this.

I guess since you are the master and commander of the known universe you don’t actually ever have to “convince” anyone of anything, they just acquiese to your will…

And yes, I’m happy to state I think he’s a moron, and why, and I have before.

These things are my judgements and I cannot prove them all, but I think he is just a fun guy who’s never had to learn to be responsible for anything. He jokes and used to party all the time, can’t speak worth a shit, and has very limited vision with respect to the outcomes of his actions. This helped him run all his business endeavors into the ground. He comes from a rich family with powerful connections and has been looked after his entire life. He has too much by way of religion, class and race distinctions as far as I’m concerned. He and his administration do not take appropriate responsibility for negative outcomes. He engages in rampant cronyism and searches for ways to justify his viewpoint instead of searching for reality and then forming a viewpoint.

However, that wasn’t the topic of discussion, was it? This wasn’t about me trying to prove he was an ignoramus, and because it isn’t provable I wouldn’t waste my time trying to do so. For those that think he is great and are cheerleaders, I would instead try to point out that that it is entirely possible that he is a moron even though he has achieved X and Y.

That’s about all I’d realistically hope to achieve – to get people to think on the possibility, and perhaps even admit it might be possible, though it was not their own judgement.

If that was achieved, then it might be possible to have a reasoned discussion on why each party had decided their position. Oh no, that would be horrible.

Anyway, for the master and commander of the known universe, your vision is awfully limited.

100

Micheal, damn, now THAT is classic!!!

By the way, I’m not trying to look smart, I really like the matrix like cable that appears to be sticking out of the back of my head…