Dear Mr. President...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

Clinton played word games. I’m not in any way suggesting this is a good thing, but in probability it would mean he didn’t actually lie.

No vroom actually he did lie under oath and was impeached!

Will that stop people from calling him a liar? Of course not.

Again, there is a difference between having very strong feelings and being pissed off and being in a state of hatred.

We are often in a position of having to believe things about politicians based on incomplete information. Making a judgement call based on the information available is part of how it works.

Making a “judgement call” is not calling someone a “criminal” without proof. If Bush were a private citizen it would be called Slander!

This is obviously done by conservatives when judging Kerry. It’s not like Kerry has a track record as president to condemn him for. However, he is condemned very strongly indeed.

Yes, he is condemned for his liberal voting record and flip-flopping on the issues. Both fair game.

You are just off in Zebland looking for ways to call others negative when they have a different interpretation than yours.

And you are off in “vroomland” by attempting to rationalize calling someone a “criminal” without proof as politics as usual. It is not, it is hateful, dishonest and untrue!

I’d venture to say that it is pretty clear to many folk around here. You may not feel it is so, but I certainly am not filled with hatred for thinking that way. I have no proof other than the posts I see you make.

I never thought you were filled with hatred. You simply defend those who are filled with hatred because they fall on your side of the political fence.

The general public doesn’t require absolute proof to make judgements. Sure, the legal system requires something approaching real proof, but that is another matter entirely. President Bush is a fair target for speculation and criticism because he chose to run for public office.

I agree a public figure is indeed open to criticism that private people are not. However, that does not change the facts. When you call somone a “criminal” even if they are a public figure, you need proof. Otherwise, your credibility goes out the window.

The same is true for Kerry. The same is true for you and I, for becoming involved in this forum. If you can seperate the passion in the message from the feelings of the poster, what I’m saying will simply drop into place.[/quote]

I accept the fact that we can all become passionate regarding our favorite political candidates. However, as I have always stated: Attack the issues not the candidate, otherwise rancor rules. And when this happens all polite discourse is set aside along with real issues. Is that what you want? Seems so as long as it is perpatrated against a republican!

We need less Michael Mooores in this world and more Sen Libermans. Less Rush Limbaughs and more John McCains. I hope you agree.

82

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If the rules have changed then I suppose I can call anyone a liar at anytime about any issue…make sense? No.

Gee, isn’t that what the Patriot Act allows with no boundaries intact?

Professor:

Please tell us all about the Patriot act. Teach us what is wrong with it and what is right about it, if anything. Go ahead…

Teach you? Well, class, let’s begin with the power to obtain information that required warrants before while allowing the ability for the institution doing the research to withhold the fact that the individual in question is being investigated. In the pure aspect of terrorists, this sounds great. If someone is about to blow up a building, I would love to know ahead of time. However, for people who can see further than the immediate future and know from history that human nature eventually corrupts any absolute power, it seems clear that this can also be used against those who are not planning on blowing anything up…all it takes is for someone to say that they are. That means that for this to avoid that potential conflict, there need to be limitations in place. President Bush is against limiting the scope of the Patriot Act while Kerry is FOR the Patriot Act but with limitations. That’s all for now, class. For refreshments, I made little cookies in the shape of Kerry’s head and also in the shape of little Heinz ketchup bottles. [/quote]

Prof:

I suggest you stop drinking that Koolaid along with your cookies…LOL.

Go back and take a look at the “freedoms” that were lost during our historys wars. Begin with the Civil War. Do some research you might be surprised at what you find. The Patriot Act is actually pretty mild compared to past practices. Now scoot…go look it up :slight_smile:

83

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s called criticism Mage, you and I don’t have to agree with it, but that doesn’t make it hatred. [/quote]

Then why are you complaining about my criticism of his ?criticism??

Obviously

[quote]I’m guessing his opinion is that Bush sucks. His reasons for this opinion are pretty clear when you read the statements made.

As for the Taliban statement, I’m guessing this implies that Bush is a bit of an extremist. [quote]

Really? Bush an extremist? I thought it was extremist to compare Bush with the Taliban.

If you mean do I try to understand where a person is coming from? Yes I do. I don?t come to my opinions blindly like many. I don?t get my ideas from one party, or any one person. My beliefs are my own.

I doubt anyone can convince anyone else on this forum. Most people are keeping their minds closed. This is unfortunate.

You still don?t seem to get it. This is not about issues, so I am against it. You cannot see the blatant hate there. Sure it is on the right also, but not at barely the voracity of the left.

I understand that the left has their opinions, some of which I may agree with, but it does nothing to further your position if it your tactic is to take those you disagree with, and destroy them. If there is some substance, it should be presented.

Over the weekend I heard about a little documents that could really hurt Kerry, but I have no information as to the substance, and am not positive about the conclusions people have made about them, so I have not mentioned them. Why? Because I refuse to go down that road, and if true, should be dealt with after the election. (If it was about Bush it would be front page news.)

This is an attack. It is opinion, but it is hate filled.

84

Oops, lost the quote stopper.

85

Mage,

Surely you know that whoever is in the position of power will bear the brunt of the attacks.

This will be true whether it is Kerry or it is Bush.

I don’t think it is fair to claim liberals are filled with hatred simply because they have issues with the sitting administration. There is no one else to talk about right now!

Well, except for Clinton, which some conservatives just can’t let go of… :wink:

If Kerry were to win, over the course of a year or two, the so-called media bias will swing against his administration and the vocal criticisms will all be coming from “hate filled” conservatives who believe every single hair-brained conspiracy theory.

The reason I am “sticking up” for the original post is because to many people, though perhaps not myself, many of the points have been “proven” to their satisfaction.

As an opinion piece, quoting “proven” facts, there isn’t a need to resort to hatred to voice an immense dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. The “proven” facts back up the message quite adequately.

I’m not against countering the message if you disagree with it. Knock yourself out. However, dismissing it as hatred doesn’t cut it. It’s a poor argument meant to discredit democrats as a group.

If you do really try to disprove the “facts” as displayed, I’m pretty sure there will be a lot of heated discussion about the interpretation and basis for those facts.

I mean, if half the nation feels very strongly about the issues stated, it would be wise to not simply dismiss them as motivated by hatred. There is obviously a basis for reasonable men and women to be concerned, even if absolute conclusions are not easy to draw.

When half the nation shares an opinion, I think it would be wise to pay more attention to that opinion. Dismissing it as simple liberal hatred is not a very intelligent approach, in my opinion, for whatever it is worth anyway.

The same is true, of course, for any peaceniks out there. I believe the majority of the populace wants a war against terrorists. Simply shutting down all major efforts would probably be a huge mistake. If Kerry wins, I hope he stands by his words and continues to maintain a strong stand against terrorism. Neither rushing to battle nor afraid to commit to battle when it proves necessary.

However, unlike yourself, I don’t have a crystal ball… :wink:

86

As someone who makes his living by holding the lives of 18 other men in his hands I crack up when people criticize those who have been tasked to guide a nation. While many out there can make long winded posts about how Bush is a loser or how bad Kerry sucks I can bet that in a real stressful situation (not the trivial stresses of life in the developed world) most of you would freeze like deer in headlights.

87

Don’t be so sure, gocav. We’re a bunch of bad-asses. And we’ll say whatever the fuck we want, thank you very much.

88

Bush might’ve said all the things that was quoted in the original poster’s message,but it’s all before Sept 11th.

In business,adapting to change is vital.I must say that Bush was just trying to adapt to circumstances that came about after 9/11.I’m sure things could’ve been done differently but we can’t change the past.

89

gocav,

Not true in my case.

However, your point is well taken.

That has been my beef with people criticizing Bush’s intelligence.

I’d stutter/stammer a bit if I was surrounded by a very hostile press corps and the entire world watching/parsing every thing that I said or did.

I guaran-fucking-tee if George Bush and myself would stammer, most of the windbags who decry W’s supposed “lack of intelligence” would probably drool and fall over under the pressure.

Thanks for your post,

JeffR

90

Hey, all bush voters have u seen fahrenheit 9/11? might want to check that out, and before u go on a rant about it being some leftist propagandha remember that all the FACTS are true because if they werent he mr. moore would have been sued by bush for misrepesentation of facts and defamation of character.

91

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jay:

If I’m not mistaken you are about the third or fourth Canadian who is openly anit Bush. What’s up with you guys? Do you read any of us American T-men insulting your political leaders? Show a little respect for us…or not just a suggestion…:)[/quote]

our leader isnt the leader of the free world so im thinking the reason u do not post on our politicians actions is because they have no bearing on your nation, also u probably have no idea who our prime minister is

92

Boogie: You’re right about me, anyway --I have no idea who your prime Minister is. Sorry. And really it’s okay to type the word “you” all the way out.

93

Hey boogie.

All of your “facts” are nothing more than creative editing with a slanted viewpoint. Throw in some powerful images involving the war and some hip music and MM has himself another blockbuster! Leno did the same thing with the debates to produce a humerous skit.

But just for shit’s and giggles, I’ll watch farenheit 9-11(again), if you read “Micheal Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”

Fair Trade?

94

And were back.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Mage,

Surely you know that whoever is in the position of power will bear the brunt of the attacks.

This will be true whether it is Kerry or it is Bush.

I don’t think it is fair to claim liberals are filled with hatred simply because they have issues with the sitting administration. There is no one else to talk about right now! [/quote]

Again it is not all liberals, and there are conservatives that obviously hate also. This is wrong on both sides. Right now it is more on the left. The only way for the liberals to win Washington is to completely destroy Bush at all costs. This started over two years ago. It is promotion of hate just to get a person into office, and I think that is wrong. We should not be promoting hate.

If Bush loses tomorrow, it will not matter as much as how he lost. Not on the issues, but on an attack designed to destroy a persons character.

Exactly. People went overboard on their hate for Clinton. I had a lot of issues with Clinton, but everybody just went overboard. This was slightly different though. He was not hated because people wanted to get another person into office, but there was a general hate for him. That doesn?t make it any better though.

Too many on the right just went overboard, and lost all sense of reality. This foolishness also cost the Republicans the election in 96. Too much focus on the person and, not the issues.

Partly right. The right wing will become vocal again. But the media won?t swing against Kerry when he is their man. If there is a change in the media, it is only because the media is going through a fundamental change right now. The internet and cable has changed everything.

How is it proven that Bush is a stone coward?

Maybe that is why he had the hatred in there, no real facts.

Really? No I am speaking about this letter that is blatant hate. That is what it is. How does calling the Bush administration a form of Taliban an issue? What proof of this is there?

What facts? Where?

If there are concerns, why not discuss them? I didn?t see them discussed. I saw flimsy thoughts thrown out along with attack after attack on Bush. Are we talking about facts like when he said, “Even your staff members label you as the least intellectually curious President in history.” Where did this come from? I doubt this was really said by anybody in his administration.

What is the opinion that half the nation shares? I really don’t think half the nation thinks this way. Most people are moderate, and don?t sit around stewing in their own juices because of perceived injustices.

I actually think he would stand up against terror. I just believe Bush would be better at it. Now that is opinion, no hate whatsoever.

Actually I have two, and one is reactive to black light. (Totally cool.) I still need practice with it though. (No, not for divination.)

95

Loth you fucking kill me!

Boogie - Hey, all bush voters have u seen fahrenheit 9/11? might want to check that out, and before u go on a rant about it being some leftist propagandha remember that all the FACTS are true because if they werent he mr. moore would have been sued by bush for misrepesentation of facts and defamation of character.

WAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!

…

WWHHHAAAAAHAHHHHAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAA!

Can I go put myself in a cardboard box and dump myself over Niagra Falls now?

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

(and yes vegatables are good just ask Dr. JB I will gladly be the king of those too)

96

[quote]J.Boogie wrote:
Hey, all bush voters have u seen fahrenheit 9/11? might want to check that out, and before u go on a rant about it being some leftist propagandha remember that all the FACTS are true because if they werent he mr. moore would have been sued by bush for misrepesentation of facts and defamation of character.[/quote]

Uh, no. Bush has been blamed for having pre-knowledge of 911, and even causing 911, and yet Bush has not sued these people. You won?t see Bush suing Moore. This is part of political life.

And you should realize that Moore is an editing genius. He can take anything and twist it to his favor.

By using your logic, everyone should see Ferenhype911 which (I have heard) completely invalidates the movie. And there are two other documentaries out there. Another about his movie, and one about Moore. And Moore has not sued anybody as far as I know.

But I could see him suing.

97

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Prof:

I suggest you stop drinking that Koolaid along with your cookies…LOL.

Go back and take a look at the “freedoms” that were lost during our historys wars. Begin with the Civil War. Do some research you might be surprised at what you find. The Patriot Act is actually pretty mild compared to past practices. Now scoot…go look it up :slight_smile:

[/quote]

This was a very poor comeback. If anything, you should have presented why the Patriot Act should be kept without any restrictions, not compare it to the witch hunts in early America or some other political act from the past. Go on, teach, brother, teach!

98

turbot33: This may be a little off-topic, but you posted it, and it’s your thread so…

[quote]Dear Vegetable,

I don’t pretend to be an expert. I’m just going by what the guys who study this stuff say; you know, like the Nobel Prize winners that say it’s happening right now.

Bush should get his head out of the hole in the ground and at least acknowledge that global warming is indeed a possibility.

You can’t just pick and choose the truth that’s convenient.

To dismiss it without study is like kicking yourself in the nuts; a bad idea, unless you’re into that sort of thing. [/quote]

The one thing that people with the “Global Warming is Going to Fatally Kill Us All to Death” mindset forget is when the next ice age is coming. A short twenty to twenty-five years ago or so, our best scientists from a collective of different disciplines were convinced that, based on their studies of historical weather trends, archeological data, etc., we (the planet) were headed for an ice age in the next century. Yes, we were all gonna have to learn to ride those tauntauns from the “Empire Strikes Back”, and our girlfriends were going to have to figure out the best way to accessorize while wearing a parka.

Dude. The one thing that I’ve learned from all this is that you can’t predict the future. I don’t care how smart these Nobel Prize winners think they are, those same guys were talking about us all freezing to death a little while ago. There are always going to be “chicken littles” out there who are convinced that everything is bad, and doomsday is approaching. I can find you just as many respected scientists in meteorology who will tell you that global warming is bunk. They will also tell you that Mother Nature could give a crap about what we do. To think that we have the power to drastically and permanently alter the weather is to be foolishly conceited.

So, pick and choose whatever truth you want. I’m just saying that you have to at least acknowledge that global warming might indeed be a bunch of crap.

99

For your further edification, I present an article written by an admitted left-wing scientist criticizing the “hockey stick” graph which is responsible for the global warming paranoia:

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalWarming.html

He comes right out and says that he thinks that our CO2 emissions are going to be the greatest pollutants of our history, but he also admits that the “hockey stick” has some serious flaws. There are all kinds of reasons to jump to conclusions about things like this. Fame, funding, political motivations, etc., all play a factor in modern science.

I think it’s a shame when we forget that science is not gospel, but just another business.

100

Prof:

I am merely drawing a correlation with history. The Patriot Act reflects actions taken by other administrations of the past.

If you are not interested in history then you are not interested in learning why the Patriot Act is what it is.

Simply a way to expand our discussion. I hope it did not cause any undue stress.