I'm so sick of hearing people say bush has had a bad year

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mikasa11, Dec 27, 2005.

  1. mikasa11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    258
    Having a tree fall on your house is evidence of a bad year. Losing your job through no fault of your own because your company moved it overseas is a bad year. Becoming seriously ill -- that's a bad year.

    But this idea that the media keeps putting out that George Bush has simply met a string of bad luck is nauseating. The man eviscerated FEMA, and hundreds of thousands of people suffered. He started an illegal war, and people are getting maimed and killed. He okayed the illegal wiretapping of Americans. This is not simply a string of bad luck. This is called GETTING CAUGHT.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. may_wentee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Over the past five years, the world has become a 'much more dangerous' place to live since Bush was elected and then re-elected as U.S. president.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sure, but what makes you think President Bush had anything to do with it? Before 9/11, it seems that everything was just hunky-dory.

    The fact that Bush was president as evidence that it was his fault is like blaming World War II on the Prime Minister of Australia at that time!! ...LOL!

    My parents moved to New York state just prior to World War II, therefore, my parents were responsible for World War II! ....LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    That doesn't surprise me at all. I always thought Hitler and the Japanese got a bad rap.
     
  8. Barkhorn1x Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    Yea, Bush's EEEVIL weather machine targeted the poor in New Orleans, and no one ever died in Iraq before he started that Illegal war. Oh yes, I almost forgot his spying on those innocent American citizens whose phone numbers were found on captured Al Queda cell phones/laptops.

    So childish. So simplistic. So silly.

    Barkhorn.
     
  9. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Ha! Not nearly as childish as your post. "Evil weather machine" indeed! What drivel. :bugeye:
     

  10. well youve dumbed it down a bit. i think it goes more like this

    - Bush's Jacksonian faith in the Good ol boy system leads to him appointing a person with less than zero experience in managing disasters to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency which then wastes an astounding amount of time and taxpayer money in their pathetically inadequate response to the destruction of half of a state and the subsequent displacement of about 750,000 people.

    - over 2,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq fighting in a war that was declared won more than 2 years ago. it is now widely agreed that the justification for the war and these deaths never existed or was distorted intentionally to increase the sense of urgency for action in the region.

    - Bush authorized - in secret - roving wiretaps on American Citizens making calls to suspected Al Quaeda members or organizations supposedly supporting terrorist causes. This violates the FISA act of 1978 and if allowed to go on unrebuked represents a failure of the "checks and balances" system that restricts concentration of unilateral power within one branch of government. In addition to this, this circumventing of court approval makes no sense, since the USA Patriot Act allows for warrants to be procured from a secret court and those warrants can be issued retroactively if needed. this is basically spying for spyings sake. we should all be uncomfortable about it.

    so those are some of the actions bush has taken that public opinion has turned against and he is now reaping the fruit of not giving a shit about public opinion. this is what theyre talking about when they say he's had a bad year. more accurately, it should be said that as a result of some poor decision making by this administration, we (meaning the US population) have had a bad year.
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, some knowledgeable governmental/Constitutional experts and sholars seem to disagree with you. And, I might add, apparently it's not so clear to congress either, because they're now trying to seek out an investigation into whether or not it was/is illegal.

    ...and yet you seem to know much more than all of those experts. How?

    Baron Max
     
  12. hardly anyone disagrees about that point actually, it IS in violation of the FISA act, the legal issue revolves around whether or not congress's authorization allowing the president to use "all necessary means" to combat terrorism overrides the authority of the FISA act. even if they come to the conclusion that congress did give the president the authority to do it, they must then contend with the issue of whether or not congress has the authority to grant the president a power that seems to clearly violate the 4th amendment of the constitution. it seems less of a question of whether or not its legal, and more of one about finding out what law it violates. i dont seem to know more than the experts, i just know something. and i wouldnt put too much faith in experts either, its just an opinion with some fancy letters to back it up, nothing more.
     
  13. Barkhorn1x Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    Yes, especially if you are an Al Queda terrorist - or a Taliban fighter. Under the Clinton administration you could pretty much kill w/ impunity.

    Barkhorn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006
  14. Barkhorn1x Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    Katrina /FEMA = FEMA is NOT a first responder – that is the responsibility of cities and states – who did a fine job of botching their end of the bargain. FEMA did not do to badly despite – or because of Brown. He was a crony appointment and not the best man for the job, that sucks but it happens all the time – it’s called politics and was not invented by Bush.

    Iraq = Yea, Bush took out a brutal dictator and is now going about rebuilding the country and giving them a representative government. And all at the cost in dead that is still less than that experienced by the catalyst event – 9/11.
    Wiretapping of American = …who are having phone conversations w/ Al Queda members! That is the part that needs to be stressed again and again. The 1st and 4th amendments are still applicable 99.9999% of the time. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    In general, too many of you are like little children who are ignorant of – and totally misunderstand - history and human nature. Your “therapeutic” mindset renders you incapable of putting things in perspective as you wail against the unfairness of a natural disaster, the death of a soldier or the supposed trampling of ones rights – and the imperfect responses to these calamities. So what do you do? Throw a tantrum and blame (bad) daddy Bush – as if there were no ills in the world before the (stolen) 2000 election.

    As Victor Davis Hansen sums it:
    Pitiful really.

    Barkhorn.
     
  15. no, but because its that way doesnt mean it should be. i for one, think i should not only be able to expect, but demand that our government do its best to find the right people for the job no matter how big or small. partisan politics is not an excuse for corruption and failure to act effectively. this isnt the 1840's.
    FEMA may not be a first responder, but its ridiculous that a state should have to ASK them to come in before they pull their heads out of their asses and help some people. fuck, why do we even pay taxes to fund a project like that? the new orleans situation needed all the help they could get, yet FEMA people are sitting around on their asses not doing anything, and even worse not even knowing where the problems were until the TV reporters tell them about them in the middle of an interview. it was a disgrace whether it was made worse by the inaction of the mayor of new orleans and governor of louisiana or not.

    how was 9/11 a catalyst event for the war in iraq? everyone knew the Iraq/Al Quaeda link was tenuous at best, or at worst ficticious even before the war started. youre comparing two different things here. the point is that the war in iraq had zero to do with the war on terror until we destroyed the country and islamic fundamentalist insurgents came pouring over the borders looking to establish a foothold in the chaotic mess that iraq is bound to be for the next decade or so. we took out a brutal dictator - so what? there are some dictators in Africa that make Sadaam look like fucking Martha Stewart, why dont we go there and do some good too? why not North Korea even? shit, why dont we go sack Israel for murdering thousands of palestinians and stealing their land in direct violation of several UN resolutions? something just doesnt add up and people are finally realizing it. we have spent about 300$ billion on rebuilding iraq when we didnt even have to destroy it in the first place, and yet our government can somehow not provide us with universal health care or adequately fund social security and MEDICAID because of a lack of money? why, if we are so broke, would we pay billions to completely demolish and then rebuild some other country? does that make any sense to anyone?
    then to the issue of giving them a representative government - we arent. we are giving them a government that we will fucking fiddle around with until the correct number of kurds, shi'ites, and suni's are involved in it so they dont start slaughtering each other in some civil war. but how long will that last? and how persuasive will the islamic fundamentalist arguments seem to the iraqis when they find out we are pulling all the strings on their little democracy? as brutal as they were, sadaam's tactics may have been the only ones that would hold those three ethnic groups in check.
    yet here we are 2,000 americans dead and we seem to be taking steps backwards. what a price to pay for progress.

    its americans who are having conversations with SUSPECTED Al Quaeda members. and whether they are or not if its illegal then they shouldnt be doing it. its a violation. it is the worst kind of politics that manipulates peoples worst fears to get them to give up rights and allow concentrations of power in the hands of those that dont deserve it or will abuse it. that is the nest egg of half of the atrocities perpetrated on people throughout the whole of history, i thought you would have known that since you seem to think that we are all historically ignorant. the 1st and 4th amendments were written as to be applicable 100% of the time to 100% of the citizenry of this country, the threat of terrorism is not an excuse for disrespecting the fundamental values that our culture is built upon. the constitution is not a suicide pact, but people have gladly given up their lives in defense of the rights stated within it, living in a free society that is not ruled by fear is the goal of our war on terrorism, and Bush pushes that free society one step closer to the grave with secretive and illegal shit like this for which there is no excuse.

    maybe you need to rethink it.

    theres more than one way to win a war, but if you come out of it having destroyed what you were originally trying to stop someone else from destroying, then you've lost it all.
     
  16. Barkhorn1x Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    Sigh, so many Moveon.org talking points and naiveté on display.

    Again, how childish to think that political corruption and patronage while perfectly acceptable in 1840 should have disappeared by now, when neither supposition is accurate.

    Point by point:
    - There was NO link between 9/11 and Iraq
    - There WERE well documented links between Al Queda and Iraq
    - First stop was Afganistan - and I'll bet you were against that one as well
    - After that it was logical to attack the only Arab state directly hostile to the US, close to having WMD and w/ documented ties to terror - in order to break w/ the "realist" past and change the sick dynamic in the region (that you believe none of that is really immaterial)
    - Islamic fundamentalists had to go somewhere, better to kill them in Iraq than have to deal w/ another 9/11 in the US
    - Iraq has turned a corner and things will improve rapidly over the next 6 months - but I'm sure you'll focus ONLY on the next IED and the resultant casualties and the one after that and the one after that.

    This quote really typifies the gulf between my world view and yours. I don't expect the government to do jack for me and I resent paying high taxes because the money is rarely put to good use. You on the other hand want a full blow Euro-mommy state (unsustainable in the long-term) where you can live off of others toil.

    ...and the people of Iraq spit on you for your utter contempt for them and their ability to govern themselves.

    Again, you parade your ignorance of history as you chant your 2,000 dead mantra. Do you have any idea the price paid in dead on other battlefields - in other wars? I would guess not.

    Yawn - and I really mean FUCKING YAWN - with your pathetic slippery slope argument. Bush couldn't even get Congress to go along w/ renewing the Patriot Act or get a conviction on Sami Al-Arian. In the universe that I live in, where the ACLU and the NYT aid and abet terrorists and the rest of the MSM are almost as hostile, your Bush = Hitler moral relativism is a fucking joke!

    Barkhorn.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There are no Iraqi people, only ethnic groups artificially made into a nation by the British, and held together by a brutal dictator until recently.

    true
    false
    Almost everyone was for that, only we didn't finish it and the Taliban never left. Now the Taliban are making heroin to finance terrorism, good job Bush.
    What about the London and Spain subway bombings? Invading Iraq didn't stop them, did it? And where's our border security? Airplane security? Port security? Emergency response capability? Non-existent. It's irrelevant if you disagree with FEMA's role, the fact is they didn't do the job they were supposed to do because Bush appointed a political crony instead of a professional.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So ....when, exactly, have they ever shown the ability to do that??

    Baron Max
     
  19. Barkhorn1x Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158

    I did not want to let this one go as I am sick of hearing this “received wisdom” passed on again and again when it is contradicted by the intelligence available to both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

    First a host of pertinent links:

    http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/33355/view?viewtype

    …and some quotes from just one article:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
    Case Closed
    From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

    It’s a fact – deal with it.

    Barkhorn.
     
  20. ive never been to MoveOn.org and i dont even really know what it is except for a psuedo-curse word to conservative pundits. i think i remember hearing rush limbaugh talk about it when he was bashing that cindy sheehan woman, but other than that, sorry my friend i dont do talking points.



    childish and idealistic are not the same thing. neither are naivete and desire for improvement. you have these things seriously mixed up. i was not saying that political corruption and patronage were acceptable in 1840 nor were they invented then, what i meant was that our government has become far more complex since then and our population depends on it to provide a wider range of services, many of them crucial. since the entire system is funded by the hard earned money of the taxpayers, we should feel justified in being pissed off about the fact that Bush appoints his unskilled political allies to posts that require years of training, expertise, and experience to be properly filled. it was different in the 1840s and 50s when the department of the interior put out one forest fire a year and spent the rest of the time chasing indians around, American citizens lives weren't at stake and the people weren't as aware of what the government was doing. they were more content to trust those in power as long as the status quo was maintained. i dont think they should have been, but there is certainly no excuse for that kind of attitude now, when billions of dollars are being wasted and our citizens are being killed fighting pointless wars in foreign countries from which we as a nation reap almost no discernable benefit, not even a significant drop in oil prices.



    Point by point:
    thats what i said.

    thats not true. Islamic Fundamentalists never liked Iraq when it was under Sadaam's control because he led a SECULAR society. at one point i believe Osama Bin Laden even issued a Fatwah against Sadaam calling for his overthrow in order that the Iraqis could establish an Islamic government like that of the one that existed in Iran at the time. that "evidence" of a link that you posted is not much more then another dose of faulty pre-war intelligence.
    i didnt have a problem with Afganistan, the intelligence seems to have been good on that one, as the Taliban had done everything to support Al Queda except post signs at the border crossings saying "The Home of Al Queda Terrorist Training Camps".

    it was not logical. Sadaams society had been close to crippled during the first Gulf War, Sadaam himself may have had money, but he was busy building palaces and filling them with extravagent things, not personally financing a WMD program, especially since UN weapons inspectors had been there on and off for about 8 years and had eventually been given access to nearly every single bit of Iraqi territory. I'd also like to point out that no one has found even a shred of evidence that Sadaam had any type of viable WMD or biotech program going on in the years leading up to the war. our leaders selectively interpreted specific pieces of intelligence and ignored others in order to support what amounts to a foregone conclusion that we needed to go to war with iraq. now that weve been in there for a few years the situation has clearly changed since nearly every justification we had for the war in the first place has proven to be non-existent. you dont kill thousands of people based on some miguided suspicion. when did "shoot first and ask questions later" become such a good idea? its war, not a fucking video game, those people arent coming back alive, and we arent gaining anything except lots of animosity from the other 80% of the world that realized what a retarded idea this was in the first place. so who are the big winners in all of this? the iraqi people who now have the right to vote in sham elections and are being killed in greater numbers now than when the war was still going on? all we did was set them up for civil war and create a playground for muslim fundamentalist terrorists. so instead of being tortured by Sadaam and his goons, theyre being blown up, shot at, kidnapped and beheaded by someone else. pretty sweet deal.

    oh well then, if trapping all the terrorists in Iraq was such a success, why the fuck does our president think he needs to monitor our phone calls and email because people in our country are talking to Al Queda? theyre still here, and they'll still be here, long after we have given away all our freedoms so that we can feel safe at night, and long after we think we've taken them down in iraq. if those people are bent on another 9/11, then the truth is if we dont change policy to convince them that we arent the enemy that they think we are, then there will be another disaster at some point. and then what? what happens when theres no one left to lock down, and the country cant tighten its belt anymore and sacrifice convenient personal rights for security? do we start putting muslims in camps maybe?

    heres what has happened. the iraqis have had an election. this time all three major ethnic groups participated, the sunni minority lost out big time and the US is already talking about how they can lean on the coalition to be more "all inclusive" once its formed. even worse, the secular party headed by prime minister Iyad Allawi hardly even broke 10% of the vote in most provinces. how does that bode for the American interests in Iraq since Allawi was our puppet? the Sunnis have few, but some credible claims of voter fraud in Baghdad where they are the majority population but failed to take more than 18% of the vote. what do you think will happen over the course of the next year as America begins its draw-down of troops in Iraq? do you think things will get better, more under-control? what happens when we are finally forced to get out entirely in order to save political face in the international community? what happens when our leaders can no longer exert pressure on a governing coalition to be "all-inclusive"? do you think that once they see the benefits of having a government that includes all ethnic groups they will just toss aside 1,000 years of strife and say "hell, we should have done this a long time ago"? of course not.



    no, i dont want to live in a welfare state, i would just as soon see a lot of social programs done away with. here again, you fail to understand anything about me. what im saying is this, clearly, our government does not support lessening the tax burden on the average person, despite how many people would like to not pay 50% of their annual income in taxes. the tax base allows politicians to apportion and distribute money in ways that will make them look good, line their pockets with contributions, and get re-elected. thats why the desires of the "people" are utterly irrelevant. we may have a 1 or 2% drop in taxes here and there to quell public dissatisfaction, but never anything meaningful.
    Bush and the republicans in congress, despite their social program cutting, tax slashing ways, have run up a gigantic public tab prosecuting some type of personal vendetta in the middle east, so that now we hardly have enough money to help the victims of a natural disaster in our own country. what i am saying is hey, if i have to pay so much in taxes, i would like something for it. i would like not to pay 1200$ a year in health care, i would like to not hear that the social security system that i pay into isnt ever going to pay me back because people in my parent's generation are going to suck it the fuck dry. i would like to not hear that a publicly traded company that makes 500 billion dollars a year in profit and hasn't paid income tax since 1973 has to lay off 30,000 workers because health benefits cost too much. i would like not to pay $2.65 for a gallon of gas when we just invaded and took over the country with the world's second largest oil reserves. i would like not to hear that we cant fix social security and we cant have free health care because there isnt enough money, when we just threw 300$ billion into ANOTHER COUNTRY'S ECONOMY. i would like to reap A benefit from paying my taxes, period. in short, i would like to stop getting completely fucked when everyone BUT the taxpayer seems to be getting a huge break. taxes at the moment are the worst deal in the world to me, i would rather take $10,000 a year and throw it in a fire. dont presume to know what i want.



    .
    i see that you are the representative of the iraqi people now. they cant govern themselves. when have they ever been a real democracy? shit, they are just a bunch of ethnic groups with an arbitrary border placed around them, before that they warred with each other constantly and never even made an attempt to live together.



    actually i do. the problem is that with most other american wars (excepting vietnam) there was a valid point or a principle or an idea worth attacking someone for, or worth defending ourselves from. this is not that kind of war. this is the classic pitfall of an imperial power, whether their empire is measured in land wealth or cultural influence, we are seeking to force countries to live by the rules and demands of the western culture that depends on that region of the world for a large percentage of a valuable natural resource and at the same time spreading our forces too thin. what happens when we are fully engaged in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the Iran attacks Israel, or North Korea starts testing nukes or threatening someone with them? we wont have enough troops to do anything about it. and the whole time that is happening, China will be sitting there rubbing its greedy little hands together and waiting for the moment where it can overtake us as the worlds largest economic and military superpower. dont tell me about history, you obviously have not learned any of its lessons.



    none of that changes the fact that giving up freedom does not guarantee greater security. in addition to that, in a democracy, the people demand transparency at all levels of government and it is their right to do so as citizens. The Patriot act hasnt been defeated, not even close. the only thing that happened to it is that it has been extended for 6 months while congress debates making small changes to 4 provisions in it. and the only reason that has even taken place is because Bush has lost so much credibility that the Republicans in congress are afraid that outright support for some of his less popular policies will result in the loss of control of congress during upcoming mid-term elections. wake up. the universe that you live in is a fantasy.
     
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Seconded.
     
  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Myth and false representation. Furthermore the US system actually doesn't seem to be sustainable. Poor getting poorer, rich getting richer, more and more outsourcing, Increase in national debt etc.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I guess it's OK that we spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq, but somehow spending money on poor people in the US is abhorent?

    I wouldn't trust the ideologue Douglas J. Feith to tell the truth about anything. And you conveniently left of any contrary views, just like Bush.

    INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda.
     

Share This Page