Today while listening to NPR, I heard GW make the following statement regarding the sale of 6 US ports to a UAE based company.
quote:People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.
You can hear the Full Story at NPR if your interested. The quote above can be found at 1:30 into the broadcast.
I was struck how that statement could easily be taken in two ways which have nearly opposite meanings.
Has anyone heard any other good "double entendres' in the news lately?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I haven't, but that one is certainly an instant classic.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
"Born with a silver foot in his mouth."
Oh, wait. That was his Dad, right?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: "Born with a silver foot in his mouth."
Oh, wait. That was his Dad, right?
Perhaps a genetic defect.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Clearly a dominant trait...
Posted by Infrared (Member # 9196) on :
Too bad it isn't deleterious...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Infrared: Too bad it isn't deleterious...
To bad it's deleterious to us rather than them.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oye vey. Only 3 more years we have to put up with him... They couldn't possibly go by quickly enough.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Only 3 more years? What were you doing three years ago? I can't even remember, think I was still in highschool. Ugh. Bush... So embarassing.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by RyanINPnet: Come on people. What else could you ask for. George W. Bush actually cares for the people, he wants to protect us, and he really wants to do a good job. I don't understand some people.
Oh, man. That was a good laugh.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:You just say stuff like this for attention, and frankly it disgusts me. He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
I'm sure you felt the same way during Clinton's impeachment proceedings. I'm equally sure that, had Kerry been elected, you would have sucked it up and done your best to support him in a respectful manner.
quote:You just say stuff like this for attention, and frankly it disgusts me. He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
You just say stuff like this for attention. Hey, I can say that no matter WHAT you post!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
Why on earth should you respect someone who you don't like or agree with? Who you think might even be damaging your country? What happens if you don't? Do you have to go and sit in the naughty corner? The road to dictatorship, she begins here.
It's called free speech. Something that America is supposed to encourage. After all, if Americans always agreed with the person who was nominally in charge, they'd have a monarchy right now. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I can easily respect people I disagree with. I can respect someone I don't like, under the right circumstances. I can even respect someone whom I think is damaging the country, if I judge their motives to be pure.
I don't have to respect someone that doesn't respect me, and acts accordingly.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I try to respect everyone, but I respectfully think that G.W. Bush is trying his best to preside over the dismantling of our free society and democracy, and the substitution of a dictatorship in its place. And I don't think that's a good thing. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
"I'd like to double her entendre!"
— The Todd
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I respectfully think that G.W. Bush is trying his best to preside over the dismantling of our free society and democracy, and the substitution of a dictatorship in its place.
I respectfully think that anyone who thinks this is trying her best to encourage the dismantling of honest political discourse and the substitution of hyperbolic misrepresentation in its place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not to derail the thread or anything, but seriously RyanINPnet, it's one thing to respect the presidency, another thing entirely to respect the president, and if Orincoro feels embarrassed by our president than it is perfectly acceptable that Orincoro state it publicly.
Beyond which, Bush is AT BEST an incompetent president. At worst, he's the anti-christ, if you believe all the stuff floating out there about him.
Is it not right for Americans to feel shame that their leader is doing a bad job? Respect is earned, not inherited with a title.
Now, if you truly belive that GWB -is- doing a good job and -deserves- your respect, then feel free to give it, but do not disregard other people's opinions as just trying to get attention.
Why do you think that the impeachment process is there? If the people of this country think the president is leading them astray he can be removed from office. What, you think just because he's "leader of the free world" he shouldn't be questioned or doubted? Come on.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The fact that six major ports in the US are going to be operated by a company from the United Arab Emirates and the President has vowed to veto any bill that seeks to block that sale I think puts the lie to his caring about us, or our safety.
Under what possible scenario would this move not make it several orders of magnitude easier for a potential terrorist to slip into a highly placed position with access and decision-making authority sufficient to reduce the chances that smuggled items would be detected?
Allowing the emirs, Saudis and other arab chieftains to purchase parts of the US also insures that after we ween ourselves from the oil-based economy, billions of dollars will continue to flow into countries that are a hair's-breath from becoming radicalized, that have no tradition of openness of either their society or their economies, and which have established a clear policy against democracy as we know it (still ruled by sheikdoms in the separate countries).
UAE is a major drug transshipment point from East Asia.
They were identified as one of the major funding sources for Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
Sure, their government cooperated with us post-9/11, but isn't just a bit naive to think that they are going to pay a lot of attention to background checks of every person they send over here to be involved in the management of OUR ports?
And what happens if the radical islamists take over pieces of the UAE?
It's largest ethnic group is from Iran. Maybe they are all exiles from the islamist regime there. Most of the Persians I've had the pleasure to meet are not really enamored of the Iranian state as it exists today, that's for sure. But Iran is apparently not without influence in UAE. If we go to war with Iran (which seems more than just a little likely given the situation over nuclear weapons), are we really sure we can predict the sympathies within the UAE?
I think the President is absolutely nuts to support this. My BS detector is telling me that he or his friends stand to benefit financially from this transaction, and that he's paying off favors -- like them letting us stage troops inside the UAE in various conflicts, so we "owe" the ruling families within the Emirates some payback.
Ugh.
[ February 25, 2006, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The people on the other end of this might be kind of nuts as well. If public sentiment goes sufficiently against foreign ownership of US strategic resources, there's not a lot they could do to stop some future Administration from nationalizing all of it.
Just as was done with many private (US & British) oil company resources throughout the oil-producing countries in Arabia and South & Central America.
It seems Shell is on the verge of losing its investment in Nigeria at the moment too. Something about poisoning the environment and leaving the country in poverty despite huge oil revenues.
Hmm...I can name that tune in 2 notes...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, I will not trust and respect him. I try to keep an open mind. Try to look at things from all sides, but most of what I have seen of Bush has been incompetence, stubbornness and more incompetence. He will not listen to anyone that doesn't agree with him. He seldom listens to reason or logic. That budget he is trying to push, horrible. Where's the logic of high unnessasary tax cuts and cutting funding to things like Americorps or making it even harder for people to fund an education? People like me who might not have even gotten to GO to college in the first place, who may have had to be restless and miserable as they are relugated to the lowest end lowest paying jobs possible because of a lack of education. Ridiculous. Him and his ilk are selling our future for their own profit now. I am tired of these people and their bumbling, their lack of organization and they way they state that their policies are good for us and helpful, when really, it's just so... FRUSTRATING.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not opposing political discourse. I'm contributing to it.
1. He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all. 2. He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation. 3. He thinks torture is fine and dandy. If people's outrage keeps him from doing it here, he thinks it's okay to outsource it to other countries. 4. He demonstrated a criminial lack of concern for the safety and welfare of American citizens in New Orleans after Katrina. 5. 1 - 3 demonstrate that, contrary to his oath, he isn't upholding our constitution, rather, he's dismantling it. 6. He thinks in wartime that the commander in chief is an absolute dictator. He has defined wartime as being all the time from now on. 7. He plays on people's fears to gain more power for himself. 8. He's trying to make government and his administration less and less accountable to anyone for anything. 9. He's spending a whole lot of money that we don't have. 10. His rationale for everything is "trust me". 11. He cuts off funding for any science that doesn't tell him the answers he wants to hear. Lysenkoism is his scientific methodology. 12. He acts to supress the free flow of information from Iraq, requiring the U.S. journalists there to be embedded with the troops, limiting what they can see.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
What I don't understand, is firstly, why Bush and nobody in his cabinet were in the loop on this deal, and if true, why is it so critical to them that the deal go through?
Bush has threatened a veto to foretstall any congressional oversight, and his national sec. advisor basically said the deal was irreverseable. Why?
This deal doesn't pass the smell test. Why weren't at least the cabinet officers informed? Why was congress marginalized (again)? I find it very difficult to believe that nobody in the cabinet knew about this deal before it was signed, sealed and delivered. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
He's just begging for his veto to be overturned. Or he'll have to do some more back-room wrangling like he did to get the most recent investigation halted before it started (over the warrantless search stuff).
I hope I live long enough to see the crap from this administration declassified so historians can figure out what really was going on.
In fact, I'd really be pretty pleased if we got a new Administration dedicated to open government who would just publish all of it in the next few years.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by RyanINPnet: He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
You know, I always wonder if folks who say this about GWB told Clinton jokes when he was in office.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm going to cherry-pick the easiest distortions from your list Tatiania:
quote:He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all.
Inaccurate to say the least.
quote:He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation.
It should be noted that every single person on the Supreme Court except Scalia and Stevens supports the ability of the President to hold American citizens seized on U.S. soil indefinitely (not forever - another nice little distortion there, by the way) without criminal charges being filed. This includes Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
quote:He thinks in wartime that the commander in chief is an absolute dictator. He has defined wartime as being all the time from now on.
This is so far gone from any position he has advocated that I have a hard time seeing this as anything but a lie. At best it's an inaccurate distortion based on too little research and acceptance of others lies.
quote:He acts to supress the free flow of information from Iraq, requiring the U.S. journalists there to be embedded with the troops, limiting what they can see.
This is also not true, but I can see how one would think it from the news coverage. There is no rule that U.S. journalists have to be embedded. There is a rule that certain access to troops is only given to embedded journalists. A far different thing, though, than "requiring the U.S. journalists there to be embedded with the troops."
There are lots of things to complain about this administration. Your list has many of them. But it's a far cry from trying to establish a dictatorship.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Inaccurate to say the least.
I agree with your assessment of the hyperbole except for this one, wherein I don't really understand the distinction you are making.
Is it that you think there is oversight, or that you don't think the spying involved American citizens. Or that they had warrants?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and for what it's worth, I totally understand the "feeling" that the hyperbole isn't all that far off the mark, Tatiana. I do think, however, that it's probably more constructive to be as accurate as possible in describing the things one dislikes about this President and his Administration. Otherwise, it's too easy to have your arguments dismissed by even someone who would want to have a reasonable discussion, but who starts from a position of agreeing with the President on most issues.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: hasn't the SC added a couple members since that ruling? That is, aren't there are couple whom we don't know their position on the issue for?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it that you think there is oversight, or that you don't think the spying involved American citizens. Or that they had warrants?
Of course there was oversight. There may not have been adequate oversight, or oversight by the right people - I tend to think there wasn't - but there was oversight.
quote:Dag: hasn't the SC added a couple members since that ruling? That is, aren't there are couple whom we don't know their position on the issue for?
Good point. That's true.
It wouldn't be enough to flip the balance, and the majority of the liberal wing hasn't changed, though.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In this context, oversight traditionally has meant by the courts, or congress.
Not some NSA shift operations manager.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was some oversight by each, Morbo. The intelligence committee was briefed, and at least 2 FISA judges were briefed. Each group had the power to elevate the oversight had they so chosen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Of course there was oversight. There may not have been adequate oversight, or oversight by the right people - I tend to think there wasn't - but there was oversight.
Okay, so really, you're quibbling with the word "no" and thinking it should have said "inadequate."
I don't see how this makes that point any less powerful, so I'm happy with either terminology. However, I could see a quibble in the opposite direction: that inadequate oversight, in the grand scheme of things, is indistinguishable from none at all.
In fact, the half-way job they did makes it seem more likely that they knew this wasn't kosher and tried to do the minimum possible disclosure in order to have a fallback position and some others to point blame onto later.
I don't see it being a "good faith" attempt by any stretch. So that leaves me to draw the more negative conclusion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay, so really, you're quibbling with the word "no" and thinking it should have said "inadequate."
When the accusation is one of dictatorship, the difference between no oversight and inadequate oversight is huge and definitely not a quibble. One is a factual statement, the other is an opinion about line-drawing. Many people who don't want to establish a dictatorship will disagree wildly about where the proper line for "adequate" oversight is. People complain about FISA being inadequate oversight for the warrants it issues. Others hold ongoing wiretaps to be unconstitutional without a new warrant every few days.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I didn't know about the FISA briefings. But a FISA judge resigned in protest when the program was leaked. And FISA judges certainly do not have oversight of particular cases:
quote: Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them?
GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States.
Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Bush also said that senior members of Congress had been briefed on the programme and that there was therefore congressional oversight of it.
However Democratic Senator John D Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has written to Vice President Dick Cheney complaining that the briefings are inadequate. He said that "given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."
And the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter has said he will hold hearings on the issue, especially as Judge Samuel Alito, the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, has said that he doubts if the oversight offered is adequate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545540.stm The entire intelligence commitees were not notified, AFAIK. Sen Rockefeller was notified because he was ranking democrat on the intelligence commitee--I don't think any other Dem on the committe was notified.
And even Bush's pet conservative justice thinks the oversight is inadaquate.[edit:I mean Alito]
[ February 26, 2006, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And even Bush's pet conservative justice thinks the oversight is inadaguate.
Wow. That's extremely insulting. That's the kind of thing, Morbo, that creates or ratchets up a desire to ignore you entirely.
Yay needlessly insulting partisan slander!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you for confirming my assessment, Morbo.
I never said there was oversight of individual wiretaps by anyone outside the executive branch. I said there was some oversight, and that some of it was in Congress and some in FISA. I'm not sure if it was the complete intelligence committee. Pelosi and Rockefeller were briefed because of their position on the intelligence committees.
quote:And even Bush's pet conservative justice thinks the oversight is inadaguate.
Is there a link to go with this? To which justice are you referring?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Feel free to ignore me [edit: Rakeesh].
One word, "pet", is needlessly insulting partisan slander? Whereas you can be as sarcastic as you feel like it, and still be on the high road. Whatever, dude.
I almost went with "hand-picked", but liked pet better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whoever said I was on the high road? Dude?
And yeah. Labeling a Supreme Court Justice of the USA as a political tool and pet of a sitting American president without any basis is partisan slander. Or libel. Whatever. Were you being sarcastic, then?
Or were you really suggesting that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is actually a pet of the sitting President, a pawn, and therefore a liar and breaker of his oath, someone who should be removed?
Whyever would I think that was egregiously insulting? I just cannot imagine. Cry me a river, Morbo.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:When the accusation is one of dictatorship, the difference between no oversight and inadequate oversight is huge and definitely not a quibble. One is a factual statement, the other is an opinion about line-drawing. Many people who don't want to establish a dictatorship will disagree wildly about where the proper line for "adequate" oversight is. People complain about FISA being inadequate oversight for the warrants it issues. Others hold ongoing wiretaps to be unconstitutional without a new warrant every few days.
I thought we were dealing with each point separately.
As I said, the hyperbole tends to encourage people to take NONE of the points seriously, even the good ones.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I was echoing the last line in my last quote, Dag. From a BBC story. I assume Alito's opinion came up in his confirmation hearings.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No, you suggested all that. You can cram a lot of words in my mouth from 3 letters, my man.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought we were dealing with each point separately. As I said, the hyperbole tends to encourage people to take NONE of the points seriously, even the good ones.
I interpreted them as support for the original contention.
Here's the thing: if the difference between none and inadequate weren't important, then no one should have a problem with the "quibbling" unless they think it's factually wrong.
However, if, for the purpose for which it seemed to be brought forward (see point 5), the distinction is important, then my correction isn't mere quibbling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you kidding me, Morbo? Do you really think that using the word 'pet' to describe a person isn't often (almost exclusively, in my experience) used to describe someone who sucks up, toadies, helps out, friendly with, and compliant to the person who has the 'pet'?
"Teacher's pet" for example frequently means a kiss-but who goes out of their way to look good for the teacher. It's often applied incorrectly (i.e. to a student who wants to participate and does), but that doesn't change my point. I didn't cram a bunch of meaning into your description of Justice Alito as President Bush's 'pet'.
That meaning was there with the word before and after you used it. It's possible, though, that it wasn't there while you used it. But that's your miscommunication, not mine.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:However, if, for the purpose for which it seemed to be brought forward (see point 5), the distinction is important, then my correction isn't mere quibbling.
Okey dokey. I mentally amended it to "inadequate" anyway. But then, I agreed with most of it and just heard it in my head as toned down already.
I do think that this Administration has, from the outset, decided that it would push the boundaries of Executive privelege to prove a point. And, from what I've read, that is a Cheney/Rove hot button issue, and one that GWB himself didn't really start out with as his guiding light.
It has caused them (the Administration) to assert the right to secrecy in places where the American people have come to expect transparency. I think that has caused much concern over the years. First among those who, for various reasons, disliked or distrusted GWB from the start. But now, with a string of embarrassments to point to, has started to worry all but the most partisan supporters.
What we have now is a cadre of folks who wouldn't say anything bad about the GOP even if the party had just killed their entirefamily, and then everyone else sort of looking askance (to greater or lesser degree) at what appears to be a pattern of unwarranted secrecy and an "apologize later" mentality that doesn't play well to the general population.
I don't know whether or not the Democrats are any better (I strongly expect NOT), but the way party politics work in this country, the pendulum has begun to swing and will probably head generally left for a few more years, in part because of the feelings underlying much of what Tatiana pointed to.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:What we have now is a cadre of folks who wouldn't say anything bad about the GOP even if the party had just killed their entirefamily
My brother quotes another blogger that colorfully characterized the knee-jerk partisans:
quote: all the brainless apologists of the Bush Administration that Billmon so perfectly characterized as "following every loop and corkscrew in the party line like a carload of zombies on a rollercoaster,"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What we have now is a cadre of folks who wouldn't say anything bad about the GOP even if the party had just killed their entirefamily, and then everyone else sort of looking askance (to greater or lesser degree) at what appears to be a pattern of unwarranted secrecy and an "apologize later" mentality that doesn't play well to the general population.
Good grief, Bob. Did you intent to divide the world into people who wouldn't "anything bad about the GOP even if the party had just killed their entirefamily" and people who agree with you and people "looking askance" at the administration? There's no room for someone to honestly arrive at an opinion that's not like yours "to a greater or lesser degree."
I guess what I've been fearing is confirmed: if you're saying stuff like this, there really is no point to any political discussion on Hatrack any more.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No, you're missing my point. I think that's WHERE this IS heading, not that it's there yet. And that "to greater or lesser degree" should be some sort of indication that I'm not being rigid in my viewpoint of other people, Dag. I think the cadre of folks who still support the President blindly is small. It started out pretty small in my opinion, and has started shrinking dramatically over the past year. They constitute a cadre of folks who WOULD support their party no matter what. Just as bad people live on the other side too. Or any side involving political parties. Then there's the vast group of "everyone else" who...to a greater or lesser degree, are willing to take a look and judge event-by-event; decision-by-decision what is happening.
While we do still have people who won't agree to any criticism of the GOP, I hope you weren't think I put you in that category. Or that people have to agree with me in order to qualify as reasonable.
Neither of which are even close to what I said.
[ February 26, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While we do still have people who won't agree to any criticism of the GOP, I hope you weren't think I put you in that category.
No, I didn't think so.
quote:Or that people have to agree with me in order to qualify as reasonable.
Even with your clarification, it still seems to me as if you're saying that they have to agree with you "to greater or lesser degree."
I'm not saying they have to agree with you about everything to not be put into the cadre, which, I assume you agree must be called "unreasonable". Rather, if they don't have the opinion (and again, to a greater or lesser degree) that there "appears to be a pattern of unwarranted secrecy and an 'apologize later' mentality that doesn't play well to the general population" then, by the use of "everyone else," they must be part of the cadre.
If you say that's not what you're saying, I'll believe you. But it sure sounds like it when you divide the entire population into two groups like that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Commandment?
Dude, Look at the news... Look at the way he seems to bungle just about everything. This is what is concerning me. And people keep defending this behaviour, making excuses. It was wrong for Clinton to have his affair in the oval office and annoying for liberal types and feminists who hoped he would support their causes to turn the other way. But what Bush is doing, tax cuts for the wealthy, cutting medicare, cutting student loans, cutting so many social programs that help to keep people out of poverity, during a war, during a time when the national debt is through the roof and practically tickling the sky... I despise this sort of Wal-martian patriotism in which I get paid low wages and struggle to improve myself only to get slapped down and somehow I, and many others are supposed ot be happy about this. We're supposed to all wave flags and not question and not think for ourselfs and not look at multiple sides. I will not do that. I will question, I will be suspicious. I will demand answers and responsibility. Which this administration hasn't seem to do with any sort of satisfaction. I don't care if Bush is religious. I'm sure he is a not a completely bad person like anyone, but I dislike the direction this country is going in. These are the first baby steps to something dangerous. It always starts simple, saying that your rights are threatened by foreign terrorists while slowly, without people barely noticing their rights get limited. Especially during a war time! Everything naturally shifts more to the right during a war time it seems and Bush wanting to silence opponets or not listen to them is very suspicious and makes me doubt his good intentions. it's not slander. It's questioning, thinking and trying to get the full answers!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Saying the President embarrasses you is slander?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No,slander is spoken. Libel is printed. A distinction both Rakeesh and Ryan are unaware of. And the President and SC Justices are public figures, so for them even libel has a high bar. Opinion about public figures is not libel, generally.
edit:Rakeesh, are you still whining about one word from yesterday? Get over it, and get a life.
[ February 26, 2006, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Although I used a word with a legalistic definition, that of course does not mean I think you should be prosecuted for it, as I think you're aware.
quote:...is partisan slander. Or libel. Whatever.
Yeah, I sure wasn't aware of it. Jackass.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On a semi-related note, I tend to view Internet forum conversations as 'talking' rather than 'writing'. In my head, at least. When I read something addressed to me I put it in the same category as though they were vocalizing to me personally, in my head anyway.
Obviously I recognize the distinction, that it's not really talking, but it's an instinct I possess to regard it that way. I wonder how many other people if any have that instinct?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:If you say that's not what you're saying, I'll believe you. But it sure sounds like it when you divide the entire population into two groups like that
Thanks. It's not what I intended to say, at any rate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK. I probably reacted more strongly than your post standing alone warranted. You caught the reaction to several other persons' posts, which wasn't fair to you.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I sort of wondered. This thread has gotten more heated than I wish it had.
Oh well.
I'm off to bed. Today was very long, but fun.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I usually tend to try to stay away from these discussions, but what the heck.
In my opinion, the best way to describe Bush and his actions is said by this figure of speech.
quote:The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Personally, I don't think we're on the road to Hell, but I think in a figurative way, it fits quite nicely.
Warrentless wiretapping, datamining, what have you. Yes, it does go against the constitution, which is horrible in its own right, but I think that Bush has a good intention through it. Do you seriously think Bush is trying to just violate our privacy because it would make him feel warm and tingly inside? There's a reason for it, he wants to try to keep our security higher, and to do so he is willing to forgo some of our rights.
In the end, a good intention, but I also believe what Benjamin Franklin said.
quote:Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. --Benjamin Franklin
I in no way support the warrantless searches, but I do think it's a bit low to say he has no concern for our protection.
As for the issue with torture.
I hate it, I dislike that we've been doing it, I dislike that he would say we aren't when it's pretty clear we do. I watched a little news report that had a CIA official showing an "interregation technique" that he claimed wasn't torture. Basically you'd slip a bag on the person's head and put their head underneath a running stream of water. This tricks the person into thinking they're drowning and begins to flail uselessly. Now if that's not psychological torture, I don't know what is.
Torturing is useless, as Senator John McCain said about the issue. It gives you no usable information. He was held and tortured in the airforce at one time, and they tortured him just to know the names of the others in his group. There was no point to knowing the names, it won't help you find them sooner. People eventually just start saying things just to make the torture stop.
Now, I don't think we should torture at all. Do I dislike Bush for allowing it? Yes, but I also see that again, it's a 'good intention'.
Onto indefinate detainment. It goes pretty nicely against my morals and I see it as illegal, especially when it's of our own citizens. Considering that we're supposed to get core due process garuntees it bothers me to no end that we'd stop allowing people this basic right. The people being detained like that, at least shouldn't have their status as "Enemy Combatant" but give them the simple rights and protections of POW. We are holding (At least some) innocent people with no justification on why. (At least, not with formal charges.) And it presses one of my buttons.
But yet again, it is a 'good intention'. He wishes to have us safe by removing a bit of liberty. Look to what I said with Benjamin Franklin to understand my feelings here.
Finally, I wish to analyze the 'making a dictatorship' argument. Bush has been using a document known as the AUMF(Authorization for the Use of Military Force) to justify most of his actions. That in a time of war, he is able to go past certain liberties and try to protect us. Does this make him a dictator? Heavens no. Congress passed the AUMF shortly after 9/11. Congress maintains the authority to stop Bush in all of his actions by simply repealing that document. (Dagonee, if I'm wrong here, please correct me.) We still have a control point, he still has to answer to both Congress and the Supreme Court.
To conclude. Do I respect the man, Bush? No. I don't, his actions are just too horrible for me to respect him as a person. But do I respect his intentions? Yes, he really does want to give protection, it's just his methods of doing so is bad.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Yahoo news headline: "Germany denies giving Saddam plans to U.S."
hmm
(full article -- with longer, clearer headline -- is here ) Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by RyanINPnet: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Orincoro: You just say stuff like this for attention, and frankly it disgusts me. He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
I'm curious Ryan, did your say this sort of thing when Rush Limbaugh was accusing Bill Clinton of murder?
Perhaps you did, but an awfully lot of right wing American's who are now saying that left wingers should respect Bush because he is OUR president, are the exact same people who were extraordinarily disrespectful of Clinton.
From where I stand, you are very naive to believe that Bush has the best interests of the all Americans in mind.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB] I'm going to cherry-pick the easiest distortions from your list Tatiania:
quote:He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all.
Inaccurate to say the least.
quote:He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation.
It should be noted that every single person on the Supreme Court except Scalia and Stevens supports the ability of the President to hold American citizens seized on U.S. soil indefinitely (not forever - another nice little distortion there, by the way) without criminal charges being filed. This includes Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Dag, Do your really think you've rebutted this statements. As best I can tell, all you've done is cry they are not true.
Let's start with the first statement.
quote:He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all.
What is inaccurate about that statement? Give me some specifics. As best I can tell from the reports, this statement is completely factual. Wiretaps are a forming of spying. US citizens communicating with foreign nationals are being wiretapped without warrants, or court or congressional oversight. Bush and other members of his administration have confirmed these facts and said that this program is both legal and ethical. Where is the inaccuracy?
Now let's look at the second point.
quote:He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation.
All you've done is given a list of other people who support this position. The support of supreme court justicies, doesn't change the fact that this is Bush's stance.
Then you argue that "indefinite" is not the same as "forever". According to the OED, indefinite means without definition or limitation. Indefinite is not the same as forever, but since indefinite means there are no limits it must include forever. Unless we are doing some sort of legal hair splitting, its hard to see any distortion in Tatiana's original statement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Of course there was oversight. There may not have been adequate oversight, or oversight by the right people - I tend to think there wasn't - but there was oversight.
Why do you say of course there was oversight? By whom. I listened to the congressional hearing and AG said nothing about oversight. All he would said is that these were good people and should be trusted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do your really think you've rebutted this statements.
Do you really think Tatiania supported her statements? She alleged something. I alleged it wasn't true (although you seem to think I made that allegation regarding points which I did not claim to be untrue). When pressed, I explained more fully - which, unless I missed a post, is something Tatiania hasn't bothered to do.
You seem to be holding me to a standard you're not holding Tatiania too. Which isn't very surprising, really.
quote:What is inaccurate about that statement? Give me some specifics. As best I can tell from the reports, this statement is completely factual. Wiretaps are a forming of spying. US citizens communicating with foreign nationals are being wiretapped without warrants, or court or congressional oversight. Bush and other members of his administration have confirmed these facts and said that this program is both legal and ethical. Where is the inaccuracy?
quote:Why do you say of course there was oversight? By whom. I listened to the congressional hearing and AG said nothing about oversight. All he would said is that these were good people and should be trusted.
As already stated, there is oversight. Just not much. If you care to respond to my several posts on the subject, feel free. You've gotten part of the way there already. Perhaps it will help you to understand if I reiterate that I never said there was individualized oversight.
quote:All you've done is given a list of other people who support this position. The support of supreme court justicies, doesn't change the fact that this is Bush's stance.
Could you please point to where I said this wasn't Bush's stance? Because you're not actually refuting anything I've said here. You're just saying, "What you've said doesn't prove doesn't hold this belief." I didn't say Bush doesn't hold this belief (with the exception of the indefinite v. forever dispute, which I deal with below).
However, when the most liberal justices on the Court essentially agree with the administration about the detention - providing one additional and incredibly minor procedural safeguard - it's not credible to argue that this is evidence that Bush is setting up a dictatorship. After all, Bush modified his policy in response to the Court's decision.
quote:Then you argue that "indefinite" is not the same as "forever". According to the OED, indefinite means without definition or limitation. Indefinite is not the same as forever, but since indefinite means there are no limits it must include forever. Unless we are doing some sort of legal hair splitting, its hard to see any distortion in Tatiana's original statement.
Because neither Bush nor the Court's opinion happens to allow for the possibility of "forever." Both rely on the authorization of force as being a partial suspension of habeas corpus - a fairly ridiculous argument, but one that our fabulous Supreme Court has now made the law of the land.
The overall point, of course, is that Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus during times of insurrection and invasion. The Court has read the authorization for use of force as such a suspension. Both the President and the Court have acknowledged that such detention is only allowed during the time Congress has suspended the writ and during the time invasion exists (which is the prong SCOTUS has said exists right now). And the President has acknowledged that either Congress or the Court could stop the detentions and he couldn't do anything about it (except maybe veto it, which Congress could override).
By the way, if were splitting legal hairs, I'd have pointed out that neither Hamdi nor Padilla was "arrested." However, that distinction doesn't matter.
Indefinite v. forever does matter, which is why the distinction was made.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)