15. Tax "reform" benefitting the top 2% income bracket.
16. Karl Rove.
17. Didn't win the popular vote.
18. Didn't really win the electoral vote. Thanks, U.S. Supreme Court.
19. Hundreds of dead U.S. troops since the "end of combat operations" in Iraq.
20. $180+ million campaign war chest, all the better to buy the next election with.
21. Professed support for constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
22. Didn't bother to renew unemployment benefits in time for thousands of American families, December 2002.
23. Fox News.
24. FCC attempts to deregulate broadcast ownership regulations.
25. Repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
26. Son of George Bush, Sr.
27. Brother of Jeb.
28. Pushes "free trade" agreements enabling loss of U.S. jobs, exploitation of third world workers.
29. "Operation Iron Hammer."
30. Guantanemo Bay human rights abuses.
31. "Collateral damage."
32. The Patriot Act.
33. Patriot Act II.
34. Misuse of FBI to harass peace activists.
35. Elevation of minor offenses to federal crimes under the guise of fighting "terrorism."
36. Opposition to national health care.
37. Opposition to University of Michigan's attempts to retain affirmative action in admissions policies.
38. Bechtel.
39. Undermining of Freedom of Information Act.
40. Massive unemployment.
41. Tax breaks for companies moving facilities offshore.
42. Reactionary judicial appointees.
43. Attempts to "reform" 75-year-old fair labor practices regulations by eliminating legal requirement to pay millions of Americans overtime.
44. Copped out on the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
45. Lied to American public about reasons for war.
46. Lied to the United Nations about reasons for war.
47. Prohibited filming or broadcast of coffins of slain service personnel returning to Andrews Air Force Base.
48. Lied about Jessica Lynch's "heroism."
49. Ignored the heroism of less-photogenic/non-white combat personnel who perished in action.
50. Lied that Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda had something to do with one another.
51. "Axis of Evil."
52. Executed 152 prisoners, including the mentally disabled, as Governor of Texas.
53. Publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker prior to her execution - "Please don't kill me."
54. Ignores Chinese abuses in Tibet.
55. Tony Blair/George Dubya: best pals.
56. Administration doctored CIA intelligence reports to make case for war, then tried to blame the agency.
57. Opposition to minimum wage increases.
58. "Shock and Awe."
59. Attempts to distract public from failed policies through use of gay marriage as a campaign "wedge" issue.
60. Willingly accepts support of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson.
61. Gave convicted Iran-Contra criminal John Poindexter a job.
62. "Total Information Awareness."
63. Administration has reserved right to preemptively use nuclear weapons for "defense" purposes.
64. Went to England to get his picture taken with the queen in order to appear more presidential during 2004 campaign.
65. Protectionist policies for big-bucks buddies in agricultural, steel, and textile industries.
66. Opposition to living wage ordinances.
67. Best pals with Ken Lay of Enron, massive gubernatorial and presidential campaign contributor.
68. Refusal to condemn Israel's murder of American peace activist Rachel Corrie.
69. Refusal to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, elected leader of the Palestinian people.
70. Support for development of "non-lethal" weapons systems.
71. Support for "Star Wars II" missile defense system.
72. Flew to Iraq to eat turkey on Thanksgiving.
73. Didn't bother to visit wounded soldiers in hospitals on Thanksgiving.
74. Thanksgiving visit forced soldiers to eat turkey "dinner" at 7:00 am local time.
75. Didn't bother to visit the families of slain soldiers.
76. Hasn't attended any soldiers' funerals.
77. Taxpayers' tab for 2-hour Baghdad visit: $1 million.
78. Using FBI to spy on domestic protest groups - just like Nixon - in new COINTELPRO campaign.
79. Brother Neil paid $60,000 per year as consultant by company seeking government contracts.
80. Republican filibuster for Bush judicial nominees.
81. General Tommy Franks: "Martial law could be declared" if there's another 9/11 style attack in U.S.
82. Special favors for broadcast buddies courtesy FCC: Repeal of regulations limiting broadcast ownership.
83. Ignored warnings from outgoing Clinton administration officials about threats posed by Al Queda.
84. Project for a New American Century: Group planned Iraq attack before Bush was even elected.
85. Support for limitations on pain and suffering, medical malpractice damage awards by courts.
86. Changed headline on White House website to rewrite history: "End of combat operations" became "end of major combat operations."
87. Modified White House website to prevent indexing/archiving of such future revisions.
88. Rush Limbaugh likes him.
89. Supports nuclear power.
90. Refuses to fund renewable/eco-friendly energy research and programs.
91. Blocking congressional investigation into 9/11.
92. His "forest preservation" initiatives were the opposite.
93. Oil drilling in the Great Lakes.
94. Can't drive a Segway.
95. Thought milk cost $5 a gallon. Totally out of touch.
96. Tried to make the queen wear an ID in her own palace - AND screwed up her TV reception.
97. None of the Babes [Against Bush], though employed, can afford health care.
98. Pledged billions for AIDS research in Africa; forgot to pay up once the cameras were off.
99. Forced troops in Baghdad to eat Thanksgiving "dinner" at 6:00 a.m.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Sorry for the quote dump, but it's easy to lose track of all of the reasons why Bush must go. I thought it might be helpful to just jog your memory of a few of them...
Jeff
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am actually deeply disappointed in this list. Some of the items are clearly padding -- but if you're going to pad, why not go for #100? And if you're NOT going to pad, why bother with 99 items?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I saw the thanksgiving meal time mentioned twice differently.
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
Definitely a lot of padding. Some of these are just blurbs without any argument. And you've got a penchant for charged language that has little to no backing. And repeating slogans for effect. In fact, your entire style of agument irks me. You're like religion teacher. Your entire arguement against anything that happens to the nation is "I hate Bush. It is his fault, and he is evil." Well, let me say what a friend of mine said to my religion teacher. "Sir, your method of throwing s*** at the wall and hoping it sticks is not a valid rhetorical strategy."
I don't even agree with Bush on many issues. But I think that you're getting a little rediculous with the ad hominim (spelling?) attacks.
Edit: grammar.
[ December 15, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Polemarch ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*taps Polemarch on the shoulder, takes him to one side, and whispers in his ear*
Um, Pole-dude? Jeff didn't write the list. He got it from somewhere else.
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
Well, in that case, he's un-original in addition to the things I said above. He's still espousing what he posted. An attack against someone's character is not a valid argument against his actions.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Yeah, everybody tells me how unoriginal I am. I get that all the time.
Yes, the list is obviously padded. Please try to focus on the valid issues rather than whining about the invalid ones. Trust us: we all know which ones are the invalid ones. We don't need your razor-sharp insight to tell which ones are which.
We now return you to your thread ...
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
P.S. Tom, to answer your question, "why 99 items", I believe I know the answer to that.
At the bottom of the page I linked to, there's a invitation to suggest additions to the list. I suspect that two different people suggested the early-morning "dinner" item, and that it when the second one was checked for duplicaton, they overlooked the first one.
I believe that that's also why the quality of some of the reasons are better than others. I think they had a number of different contributors, some of whom were more effective than others.
Jeff
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
*Sinister laughing*
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
99 is an obvious parallel to Martin Luther.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think that it's a parallel to Nena.
Can we add his daughters as #100, even though neither has been arrested in the last year?
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
101) According to very reliable, first hand information, Bush has an attention span of approximately 3 minutes.
For perspective, that's just enough time to whip-up a batch of microwave popcorn.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
So, is anyone up to the task of wading through this laundry list and taking it apart?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Sounds like you're not.
Jeff
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
It's a long list, and I've been awake all night.
Posted by Shepard (Member # 5613) on :
Wouldnt every president have a list like this?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I'm sure we could create one if we wanted to...with enough padding to make it similar to this one of course. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Not really. Clinton did have some policies I disliked, but I doubt a list like this about him would largely consist of but whining about his personal life.
The difference between a blowjob and a constant and consistent war against the poor and the free makes quite a difference to me.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Though I should add, this list has some unnecessary additions. What, Bush hasn't given them enough ammunition? They need to resort to "6. Where's Osama?"?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Lalo,
Actually, that's a very significant issue. Recall the situation: 9/11 terrorists attack the US. Dubya vows to bring Osama to justice. Then immediately he sets out on his pet project, Iraq, implying (and sometimes saying outright) that there's a connection between Osama and Hussein, though that couldn't be farther from the truth.
If Bush had thrown $87b at finding Osama Bin Laden instead of for cleaning up after this Iraq fiasco, do you have any doubt we would have caught him long before now?
Jeff
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's probably 99 because they had to quickly remove “Where's Sadaam” from the list. I like it – stupid one-liners, no analysis, playing to the favorite myths of the Left. If this is the opposition we have to worry about in 2004, I’m not sweating it.
And the blowjob thing with Clinton was not just about blowjobs - it was an attempt to deny a plaintiff the right to proper discovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit through perjury.
And there’s plenty of substantive complaints to make against Clinton in much the same vein. It’s just not worth it anymore because he’s gone, finally.
Dagonee
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
And likewise, if folks like you get your wish and get more Bush, as far as I'm concerned, you'll get what you deserve. Nothing's more pathetic than a bunch of moralizing, greedy, ignorant people who vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear and then ignores any evidence that he's lying.
Yes, Dagonee, the Emperor's new clothes are very nice indeed. Just keep telling yourself that. The war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was ...
If you can't find any problems with Bush on that list, then you deserve what's happening to this country. I only wish you'd stop taking the rest of us down with you. I've only been unemployed three times in my life: all three of them were during Bush administrations.
Jeff
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Wow, Jeff. Bush must directly hate you. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. That IS odd. I never really thought of it that way, but I've only been unemployed during Bush administrations, too. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jeffrey Getzin said: If you can't find any problems with Bush on that list, then you deserve what's happening to this country. I only wish you'd stop taking the rest of us down with you. I've only been unemployed three times in my life: all three of them were during Bush administrations.
It’s just that there’s lots of other substantive threads about Bush going on right now, so the only purpose I saw to this was to post a glib, slightly clever list of unsubstantiated complaints.
My problem with lists like this and statements like “Nothing's more pathetic than a bunch of moralizing, greedy, ignorant people who vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear and then ignores any evidence that he's lying” is that it denies any possible moral reasoning on the other side. Which means any kind of meeting of the minds is impossible.
You’ve assumed you understand my motivations, you’ve assumed they’re all blameworthy. Believe it or not, there are people who support Bush because they think he’s the right candidate to support for what they consider moral and ethical reasons.
And your personal anecdote of unemployment, while touching, is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. I’ve only received negligent health care during the Clinton administration; I’ve only successfully sold my house during a Bush administration. I’ve only gone to universities while Republicans were in the White House.
Dagonee
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I love Bush.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't understand why they would be against this one in particular.
quote:70. Support for development of "non-lethal" weapons systems.
Isn't this better than killing everybody? Or are they against all war completely?
AJ
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm sore at Bush for not spending more money on Americorps.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Did Rhaegar ever get back to you on the steel tariffs, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now that you mention it, Frisco, he hasn't. Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Hm. That IS odd. I never really thought of it that way, but I've only been unemployed during Bush administrations, too.
And what's odder, the only time I've ever known anybody unemployed was during Bush administrations. If you asked me to name an unemployed person during Clinton's administration, I wouldn't have been able to. If you'd ask me during a Bush term, I'd be able to recite a list ...
But of course, the bushites dismiss this as anecdotal. There seem to be an awful lot of anecdotes out there ... too bad the bushites don't seem to care.
Jeff
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush. Where's that list of logical fallacies?
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
Right, here it is. A Post Hoc logical fallacy.
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: And the blowjob thing with Clinton was not just about blowjobs - it was an attempt to deny a plaintiff the right to proper discovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit through perjury.
For me it was about him waving his finger at me and all the rest of the world on national TV saying "I did not have sex with that woman ... Ms. Lewinsky".
I don't trust Bush or Clinton. But at least with Bush there's the appearance that he really believes what he's saying and there might be some classified stuff that we just aren't privy to (WMD). Clinton's finger wave was blatant deceit of the American People for personal gain over a stupid issue that shouldn't have been a big public deal. As they say, if you can't trust them on the little issues...
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
102) Kowtows to the drunken Kennedy. 103) Keeps expanding the federal government 104) Stupidly allows his friends' companies to get in on Iraq rebuilding action with no serious bidding, etc. 105) No new amnesty for Latin-Americans
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Personally, I've been unemployed during both Bush and Clinton administrations. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I disagree with most everything on that site.. BUT: them girls are HOT. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hmmmm.... they can have their 99. I'll stick with my four.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush. Where's that list of logical fallacies?
Ah, but I'm not attempting a logical proof. No proof, no fallacy. Sorry. It was an excellent try, though, and I commend you for at least understanding the word "fallacy". (Although, strictly speaking, it'd be an Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy, i.e., if A->B, B, therefore A.)
I simply pointed out my observation. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about whether Bush has anything to do with it.
But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
Jeff
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
It doesn't matter whether or not you were attempting a logical proof. You were making an argument. I was pointing out that it was in error, for the above mentioned reasons. You implied that bush was the cause of the unemployment, because occured in his term, rather than his predecesor's. You give no evidence to support that. That's a logical fallacy, whether or not it is part of a logical proof.
Oh, and by the way, I just love the tone of condescension that you use every time I try to point out a flaw in your arguments. I know nothing about your education but I highly doubt it grants you infalliblity, nor makes you smarter than everyone else. Get off your high horse.
Oh, and:
quote: But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
Charged language. Nice try.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Maybe 100 was: Where's Saddam?
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush.
There's more than just logic problems with the all too popular blaming the current economy on Bush. Am I remembering right that Bush took office in January 2001 after election in November 2000? The markets were reversing and in some cases tanking in Clinton's term before Bush was even even elected. Just look at the charts.
Interestingly, September 11 was just 9 months into Bush's term before there was much chance for any of his policies to have an affect on the economy. Yet by the charts, it was the final straw that broke the camel's back to turn an an already weak DOW downward, it solidified the S&Ps already obvious turn, and was practically irrelevant to the NASDAQ's bear run that was established in Clinton's final year in office.
I'm not going to go so far as blaming Clinton for the downturn on this evidence. He's just one person in a huge government and economy, just like Bush is. But the common liberal blaming of the economic downturn on Bush's policies when the NASDAQ had tanked 40% by election time in Clinton's term is pure fantasy.
Consider that NASDAQ chart the next time you see some of the democratic political candidates bashing Bush for the present economic woes. There's no excuse for such misrepresentation at that level of responsibility. It is pathetic that they promote for political gain the false understanding in our society that the present condition in the economy is due to present policy, when it is well known that market cycles turn slowly with cycle periods of several years.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: It doesn't matter whether or not you were attempting a logical proof. You were making an argument.
Nothing doing. I was pointing out that the only time I have been unemployed was during the Bush administration. Anecdotes do not an argument make. They might be the beginning of an argument, mind you, but I can make as many anecdotes as I want.
I'm sorry if they bother you, but really, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Until I state conclusively that Bush is responsible for my unemployment (and I must admit, I do think this is the case), you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Dude, you've been hanging out on Internet forums too long. I think you've forgotten how people really interact. If a cab driver tells you a story on the way to a meeting, do you tell him his story is inadmissible because it's an anecdote? Get a grip!
quote: You implied that bush was the cause of the unemployment ...
Clearly not. If I had successfully implied that, it wouldn't be a fallacy, now, would it? It would be a proof.
quote: Oh, and by the way, I just love the tone of condescension that you use every time I try to point out a flaw in your arguments.
Really? Do you mean it? I was hoping you'd pick up on it. It's just a little something special I threw in for you, seeing as how you're trying to be logical and all. Keep up the good work. With a little practice, you'll be making valid arguments in no time!
quote: I know nothing about your education but I highly doubt it grants you infalliblity, nor makes you smarter than everyone else.
No, just you.
quote: Get off your high horse.
But the view's so nice up here. Oh, and I can see your house from here!
quote:
quote: But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
Charged language. Nice try.
Oh, aren't you the most precious little e-laywer! You're so cute, I could just hug you.
Jeff
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
Right. I was going to reply pointing out more of your insulting charged language, but it appears that you've already noticed and are capitalizing on it. You're bating me. I'm not going to play that game. You want to say what you want and then make fun of the people who disagree, go right ahead. I'm leaving.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I really get tired of all this economy-blaming. For one thing, the Bush-era recession was long overdo, Bush or no Bush. For another thing, presidents have very little sway over the economy. Historically, tax cuts and increased spending have both had very little effect, and most economists argue that such tactics take so long to "trickle down" to the economy that in realistic terms, by the time a recession is recognized and such measures are taken, it is already too late. Thus, I'd argue electing a president based on economic policies is a bit silly. There are exceptions (such as when a president is pushing the deficit up too high *cough cough*), but not that many.
The Fed, on the other hand, has economic power. They are not elected though.
[ December 15, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Jeffrey Getzin:
quote: Yes, Dagonee, the Emperor's new clothes are very nice indeed. Just keep telling yourself that. The war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was ...
Hey Jeff, just keep telling yourself that. The people in Iraq don't matter, the people in Iraq don't matter, the people in Iraq...
Really, why do you liberals insists on ignoring genocide. Conservative (not politically) numbers say that hundreds of thousands were murdered by Hussein. More realistic numbers put the actual figures in the low millions. But of course, its happening in Iraq so why should we care...
Oh yeah, the Hussein guy we captured, I'm sure he's just an imposter.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I agree with you, Tresopax. I don't think I would vote for someone strictly on economic reasons.
Whether or not a president has much effect on the overall economy, he does affect a lot of things related to money.
Tax reform that primarily benifits the wealthy and decreases overall tax revenue, $450+ Billion deficit, $87 Billion spending package.
[ December 15, 2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
NFL, liberals don't ignore genocide. It's just that we don't believe it was the primary or even secondary rationale behind the war. If it were, there are more than a few countries we should have invaded first, who're even worse to their own people. It's a nice side benefit, but I think conservatives are delusional if they think that was Bush's big goal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BOy, what isn't Dubya's fault, Jeffrey?
By all means, speak loudly and widely like this. Only makes it more likely that Dubya will win, really. For which I'd be grateful. Better than the pack of Democrats, but worse than many.
quote:6. Where's Osama?
Yeah. We haven't caught the guy who's got decades of experience running from superpowers yet, and he might be dead. You bastard, Dubya! If you wanted to and if you weren't an idiot, we'dve caught him!
quote:13. 400 billion dollar defense budget.
Because, obviously, the time for robust, powerful, well-funded militaries is past.
quote:15. Tax "reform" benefitting the top 2% income bracket.
Among others. And, after all, the rich people's money really belongs to us, so they should quit trying to hold onto their earned money (like everyone else does).
quote:17. Didn't win the popular vote.
Doesn't matter.
quote:18. Didn't really win the electoral vote. Thanks, U.S. Supreme Court.
Did I miss where we get to pick and choose which judicial decisions we get to adhere to? Kinda hurts the activist courts, doesn't it?
quote:19. Hundreds of dead U.S. troops since the "end of combat operations" in Iraq.
20. $180+ million campaign war chest, all the better to buy the next election with.
21. Professed support for constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
No one expected casualties to end, unless you're an idiot.
Democrats obviously don't take money. Soft money, anyone?
Approximately half of Americans oppose homosexual civil union.
quote:25. Repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
26. Son of George Bush, Sr.
And, after all, that's just Evul.
He is also Evul.
quote:28. Pushes "free trade" agreements enabling loss of U.S. jobs, exploitation of third world workers.
Free trade prevents war, and in the long-term helps foreign nations as well as us. Those workers are exploited largely because that's the stage their economy and nation is in, economically. Read some history.
quote:31. "Collateral damage."
...is much, much less than any other military on Earth would be able to cause, and our military makes more efforts than any other in history to minimize it. ANd is more successful.
quote:37. Opposition to University of Michigan's attempts to retain affirmative action in admissions policies.
Darn him for opposing racism.
quote:40. Massive unemployment.
Would've happened if your boy were elected, too.
And it's not "massive", by any stretch of the imagination.
quote:44. Copped out on the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
Actually the USA Senate did that years ago, by a 95-0 vote. Let's not talk about that.
quote:50. Lied that Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda had something to do with one another.
First let's not talk about the Al Qaeda member who was given medical care in Iraq. Let's not also talk about rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel (which is, obviously, the tip of the iceberg).
quote:54. Ignores Chinese abuses in Tibet.
ANyone wanna recap what Clinton did for the Tibetans? Jack shit.
quote:64. Went to England to get his picture taken with the queen in order to appear more presidential during 2004 campaign.
65. Protectionist policies for big-bucks buddies in agricultural, steel, and textile industries.
No other politicians, of course, do such things. Heaven forbid. Certainly not liberal Democrats.
He revoked the steel tarrifs. And weren't you folks just a second ago whining about endorsing free-trade?
quote:68. Refusal to condemn Israel's murder of American peace activist Rachel Corrie.
Wasn't murder.
quote:70. Support for development of "non-lethal" weapons systems.
How dare he! Weapons that DON'T kill?!
quote:72. Flew to Iraq to eat turkey on Thanksgiving.
73. Didn't bother to visit wounded soldiers in hospitals on Thanksgiving.
74. Thanksgiving visit forced soldiers to eat turkey "dinner" at 7:00 am local time.
75. Didn't bother to visit the families of slain soldiers.
76. Hasn't attended any soldiers' funerals.
77. Taxpayers' tab for 2-hour Baghdad visit: $1 million.
It was a good thing.
Security was a problem already, and if he did you'd be whining, "Exploiting wounded soldiers for political gain!"
I'm sure they were pissed.
See above.
There are over 250 million people living in America. One million dollars is less than a drop in the bucket.
quote:81. General Tommy Franks: "Martial law could be declared" if there's another 9/11 style attack in U.S.
Let's rule out options we don't like before things happen. Smart.
quote:83. Ignored warnings from outgoing Clinton administration officials about threats posed by Al Queda.
Yeah...and those CLinton boys did so much to thwart Al Qaeda. Those cruise missiles were sure scary!
quote:84. Project for a New American Century: Group planned Iraq attack before Bush was even elected.
85. Support for limitations on pain and suffering, medical malpractice damage awards by courts.
It was a wise thing to do, and long overdue.
Malpractice damage awards are part of what's crippling the American health care system. Look at the insurance a doctor pays.
quote:89. Supports nuclear power.
Among the cleanest and safest power sources available to humanity.
quote:97. None of the Babes [Against Bush], though employed, can afford health care.
Get a better job, babies. It's been that way for a long time. Blame yourself before you blame the Grand High Poobah, and maybe things will change. ---- Gee whiz, that was fun. Now how many of those were the throwaway issues, Jeffrey, that you wouldn't have admitted were throwaway issues if they weren't brought up as such?
I'm guessin' all of `em.
And you're unemployed. Big deal. Since you talk about it so often and thump your chest with it, I'm going to ask some personal questions.
1. How long have you been unemployed?
2. Under what circumstances did you become unemployed?
3. How seriously are you searching for new employment?
4. And why is it Bush's fault? Isn't it at least partially your fault for not taking better care of yourself?
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
What Im wondering is...does Babes Against Bush mean that none of them are lesbians?
Note: Oh come on someone had to say it.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tom, it wasn't Bush's primary reason although it should have been and it has been my primary reason since the whole Iraq issue was brought up. Furthermore, even if the WMD issue was Bush's primary reason AND it was false then the war was still justified in order to end genocide. The fact that the US might have supported Hussein under previous administrations and that there are other atrocities going on in the world does not prove that we shouldn't stop genocide when we can. If you believe that we should have intervened in Europe in 1933, but don't think that we shouldn't have ended the genocide in Iraq then you're a hypocrite. If you don't believe we should have intervened in Europe in 1933 then you disgust me and I question whether or not you possess any humanity.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: If you believe that we should have intervened in Europe in 1933, but don't think that we shouldn't have ended the genocide in Iraq then you're a hypocrite. If you don't believe we should have intervened in Europe in 1933 then you disgust me and I question whether or not you possess any humanity.
Did we intervene in Europe in 1933? LOL, oh I forgot, republicans tend to turn history there way. Silly me, and here I was thinking that it wasnt until 1941.
I think the point that has been said is that Bush lied to us. End of story. It doenst matter whether the war is justified or not, he lied to us about the real reasons for going. Sound familiar? "It doesnt matter that he got a blowjob, he lied to us on national tv."
Finally, I have to say that there is in fact nothing more prevalent in America today, than the divide between Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative, and so on. Only when we all wake up and decide that we will not be blinded by ignorance, not be cheated by mediocrity, and not throw away our ability to reason, will we truly be the democracy that I think we can be. Until then, it is quite clear that nothing will be accomplished and we will continue our downward spiral.
[ December 16, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Jerry- I do not think that peoples problem with Clinton was the whole blow job issue in and of itself. Although I think most people feel that cheating on your wife is wrong and the president probably shouldnt do it. I think the problem people have with Clinton was the fact that he lied under oath, which is something any person other than the president would be locked in jail for. I do not feel that Clinton should have been put in that situation in the first place, but once he was put in that situation he should not have lied. What kind of example does that set for the American people?
Now I know everyone who likes Clinton and dislikes Bush is going to say, "Bush lied to us about WMD, lying about a blow job is trivial compared to the WMD Bush lied to us about" I think it is possible that Bush was wrong, and I will admit that he may have lied about it, it is entirely possible(Although I like to think it is not true). The fact of the matter remains we do not know, and we may never know. It really depends on whether or not you trust the man and what he says. Personally he appears to be very earnest and genuine so I trust him and I do not think it is just a show he is putting on, others obviously do not feel the same way. Personally, I think it is more likely faulty intelligence. Either way I am glad about Saddams capture, as I think most people are. Lets hope that something good can come of this whether we like Bush or not. Now that we are involved, hopefully we can turn it into a step in the right direction if we are not already headed that way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:There are over 250 million people living in America. One million dollars is less than a drop in the bucket.
I disagree. But the real question is whether the trip was worth it. Did it accomplish an important goal? If so, what goal?
And to me, the answer is yes, it was worthwhile. The president showed that Iraq is more secure than the media are making it look. He visited the troops, which is always a good morale booster. And he got to see what real soldiers look like -- a new learning experience for him.
It probably costs us $1 Million a day to keep the president here in the States too. So the real question is how much extra does it cost when he goes somewhere. And that's probably not that much money.
Now, when he does stupid stuff that's obviously a publicity stunt (flying onto the deck of an aircraft carrier that isn't anywhere near the fighting...bogus!)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bob,
When I'm not severely irritated by harping bimbos like Babes Against Dubya, I agree:)
A million isn't a drop in the bucket. But things like flying jets, transporting the President and all his numerous entourages, security, etc...those things cost money. The Executive branch doesn't move to another continent and hemisphere into a nation still in combat on the cheap.
Such was my point, but I acknowledge yours as correct.
The air craft carrier "landing"...obviously a PR stunt. But if we're going to start complaining about such things, well then I haven't been hearing nearly enough complaining about any President. And I wonder what the cost was for Hillary's trip to Afghanistan, anyway?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Jerry, the point is that we should have. We didn't and 12 million were murdered in concentration camps, over 20 millions Russians died defending their homeland, millions of German soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers, and then millions more civilians in bombings and such. Saddam Hussein had been doing the same thing for all the time he was in power. He invaded nations without anything resembling just cause, he has used chemical weapons in warfare, he has used chemical weapons to exterminate his own people, he has committed genocide, he has restricted every right found in our laws and constitution, everything we find good he was violated. Despite all this there are millions of Americans who opposed removing him from power. That fact above all others disgusts me. Evil can only triumph when good men do nothing.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: 3. How seriously are you searching for new employment?
Rakeesh, i think that is the most important part of your post. The answer from most people that gripe about not having work right now? They dont search very hard. I got into this very same discussion with some guy on the 'rack a while back. Im disgusted wtih people who say "Bush caused a depression and now Im out of work. I blame Bush! I blame Bush!" and think that sending out a few resume's qualifies as 'looking for work'. Sorry, clicking around monster.com doesnt qualify as looking for work. The problem is that these people insist that after having been downsized or laid off or flat out fired from a job, they want the same type of job at the same type of company for comparable pay. It isnt to be had ladies and gentlemen, and it has nothing to do with Bush. Youve been spat out by the system. It doesnt need you anymore. Now youre back to square one, youre older, youre asking for more money, and you dont want to work as much. So you dont get work. I want this to be very clear: NO ONE is above cleaning toilets. If you think you are, thats fine, see if your pride will pay bills. I know I got branded "a self satisifed idiot" last time I talked about this, but i dont give a rat's ass. I guarantee I could get another job in 72 hours or less. Because im not scared of getting dirty, and im not scared of learning something new. And because Ive done it. repeatedly. Cleaning toilets wont make enough to pay your bills? Get two jobs cleaning toilets. Still not enough? Get three. I've held Two full time jobs and three part time jobs AT THE SAME TIME. i HAD TO. i didnt get handouts or crawl to the unemployment line. I was unemployed for less than a week. My father and I got spat out of the system at the same time. Lost my comfy little job whered id been forever and he lost his. Had to go back to the bottom adn start over. I didnt walk into places and throw a resume' on the table and ask for what i had before. LIFE DOESNT WORK THAT WAY. Swallow your pride and prove yourself again. I started cleaning toilets for six bucks an hour and eventually worked my way up to being the general manager. All while holding other jobs. Did I sleep much? No. Did I see friends or loved ones much? No. But i WAS ABLE to take care of loved ones and live up to my financial responsibilities to them because i didnt have pride. Now ive gotten to a point where ive been able to cut back to one good job that i had to work my way up to, and now i can spend time with those loved ones.
[ December 16, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:It doenst matter whether the war is justified or not, he lied to us about the real reasons for going. Sound familiar? "It doesnt matter that he got a blowjob, he lied to us on national tv."
You know, when you make statements like that, you really come across as one of those people that choose to dislike Bush illogically, and then look for reasons to justify that postion. It's really rather pathetic. I'm not saying you ARE one of those people, but that comes across that way pretty clearly.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
It's the 'retrofitting' approach.
"I hate Bush I hate Bush I hate Bush. I cant wait for tomorrow's paper so I can make up reasons why. Maybe the paper will be delivered by busty ladies dressed up like a half naked Monica Lewinsky to lend some credibility to my argument."
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin_ (Member # 10333) on :
Just curious: has anybody changed his or her opinion on Bush since the last time I posted here?
Jeff
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just curious: have you learned to discuss such topics politely since the last time you posted here? I don't want to waste my time if you haven't.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin_ (Member # 10333) on :
Sorry, I was unclear. Has anybody rational changed his or her opinion on Bush since the last time I posted here?
Jeff
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee is irrational, then? Fascinating!
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dagonee is irrational, then? Fascinating!
The world has just turned inside out! Posted by Jeffrey Getzin_ (Member # 10333) on :
Rakeesh,
Well, can he be represented by a fraction? I say no, sir.
Jeff
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
SO the answer is no - you still insist that anyone who doesn't agree with your views on this must be defective.
Grow the hell up.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:89. Supports nuclear power.
Now I don't like Bush in the slightest, but to me this is a good thing.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: SO the answer is no - you still insist that anyone who doesn't agree with your views on this must be defective.
Grow the hell up.
Owned.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
1.) Cause he puts up with liberal partisan hacks
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey Getzin_: Sorry, I was unclear. Has anybody rational changed his or her opinion on Bush since the last time I posted here?
Jeff
Wow. I think you just said more about yourself than you did about Dag. If anything, he's too rational.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin_ (Member # 10333) on :
Interesting. Still supporting him.
Jeff
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey Getzin_: Rakeesh,
Well, can he be represented by a fraction? I say no, sir.
Jeff
Maybe he's an integer. Did you ever think of that?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Dag=Dag/1, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but pi = pi/1 too.
Jeffrey, I am an outspoken critic of President Bush and his administration and I think you are very out of line here and doing more damage than good.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yes, but pi = pi/1 too.
I was responding jokingly to Jon Boy. Any integer can be represented by a fraction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh yeah, I was just throwing out a quick one and didn't pick up on that.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*Still irrational*
see: Jim-Me (note the presence of "e", an irrational number, in my screen name)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jeffrey, what is your point? Do you expect to get real answers if you are going to be a jerk to people who give you the courtesy of a response?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: 1.) Cause he puts up with liberal partisan hacks
No doubt! He needs to put all the complainers in Guantanamo with all the other Enemies of Freedom.
If he's not going to use the no-due-process parts of Patriot II, why did he bother pushing it through congress?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey Getzin_: Just curious: has anybody changed his or her opinion on Bush since the last time I posted here?
Jeff
No, but I do fear the partisan hatred more now than ever.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
No, I haven't changed my mind on Bush.
However, I read back through this thread, and aside from the troll and other arguing, I must admit: I truly enjoyed a little nostalgia. More specifically, I loved Odouls268's post on this page. After looking at the date, 2003, I understood why. I distinctly remember reading that post, back then, and I agreed with much of it.
In December 2003, well, that was a while ago. I worked in retail at Circuit City for almost three years, and I knew my abilities and skills were being wasted. However, without another job possibility, it was difficult to move forward. To make the story short, I stuck with it until I found my present job. Obviously, I don't have much in common with Odouls268, but I found some similarities between his story and mine. Judging from what he wrote, he's probably the stronger person between us. At any rate, have I said it was a post worth reading again, yet?
Oh, btw, it was good to remember newfoundlogic again. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Oh, btw, it was good to remember newfoundlogic again.
I was just thinking that.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: *Still irrational*
see: Jim-Me (note the presence of "e", an irrational number, in my screen name)
And not only that, but you're subtracting it from Jim, which has an "i" in it! You're both imaginary AND irrational!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Sorry, I was unclear. Has anybody rational changed his or her opinion on Bush since the last time I posted here?
Wow, I thought the likes of Bean Counter were reserved for the right.I always felt a little uncomfortable politically because every time I read something blatantly offensive it was from someone from my side of the political spectrum.
But alas, Jeff came and proved both sides produce that...ick. Thank you Jeff.
You exemplify rationality while Dagonee is just an emotional troll.
By the way, are you going to answer Rakeesh?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
HUZZAH RAKEESH!
uh Jeff...
You know what, I don't love prez bush, but I somehow doubt gore would have us anywhere else.
and unemployment is primarily voluntary! There is always a job out there. You may not enjoy it, you may not love it, it may not engage you, but DO IT!
Nikola Tesla, the most intelligent man this side of ever worked manual labor for several years between establishing some of the most influential inventions that have ever been dreamed up. And don't blame Bush, get some impetus in your life.
And you cannot maintain I am an irrational person. I am a bloody paragon of logic. People hate me because I am so damn logical.
By the way, I am a libertarian. not republican, or democrat. I am heavy liberal, but believe in personal responsibility.
I will not apologize for any of this, so don't even think about it.
And just for the fun of it, I will sum up what these BABs are saying...
Oh shucks, the american people voted for this guy, but we don’t like him, so lets be angry!
We don’t like war, and he possessed Cheney and Halliburton and Rumsfeld, which is why he is evil, also, he can’t find Osama, even though the war involves trying to stop him… oops. He also is supporting the military that is keeping us safe! So evil. Bad bad bad. Lets go move to Tehran, where we don’t have any rights! Also, I didn’t vote for him, and neither did the popular portion of America, but lets ignore the fact the founding fathers established the system so that we wouldn’t have a democratic dictatorship. Also, we don’t like it when the courts disagree with us, even though he won the electoral college, but he didn’t REALLY… even though he did. And those american troops were so obviously forced to fight in Iraq, I mean, none of them actually volunteered to join the military… except all of them. By the way, did you know he does not approve of gay marriage??? Lets make it so that he espouses only OUR beliefs, and ignores the beliefs or the rest of america! By the way, he founded FOX news… out of his own pocket. Really. Its truthy! And deregulation… so mean. we should control everything! Worked for Mussolini! Also, he is trying to wean us off middle eastern oil. What a jerk. His family too… wow, my family is perfect, no weird people at all. Also, free trade… what did I say about Mussolini??? And he causes so much damage… lets not notice the fact that the US has rockets that can hit within six inches of a target after being fired out of a jet… Also, investigating peace activists who are violently going after those who disagree with them…bad.
I cant even continue…. Sorry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You honestly, seriously believe that if Gore had been president, we would currently be engaged in a war with Iraq?
And a majority of the people voted for Gore, not Bush.
We'll never truly know what would have happened if Gore had taken the office, but I'm willing to bet everything I have that we wouldn't be in a war right now, and we'd be well on our way to being free of foreign oil, which is more than the bone Bush is trying to throw us.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We'll never truly know what would have happened if Gore had taken the office, but I'm willing to bet everything I have that we wouldn't be in a war right now, and we'd be well on our way to being free of foreign oil, which is more than the bone Bush is trying to throw us.
I bet we'd be involved in a war in Afghanistan, at least. If not, I imagine our hypothetical world would have had scores more Bali/Madrid-esque terrorist attacks, each killing several hundred people. And I imagine the current job/employment outlook would be significantly worse. And we still wouldn't have universal health care.
Like you said, we'll never really know. It's easier to imagine the green grass, but there's bound to be some brown, too.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Funny: And not only that, but you're subtracting it from Jim, which has an "i" in it! You're both imaginary AND irrational!
Oh!
*vanishes in a puff of logic*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man, that's a pretty padded list.
I should make padded lists too.
764. Nook-YEW-lear!!!
765. Drove a car drunk into a hedge!!! when he was like 22
768. Once tried to go out a locked door LOL!!!
769. I don't like him!!!!!!!!!!
770. Is the devil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
771. By which I mean satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
772. $8 Billion fushed down the toilet, or more likely passed into the hands of the very terrorist we are trying to stop.
Whose brilliant idea was it to send $12 billion in hard currency to Iraq to be handed out freely like Holloween candy?
It is likely that all that money was wasted, simply lost to the criminal elements of Iraq, however, only $8 billion can't be accounted for.
Think of the school we could have built, the diseases we could have cured, the hungry we could have feed?
My problem isn't so much that the money was there, but that it was handed out with no consideration to where it went. $12 billion dollars and likely a substantial protion of it is being spent to fund the war against us and make the Iraq wealthy that much richer. It's a disgrace I say, a disgrace.
This it typical of this administration continue lack of accountability for their actions. Billions more have been paid out to unscrupulous contractors most of whom are buddies of the administration.
Personally, I believe that goverment needs their own police force. By that I mean, someone needs to have absolute crimial police authority over the government.
I propose that we give the General Accounting Office police authority to arrest, and procecute anyone in the government who commits a crime. The next time the Military spends $600 on an ashtray or starts drawing up detailed blueprints on an Oreo cookie, the GAO can swoop in and give them a swift kick in the gonads.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We'll never truly know what would have happened if Gore had taken the office, but I'm willing to bet everything I have that we wouldn't be in a war right now, and we'd be well on our way to being free of foreign oil, which is more than the bone Bush is trying to throw us.
I bet we'd be involved in a war in Afghanistan, at least. If not, I imagine our hypothetical world would have had scores more Bali/Madrid-esque terrorist attacks, each killing several hundred people. And I imagine the current job/employment outlook would be significantly worse. And we still wouldn't have universal health care.
Like you said, we'll never really know. It's easier to imagine the green grass, but there's bound to be some brown, too.
My bad, I agree, we would probably be engaged in a war in Afghanistan, though unlike Bush, I'm betting Gore would have left enough troops in Afghanistan to actually secure the country, instead of ensuring poppy production was higher than ever, which creates the world's heroin and funds terrorists, and ensuring that most of the country was back in the hands of the warlords except for small heavily armed pockets of Allied controlled territory.
As for your other two points, I don't know where you get that. But again, I'd be willing to bet that the overall number of innocents killed would be drastically lower worldwide, from terrorism, than it is now. And the economy one day is going to have to pay for Bush's exorbitant spending. That must also be taken into account. It's not just about what our present state is, it's about the future problems we're going to have cleaning up today's messes.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrianM: 99 is an obvious parallel to Martin Luther.
Not so much. There were only 95 theses. Of course, it's a little late now to correct the mistake.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Dagonee is irrational, then? Fascinating! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)