quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Actually, not all politicians lie.
Just the ones who keep getting reelected <grin>.
Might OSC be referring to our current president? Who, if I remember correctly, he was supporting during the election. Or did I miss something very important.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he was generalizing and making a funny at the same time. He probably is referring to Bush, but he's referring to all the others on both sides of the political spectrum as well. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let's see, I'm pretty sure that the total number of people killed in any of Bush's campaigns is still less than the average number of abortions annually in the U.S. alone. Sure these continue under Bush, but I'm sure you are counting murder here as deaths permitted by policy and not actual murder. I'd dare say there are more "partial birth" abortions (or D&X, if you prefer the clean medical term) each year thant the number of Americans who have died in Iraq.
Hmm, I didn't see that there was a second page.
I guess this again gets us into the lying thing. Yes, all politicians lie. If someone will point out where the thing that really really bothered Card about Clinton was that he lied, I'd be interested to read it. Clinton, again, was not being tried for lying. He was being tried for Sexual Harassment. He committed perjury, which is a specific act of lying under oath.
I think you're probably familiar with the phrase "When Clinton lied, nobody died." Unless you count the several bombings he ordered in order to get the congress to declare themselves united behind him during the hearings. I guess sometime I should try to articulate more specifically how angry that slogan made me.
Did Bush say something that turned out not to be true? Possibly. Saddam Hussein was on the loose in Iraq for 9 months after the war began, and has strong support with the Syrians- He is a very smart, if ruthless, man and when he got wind of the WMDs being a lynchpin of Bush's perceived success. I believe he gave most of them to the Syrians, who now comprise the most resistance to Iraq's democratically elected government.
We also know he had WMDs because we provided him with quite a few when he was our ally against Iran. But I guess it all depends on the media's definition of a WMD. Our previous alliance with Saddam was a terrible mistake, and it is the real reason I believe it was our job to remove him from power, because every minority or dissident citizen that Saddam murdered was blood on our hands. However, since Americans don't have that long of an attention span, Bush went with the WMD bugaboo. I think he made a mistake in doing so, since it was then very easy for the media to say of the tons of ordnance that have been found in Iraq "but it's not a working nuke, so it doesn't really count as a WMD."
posted
When Clinton lied -- making sure that the term "genocide" was never used in public, although it was on internal memos -- some 800,000 Rwandans died.
When he promised to work to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare," some 1.5Mx8 = 12,000,000 died.
So it would be fairer to say, "When Clinton lied, only about 13 million people died."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The phrase "when Clinton lied nobody died" is ridiculous in itself. It's okay to lie if nobody gets killed? Lying is wrong. Lying to the American people when you are President is worse. If people are DYING when you lie, something is so terribly wrong!
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Mothertree, I'm so glad you don't waste any time on actually verifying anything you say.
Yes, we gave Saddam Hussein weapons during previous administrations (well, not "gave"..."sold") But most of them (and, now, apparently all of them) were removed at the close of Gulf War I.
Bombings that Clinton ordered to rally Congress behind him??? Any websites besides Hannity & Limbaugh support this claim?
Tons of Ordnance? Any of it work? At all? Shall we include the patched together R/C plane as an unmanned assault aircraft, too?
And maybe we should say, "When Clinton lied, spermatazoa flied"?
posted
Oh! Good point. I forgot about the impeachment bombing of Iraq. But I never knew the death toll from that.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Actually, I’ve never heard that saying before.
I’m not going to bother getting into the whole abortion thing for several reasons, one of them being the fact that the entire “when does life begin” thing would overcomplicate issues and draw us off of our current focus. So to get back on track with my Bush comment: I was referring to the loss of human life in Iraq.
I wonder though why neither you (mothertree and Will B) chose to rebuttal against my remark that Bush is a murderer? All you replied with were examples of Clinton’s supposed follies in regards to human losses. I myself was making no distinctions between Bush and Clinton at first until mothertree said, “How can a true liberal be okay with having a sexual harrasser in charge?”
I thought it was kind of prudent to show a counterpoint to MT’s comment. I didn’t mean for it to become a teeter-totter of he-did-this and he-did-that. Those arguments go nowhere IMHO.
So when mothertree said “I guess both sides circle their wagons when the captain is under assault,” she was right on as far as it goes with me. Like I said earlier, I was already in a mindset where I didn’t want to hear anything the right had to say about it.
But you two don’t strike me as the closed minded person I used to be. So I wonder, why (and how) can a pro-Busher support a man that for all intents and purposes is indeed a murderer?
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase. How do you justify his actions in Iraq then? And don't give me the whole tired "freedom" thing either. There are lots of repressed peoples on this planet that we do nothing about.
I have a hard time seeing our nation right now as anything other than a global bully. What stinks about that is this administration’s choices have allowed the jihadists to exploit that that very image.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to give you anything. Read some old threads if you're interested. But don't expect us to grant your premises.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>I wonder though why neither you (mothertree and Will B) chose to rebuttal against my remark that Bush is a murderer? All you replied with were examples of Clinton’s supposed follies in regards to human losses.
I had several reasons for not refuting "Bush is a murderer": * I didn't notice this claim * It's not worth addressing, since there's no evidence that he's a murderer * It's not possible to prove a negative (since I haven't witnessed every minute of Bush's life) * I see hundreds of claims, and wouldn't have time to refute them all
You've since rephrased this as "how do you justify his actions in Iraq" -- a very different question, but ok.
I wasn't sure, back when the nation was discussing whether to invade Iraq. I did think the US was to blame for leaving Hussein in charge in '91. And for bombing Iraq for the next decade. I didn't see a way out short of war -- Hussein was clearly not going to stop executing Iraqi citizens, or evading UN inspections. I didn't like the way the US was letting the Iraqis suffer from our preserving Hussein's rule (see _Out of the Ashes_ for how the US not only allowed, but actively assisted, Hussein's survival after '91).
It was learning about what Hussein was doing to his citizens that convinced me the war was justified. In the first year of the war, in November, I checked the numbers: even the worst casualty estimates showed that we had saved lives by stopping Hussein's executions. It may be different now, if you count "killings by anti-American terrorists" as "killings by Bush," bizarre as that is.
Iraq would not have been the first country to need intervention to protect the lives of its citizens, but despite what I wanted to see happen, nobody was willing to stop Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Fortunately somebody (Bush admin) was willing to stop Sudan: they stopped the killing in the southern Sudan, getting autonomy for the region, and they're stopping a starvation attempt in Darfur. Doesn't show up on the news much.
So I *am* giving you that same old "tired" freedom -- and human life -- thing; but _I'm_ not tired of it, and neither are Iraqis, and neither, I think, should anybody be. The fact that people in China, say, aren't free, does not show that it's evil for people to be freed somewhere else.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Will for your input. Dagonee seems to think I was fishing for something that I was not, but what you posted was exactly what I was looking for: A different take on things outside of my own.
I don't agree with your point of view, but I can see where you are coming from. I am fully aware of the horrible relationship we kept with Hussein though. It's a shame things went that way. I agree he should have been taken down in '91, but I understand Bush I's perspective on that situation. The UN mandate was satisfied, so mission accomplished. It's hard to make tough decisions like if it's necessary to invade or not when you’ve already reached the stated objective. There are so many other factors to consider beyond taking down a scumbag like Hussein.
I have been wondering of late if Bush II will be seen in the same light as Eisenhower was long after the Korean War was over. DW got a lot of flak for Korea, but hindsight showed his actions to not only be just, but very important in maintaining the balance of power between the US and the USSR. From my point of view at this time I'd have to say no to Bush II's actions, but history often looks different after the dust settles.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM, is Clinton a murderer for bombing Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia? Will B, Bush couldn't go into Iraq because of conditions the coalition setup before the war started. The coalition could not invade Iraq because it was formed to free Kuwait and stop once that was accomplished. I believe it was specific about NOT invading Iraq. My thoughts are that Bush would have been ripped apart if he had gone in after Saddam. He did exactly what was agreed upon and still gets flak about it. Clinton bombed Iraq (or murdering Iraqis) for the next decade because Iraq kept shooting at planes that were patrolling the no-fly zone. Also, the UN sanctioned Iraq, not the US. The suffering of the Iraqi people is tied to Saddam and the UN's abuse of the Oil for Food program, not the US.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM, Some unsolicited advice. When you are going to post something, stop and think to yourself what effect you want it to have, and whether or not it's likely to have that effect. For example, the Bush = murderer thing. What did you want to come out of this? Was this actually a worthy, responsible goal? Did you achieve it and were you likely to achieve it? Is there perhaps another way you could have gone about pursuing this goal that may have yielded better results?
From my own perspective, I don't see anything productive coming out of that, but that's just me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
along the lines of what Squicky said...I do find it ironic that in a thread where a person announced how he decided that he needed to be more open minded to people he disagreed with, he called the president a murderer...and then single out two people that disagreed with him and said:
quote:But you two don’t strike me as the closed minded person I used to be. So I wonder, why (and how) can a pro-Busher support a man that for all intents and purposes is indeed a murderer?
EM, the reason people don't want to take the time to debate you, is you really don't seem to want to be more open minded. When you throw out attacks like that, it makes people wonder what they point in debating you is.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: EM, Some unsolicited advice. When you are going to post something, stop and think to yourself what effect you want it to have, and whether or not it's likely to have that effect. For example, the Bush = murderer thing. What did you want to come out of this? Was this actually a worthy, responsible goal? Did you achieve it and were you likely to achieve it? Is there perhaps another way you could have gone about pursuing this goal that may have yielded better results?
From my own perspective, I don't see anything productive coming out of that, but that's just me.
I didn't mean it as an attack, but I can see how it could be taken like that. I guess my problem in expressing ideas through text is I am often expressing my emotions at the same time. This is something I need to work on for sure.
Man I sure do love my fellow Hatrackers! That's twice now that someone has pointed something out to me about myself that I had not noticed on my own.
I think I'll rename this the "EM Introspective" thread. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: along the lines of what Squicky said...I do find it ironic that in a thread where a person announced how he decided that he needed to be more open minded to people he disagreed with, he called the president a murderer...and then single out two people that disagreed with him
Rome wasn't built in a day Lupus. I'm finding that it's a struggle to stay consistant sometimes. But as I just said above, I need to also seperate emotions from ideas. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Inconsistencies are worth pointing out, but it's also worth noting that they aren't hypocrisy if admitted. For myself, I want the freedom to admit mine.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’ve been having to remind myself at times to keep an open mind and to use empathy and understanding when speaking with others. For the most part I have been successful, but now and then I find myself slipping into my old habits and I have to stop myself and say, "No, that's not how you do it Keith. Let's try that again."
I was trying to drum up a little serious conversation on the Bush issue, but it did come off too brash and challenging as others have pointed out. I really appreciate MrSquicky's comments on the matter. There are a lot of intelligent and level headed people on this forum; that’s why I keep gravitating back to it.
And speaking of intelligent…Dagonee,
I just do not know how to take you. This is twice I have felt your comments carried hostility toward me. In our first encounter it was understandable, but this time I felt you didn’t even bother to try and see anything from my point of view. You just came in with a single statement and when I tried to engage in conversation with you all you did was throw up a wall and leave the thread. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I was expressing myself poorly? Did you even bother to try and discuss that with me? I know you’re not the forum therapist, but you don’t seem to be much of a diplomat either. Don’t take this the wrong way. I mean it sincerely and respectfully. I can see when you post on this forum that you posses a clear mind with strong values that you can express intelligently. I just wonder why you don’t use that to better effect when you talk to me. I guess what I am saying is I’d like to converse with you on a more respectful level than either of us appear to be doing. What do you think?
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
