Bush article in 'Rolling Stone'

POSTED BY: aussay
UPDATED: Saturday, April 22, 2006 19:24
VIEWED: 8079
PAGE 3 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H

Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.

Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H

Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.

Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

Maybe there is hope for Bush's reputation yet !

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:09 AM

double post

HERO

Friday, April 21, 2006 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I have often wondered how history would have viewed both Lincoln and Kennedy if they hadn't of been killed in office...

Not as rosy I would suspect

Maybe there is hope for Bush's reputation yet !

Sounds like an implied threat. Is someone advocating the murder of an American President? Perhaps it was only a slip of the finger or a thoughtless offhand remark. Either way, I'm sure the boys from the NSA who follow our discussions closely, hey guys, anyway I'm sure they've got a bed at Club Gitmo with your screename on it.

H

JMB9039

Friday, April 21, 2006 1:45 PM

CITIZEN -

Thanks, I have firefox at home, but wrote the post at work (IE).

.

HERO

Friday, April 21, 2006 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves.

Kind of glossed over the 1850's in your history class, huh?

The Republican party came into existence in 1852 with a single issue, slavery. Within 10 years they had congress and the Presidency. As for Lincoln, I suggest you look up a little something called the 'Lincoln-Douglas' debates from 1858. Slavery was Lincoln's issue from the start, saying that aint so is like sayin Hillary Clinton is a man simply because she hasn't yet made an issue of her being a woman in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Quote:

The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist.

From 1895 to 1945 only three American Presidents truly understood the 20th Century and the role America would play: Roosevelt, Wilson, and Roosevelt.

Teddy made this country a world power and gave us a national sense of just what America was all about. Since then we have bottled Roosevelt vison of America and exported it in some degree to every nation on earth.

Quote:

Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed

...to defeat the Soviet Union, revitalize the American economy, inspire the innovation that led to the Information Age, and give a vision of hope to a generation of Americans and an entire world yearning for freedom and liberty in their own country. You may not like Reagan, but history loved him from the start.

H

CARTOON

Friday, April 21, 2006 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And Bush did lie about the reasons for going to war. The fact that we've found infractions that justify it after the fact does not change the fact the we were led into war under false pretenses. And investigation should be in order.

Firstly, for the record, I don't believe the President lied about Iraq. Everyone knows Iraq had WMD's, and there are no records of their destruction. Logically, as there is no record of their destruction, they still must exist. Don't forget, the UN stalled and ran cover for Saddam for four months. If only every dictator had four months warning of impending invasion.

That point aside, regarding the being "led into war under false pretenses" claim, from my study of American history, it seems that in nearly every case, the USA to war under false pretenses.

If we look back at how the British treated the American colonists, the colonists really had no beef to rebel against them -- heck, we're paying exhorbitantly more taxes now to a government which (it can be argued) still isn't properly "representing" the people who put it there.

The Mexican War was a shame to grab more territory, in which our reasons for entering the war were totally "arranged" and fabricated. I don't recall hearing of anyone crying for an investigation into Polk's administration.

The Civil War is bit more murky -- but I believe that the righteous cause of ending slavery was something added later on (as someone here has already said), and not the initial reason. (Yes, the southern states may've seceedeed because of that specific issue, but I believe the U.S. went to war against the Confederacy more to maintain the union than to abolish slavery -- even though Lincoln was clearly an abolitionist.)

The Indian Wars and Spanish American War were both likewise fought over manufactured issues. No calls of investigations into Grant's or McKinley's administrations (although, Grant's administration did have its share of scandal -- it wasn't because he was killing native Americans).

The U.S. had absolutely no reason to get involved in WWI. The excuse our government used (the sinking of Lusitania) really was a non-issue to the U.S. Firstly, the Lusitania was a British (not American) ship, and it was sunk nearly two full years prior to the U.S.'s declaration of war.

And while it can be argued that Hitler certainly had to be stopped, Hitler didn't attack the U.S. -- Japan did. Granted, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler stupidly declared war on the U.S. (to which we had to reciprocate), but anyone who's studied this war knows that FDR was itching for an opportunity to enter the war in Europe, but didn't want to commit political suicide by doing so when (prior to Pearl Harbor) the vast majority of Americans were dead set against entering the war.

One can also argue about the reasons given for entering Viet Nam (and Korea, for that matter), but it should be clear that our reasons for entering a war are rarely as clear cut as people like to think they are.

Personally, while I consider myself an avid supporter of the President (on most issues), I don't believe we needed to preemptively invade Iraq. I do believe the world is better off with Saddam gone -- but I'm not sure it had to be done when and how it was done.

That being said, I wholeheartedly disagree that the war is not going "well". Could it be going better? Certainly. But, compare it to any other war the U.S. has ever been involved in, and the number of wounded and killed doesn't even compare. And regardless of what you see in most of the media (who hates the President), I've talked with soldiers who have been there, and every single one of them says it's nothing like the way the media is portraying it. They feel they're doing a good job, and that the vast majority of the Iraqi people support them and are grateful for their service in their behalf. Of course, you'll never hear that in the media.

DAYVE

Friday, April 21, 2006 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
the vast majority of the Iraqi people support them and are grateful for their service in their behalf

yes, i'm sure...like the woman who lost her entire family in the inital bombing raid on Bagdad.... we really won her over.....

ERIC

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Logically, as there is no record of their destruction, they still must exist.

...as Spock turns in his grave...

CITIZEN

Friday, April 21, 2006 4:17 PM

As ussual Cartoon turns up to talk shit and chew bubblegum. It's really not worth refuting anything he says, since he's too stupid to bring up a coherent argument, treat his posts like those of PirateNews, complete and utter senseless crap spouted by someone with less brains than a stuffed Iguana.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE