I support Bush because ....
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2023 03:50
VIEWED: 13337
PAGE 7 of 14
Well Slick, here is part of my response.
I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found.
You freely demonized 'liberals' as a group, their institutions and individuals. You never criticized Bush; not for lying his way into Iraq, for torture, for dirty political tricks, incompetence, or even for his abysmal service record.
You lied many times over, and when you got caught - abandoned the thread only to say the same things elsewhere. You derailed discussion by trying to redirect it, by ad hominem attacks, and other rhetorical schemes.
Below is a SMALL sampling of your partisan whining. And you know, I miss Ghoulman. He was crude, and rude, but most important, he proved RIGHT. Unlike you.
------------------
9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
silence
The Seven Minutes
silence
Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees
silence
Fantastic Speech
-(You're talking about George Dubya. A man so basically stupid he can't be trusted to cross the street without someone holding his hand.)
-Do you have a cite for that?
Well, we might have found WMD...
-Sanctions worked in Iraq? Explain, please.
-Sanctions in Libya didn't work until after we invaded Iraq. Coincidence?
Lining the Pockets of Big Business?
-Kerry's (energy) plan would:
* Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' and give consumers a $5,000 tax incentive to buy energy-efficient vehicles.
Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? Not saying it's a bad idea, but...
Bush = Dumb Ass
-Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.
Also defends CPA carving up of Iraq and its corruption
Moscow's waking up..finally
-Look out ConnerFlynn!! It's a trap!!!
You'll say "Sure, they were evil bastards and terrorists of the first stripe, and I hope they burn in Hell for eternity." Then SignyM will inform you that the USA supported all of them at one time, and hence we are terrorists too.
-(Oh BTW Geezer- you revealed your colors as a partisan rather than an unbiased seeker of truth. I specifically chose two of three examples to be leaders that we did NOT support.)
It's called "torture" Mr. Bush
Silence
Leading expert used by CBS didn't verify documents.
-Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
Bush’s real record of service? Silence. In Slick’s eyes the most important fact was Dan Rather
Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot
Here Slick defends tens of thousands of republicans signing petitions to put Nader on the ballot
War is peace
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7427
Slick really goes into overdrive here
-Then the 'irrelevant' UN worked, I take it.
-Until the bribes got big enough
-One theory you'll probably see from the administration (just guessing here) is that if Blix had found no WMD, the Oil-for-food bribees (Russia, France, China, etc.) would have pressed for removing sanctions. … with three Security Council members in Saddam's pocket.
Then someone … would help Iraq with nuclear development. Hence Iraq with WMD.
-Not actually too implausable, and that's all they need.
-We often jail people ahead of time for conspiracy
(ignoring that requirement for concrete steps taken)
-… see Iraq as analogous to Germany in, say, 1937
-No WMD ?
-tyrants and dictators left alone to build their forces
-Ok, you're right. We should let the UN deal with it.
-(We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world.)
-Got a list of bases?
-Actually, we (the WWII Allies) did have to invade, liberate, or bomb into rubble six or seven countries just to deal with Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.
-we should do what you'd have preferred with Iraq and continued to let the UN handle it. The UN is handling it, Right?
-(Just to demonstrate how you cherry-pick your inf
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well Slick, here is part of my response.
I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found.
You freely demonized 'liberals' as a group, their institutions and individuals. You never criticized Bush; not for lying his way into Iraq, for torture, for dirty political tricks, incompetence, or even for his abysmal service record.
You lied many times over, and when you got caught - abandoned the thread only to say the same things elsewhere. You derailed discussion by trying to redirect it, by ad hominem attacks, and other rhetorical schemes.
Below is a SMALL sampling of your partisan whining. And you know, I miss Ghoulman. He was crude, and rude, but most important, he proved RIGHT. Unlike you.
------------------
9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
silence
The Seven Minutes
silence
Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees
silence
Fantastic Speech
-(You're talking about George Dubya. A man so basically stupid he can't be trusted to cross the street without someone holding his hand.)
-Do you have a cite for that?
Well, we might have found WMD...
-Sanctions worked in Iraq? Explain, please.
-Sanctions in Libya didn't work until after we invaded Iraq. Coincidence?
Lining the Pockets of Big Business?
-Kerry's (energy) plan would:
* Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' and give consumers a $5,000 tax incentive to buy energy-efficient vehicles.
Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? Not saying it's a bad idea, but...
Bush = Dumb Ass
-Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.
Also defends CPA carving up of Iraq and its corruption
Moscow's waking up..finally
-Look out ConnerFlynn!! It's a trap!!!
You'll say "Sure, they were evil bastards and terrorists of the first stripe, and I hope they burn in Hell for eternity." Then SignyM will inform you that the USA supported all of them at one time, and hence we are terrorists too.
-(Oh BTW Geezer- you revealed your colors as a partisan rather than an unbiased seeker of truth. I specifically chose two of three examples to be leaders that we did NOT support.)
It's called "torture" Mr. Bush
Silence
Leading expert used by CBS didn't verify documents.
-Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
Bush’s real record of service? Silence. In Slick’s eyes the most important fact was Dan Rather
Nader: Democrats Will Do Anything To Keep Me Off the Ballot
Here Slick defends tens of thousands of republicans signing petitions to put Nader on the ballot
War is peace
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7427
Slick really goes into overdrive here
-Then the 'irrelevant' UN worked, I take it.
-Until the bribes got big enough
-One theory you'll probably see from the administration (just guessing here) is that if Blix had found no WMD, the Oil-for-food bribees (Russia, France, China, etc.) would have pressed for removing sanctions. … with three Security Council members in Saddam's pocket.
Then someone … would help Iraq with nuclear development. Hence Iraq with WMD.
-Not actually too implausable, and that's all they need.
-We often jail people ahead of time for conspiracy
(ignoring that requirement for concrete steps taken)
-… see Iraq as analogous to Germany in, say, 1937
-No WMD ?
-tyrants and dictators left alone to build their forces
-Ok, you're right. We should let the UN deal with it.
-(We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world.)
-Got a list of bases?
-Actually, we (the WWII Allies) did have to invade, liberate, or bomb into rubble six or seven countries just to deal with Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.
-we should do what you'd have preferred with Iraq and continued to let the UN handle it. The UN is handling it, Right?
-(Just to demNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- It's obvious to everyone that by and large you mainly support Bush. According to you he's an intelligent, honest, farsighted supporter of American liberties and safety.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BRWNCT
Not to nitpick or anything, but to blame Bush for the Iraqi genocide comes across as one sided. Bush is only just now getting up to the Clinton era casualty figures on the iraqi genocide. I'd personally count bush sr. our as there was a war going on, and bush sr. was counter-attacking saddam hussein, and the story about dick cheney telling saddam that the us would do nothing if he invaded kuwait doesn't make it all a big conspiracy. cheney wasn't president, and he and the president weren't on speaking terms so much as yelling terms. IMHO
Vonnegut is right w. doesn't give a damn about america. I think that maybe harrison bergeron would be a better system.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well Slick, here is part of my response.
I went through the archives, from the oldest to the end of 2004. And here is what I found...
Well, I have to admit that you have conclusively proven that I disagree with you on many issues, and have often had the temerity to propose alternative scenarios to the "Bush is the wellspring of all evil" platform.
I notice you didn't mention my oft-stated disagreement with the Bush policies on stem cell research, gay rights, marriage amendments, HIV-Aids treatment, faith-based initiatives, closeness to fundamentialist Christians, etc. Seems like you've come up with a new version of the old 'Jim Crow' laws. One drop of Bush-supporting blood...
Anyway, we've established pretty well that I sometimes support Bush's policies - and sometimes don't. Whose policies do you support? Are you having a hard time coming up with anyone you can agree with?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- You support:
Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?
Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?
The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?
The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?
Torture?
Election fraud?
Massive deficits?
American oil dependence?
Just want to be clear about this....
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- You support:
Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?
Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?
The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?
The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?
Torture?
Election fraud?
Massive deficits?
American oil dependence?
Just want to be clear about this....
And have I stopped beating my wife? But, OK...
"Warrantless eavesdropping of American citizens?"
If you specifically mean intercepting calls made from the US to known terrorists overseas, then, yeah. In general, no.
"Arrest w/o benefit of habeas corpus?" If you specifically mean in cases of terrorism suspects where revealing the accuser may get them killed or vital intelligence sources may be lost, then yeah. In general, no.
"The invasion of Iraq based on claims of WMD?" If we all knew then what we know now, I'd say no. Given the information available at the time, yep. Please don't copy reams of post facto articles. We've pretty much beat this one to death.
"The way the Iraq occupation was implemented?" Never was too happy with that myself. Should have kept the Iraqi military and civil service intact (after a good cleaning).
"Torture?" But my wife likes it when I beat her!
We're back to defining the line between "interrogation" and "torture" again. The stuff at Abu Graib, for example, was over the line and quite properly was punished. "Election fraud?" Of course not. If there's evidence, then indict.
"Massive defecits?" Having lived through periods of defecits and surpluses, I gotta say I don't much care.
"American oil dependence?" Not quite sure what you mean here, but, if we were to conquer Venezuela...
Got any more loaded questions for me?
And BTW, who do you support, if anyone?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Most favorite well-known politicians: Russ Feingold, John Conyers. They had the guts and the foresight (like me!) to say ahead of the fact that invading Iraq was bullshit.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Most favorite well-known politicians: Russ Feingold, John Conyers. They had the guts and the foresight (like me!) to say ahead of the fact that invading Iraq was bullshit.
Interesting guys. Based on what I read at http://www.ontheissues.org I'd probably disagree with them on defense policy, immigration, gun control, drilling in ANWR, and some tax and budget issues. I'd agree on education, gay rights, abortion, and most civil rights issues.
Overall probably a bit too liberal for me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I notice you didn't mention my oft-stated disagreement ..."
And here is why I don't often get into extended discussion, especially not with you. For you truth is a flexible thing.
In the entire period I looked at, you mentioned ONCE that you disagreed with Bush on religion in government, discrimination against gays and abortion. You never argued against them in any way, you just mentioned once that you diasagreed. So did you ever POST a argument on these issues? No. On related issues like the Supreme Court nominations, did you post anything at all? No. On other pertinent issues, for example torture, WMD claims, 'seven minutes', and ghost detainees, you posted nothing at all. There is a legal maxim - silence is consent. And then you spent well over 95% of your posts either defending, excusing, minimizing, lying, derailing, or otherwise engaged in pro-Bush propaganda.
"Anyway, we've established pretty well that I sometimes support Bush's policies - and sometimes don't."
Out of 46 quotes, you mentioned you disagreed once. You mentioned you disagreed 2.7% of the time. YOU are the reason why I said (far above) when someone agrees 95% of the time, they are a de facto Bush supporter. ("So for example, someone who posts roughly 20 slightly to highly supportive Bush comments for every slightly negative one on this board could fairly be said to be a Bush supporter.")
".. (I) have often had the temerity to propose alternative scenarios to the "Bush is the wellspring of all evil" platform."
When something is provable - for example, Bush did lie the US into an Iraq war of aggression - do you not believe in calling it the evil that it is? Or would you rather ignore, lie, minimize, excuse, derail and propagandize in support of it? When Bush repeatedly does these kinds of things, do you not think truth should be told? Tell me, how do you excuse the evil that he does?
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME