I support Bush because ....

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2023 03:50
VIEWED: 13337
PAGE 10 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

FELLOWTRAVELER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:33 PM

Righteous9,

For the most part, I can't disagree with your post. The results of this Administration's policies has been, by any objective measure, disastrous. More than hundred thousand innocent people have had their lives snuffed out. Wages have been stagnant. The number of poor people in the States has grown exponentially. The Constitution has been soiled. Capital has excelled at the expense of labor. Since President Bush's inauguration, in a very real way, each day has been better than the next.

However, I do believe that intent is a factor. In our society, what we mean to do vs. what happens is often taken into consideration. That is not to say that results are insignificant, but they are only part of the equation.

In regards to "when they even misrepresent or obscure the truth in order to further their own interests", I would whole heartedly agree that this is pure evil and pray that come the first Tuesday, following the first Monday this November, that the people of this country will finally be able to see through the subterfuge and fear-mongering and hand the reins of government to men and women with a more noble purpose.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

"Typical Joe" Bush supporters are by and large misguided or so terribly frightened that they'll do anything to feel safer. But the WEALTHY and POLITICAL Bush supporters- the DeLays, Abramoffs, Cheneys, etc. know EXACTLY what they're doing. Do you really think that they're trying to "stimulate the economy" through tax cuts??? Believe me, they're not as stupid as Bush.

You got me there, SignyM. To put in SciFi terms, I rather think of Cheney as the Sith Lord with President Bush playing the role of Anakin. You know, not terribly bright and easily manipulated.

So, perhaps what I mean to say is that the President didn't start off evil, but has been seduced by the dark side. Yet, in his stupidity, he is unaware of the transformation...

EDIT- Meaning he still thinks he is doing the right thing.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I agree that throwing the word evil around is not very useful when it is undefined. So lets define it a little.

Maybe how we define evil should be results oriented. Lets say Poverty and hunger are evils in the world. De facto slavery is evil. Faccism is evil. No holds barred destruction of the biosphere is evil. And by 'evil,' I mean that all or most of us can agree that such results are bad.

Then activities and policies, no matter what their supposed intent, which cause more of these things, are evil.

Well, you just put 99% of the world's population in the "evil" column, so I guess that by your definition, yeah, Bush is evil.

Quote:
We even say in discussion, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," so to absolve people of doing harm because they do not see it is fair to a point...

but when you continue to try to educate them and they refuse to see because the facts are in contradiction to their own self-interests, when they even misrepresent or obscure the truth in order to further their own interests,

why can't we define their behavior as evil?

If you're absolutely sure that your facts and your truths are the only valid facts and truths, then of course you can call their behavior evil. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do it all the time.

If a man wants to cut down some rainforest so he can grow enough crops to feed his famly and maybe sell a bit to get out of poverty, is he good or evil? He's destroying the biosphere to further his own interests, but at the same time reducing poverty and hunger. Which wins out?

Yeah, I know. Cleared rainforest is crappy for farming, but this is just a simplistic example.

What if all you see is a guy out chopping down trees and clearing brush? You don't know his motivation, but as someone completely committed to biosphere preservation, you know he must be evil. What if you only see some guy selling his surplus crops and starting a bank account? As an anti-poverty crusader, you admire his good work.

I know that this little example will draw plenty of "...but Bush did this and that" from folks who think they know his motivations - who are SURE they know his motivations. I'm not that clairvoyant. I know some of his actions have, in my opinion, been wrong. Some have had good intentions but failed in execution. Some have been all right. I don't think that it adds up to evil.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Notice how Geezer avoided the whole embarassing "what is evil?" question?

Nope. Just had other stuff to do.

Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FELLOWTRAVELER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:11 PM

Aaawww, come on Geezer, Maccaca or sluts?

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Would I be evil if I pointed out how embarrassing it must be to mis-spell "embarassing"?

No, you'd be a loser, so it's lucky you didn't stoop to the sad sad level of petty spelling correction eh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:22 PM

My thoughts.

Even though our legal system factors 'intent' (the thoughts ahead of time) I'm not sure I apply it.

First of all, 99.9% of the people have no control over the system, and hence no choice. They're just trying to survive in a system built and controlled by others.

Second, it's fairly difficult to go back in time and try and figure what was on someone's mind when they started.

And third, you don't have to try mind-read. You can glean intention from action over time. If you have a choice and you really intend to do good, you pay attention to feedback. Is this working, is it headed in the right direction. If you really intend good, you alter what you do to keep on course. So, negative results create a change in behavior for those intending positive results.

The administration clearly has the power, and choice, and is therefore subject to judgement. While there are clear records in some cases that the administration intended to lie and intended to enrich themselves at the US's expense, it's only for a portion of instances. So you have to look at the third factor to assign the label of 'evil', and that is action over time. So, in Iraq for example, while over half a million Iraqis have died and the consistent feedback has been 'this is making things worse, not better', Bush's informed response is 'stay the course'. What do you glean his intentions are from these years of actively pursuing destruction, death, insecurity, and, oh yes, bankruptcy?

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:25 PM

To clear things up Geezer, because you make valid points,

I edited my original post before you saw it for the very things you mentioned. It originally said destruction of the biosphere was 'evil', and then I amended it to say that no-holds-barred destruction of the bioshpere is evil.

Admittedly, this is a vague definition. To clear it up further, I mean decisions that do more harm than good overall are doing 'evil.' That doesn't mean the farmer that needs to clear wildlife and forest so that he can provide for his family is evil, and far from it. But the overall result may be evil as I have defined it, if cumulatively we are hurting more people than we are helping by our choices, in the long run.

Small countries that feed their people by selling off their rainforests...etc. hardly have a choice in the matter, and to some extent, big countries are competing amongst each other for those resources, using the rationale that if they don't harvest those trees somebody else will.

I can't disagree there, and I can't necesarily define that as evil. But when we could be making a difference on the policy level, when America in particular could be on the global scene, curbing global consumption of rainforests and looking into treaties involving conservation, but we choose not to, even in the face of catastrophic results, simply because such an action would damage profit margins of some of our most powerful companies, that's entering into my definition of 'evil' once more.

To continue to absolve ourselves of any guilt and act like we are but one cog in a great machine, is cynical and a cop-out. America has enoromous power on these issues. So often, we excercise that power to destroy.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Aaawww, come on Geezer, Maccaca or sluts?

Gonna be an interesting race. I try not to make my vote in congressional races a proxy for my like or dislike of the president, so I'll probably go on issues of more local interest. If I want to get rid of the Republican in the White House, I'll vote against him in 2008.

Looking at Webb's site, he only has one paragraph which specifically references Virginia. Everything else is national or international policy. His biggest issue is (surprise, surprise) the Iraq war. I'm in general agreement with his views on abortion, gay rights, and other equality issues. Not too many solutions proposed on immigration, just a suggestion to seperate the issues border security and illegals already in the country. Nothing much on crime or drug policy.

Allen mentions benefits to Virginia quite a bit more and has more content. I have problems with his reproductive and gender rights stands. I do have the natural disinclination to remove a Senator who has tenure, as he can bring more local benefits.

On some issues, such as gun control, it's pretty much a wash, with Allen getting A+ from the NRA and Webb an A.

The Macacca vs. Sluts is also a wash, although Allen only directly insulted one individual, where Webb insulted all women attending service academies.

So. Does my dislike for Allen's family values stand overwhelm my disinclination to cave to the "Bush is evil" crowd? That's why it's called a secret ballot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First of all, 99.9% of the people have no control over the system, and hence no choice. They're just trying to survive in a system built and controlled by others.

Eh, Rue. You were asking above why I thought you believed in conspiracies? Here's why.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE