When does it become 'politics'?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 4 of 8
I'm not picky. Whatever would hold the politicians feet to the fire.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More random rant from me:
1. It may have been 48 hours. Whittington, in his at-gunpoint apology for getting in the way of the divine bullet, referred to the incident as happening on friday. Someone else at the scene had referred to it as 'the friday accident' which then had been disregarded when everyone else said saturday. But now the press is looking into that.
2. The point of Clinton lying under oath was that a) this was a long line of crimes, and b) it was proof of what had long been suspected: that everything Clinton said was a lie.
3. Bush is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following. Or, bah, phooey, Bush is a monkey and isn't doing anything. Let me start over...
3. Cheney is not maintaining the status quo, he is is following an agenda to establish a mideast union, which is part of a larger plan. It's a political agenda, just not one which is ever discussed, because cause they have everyone thinking that this is about a) terrorism, b) oil. To some extent it's about oil, but only to a limited degree. Cheney seeks to monopolize the global oil market in order to leverage the world.
I want to clarify a point. Cheney is stealing oil from Iraq and giving it to his friends who helped get him elected. This makes them 10s of billions of $. But this is not about that. If it were, Cheney would just give them the money he is spending on a war in Iraq. Cheney seriously cares about his twisted agenda of global domination.
What I find is curious is that my friend Frank was willing to give up on Cheney after supporting him for years because it was showing him as a flawed character, and that lefties here are willing to call it an accident, thus supporting my whole character vs. platform points theory.
Rue,
Armstrong is not a credible witness, she's a corrupt lobbyist who will say anything to forward the agenda of her clients. If that means lying about what transpired to keep Cheney out of trouble, of course she will do it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And in fact her testimony does differ from that of others, which also differ in detail among themselves. And she did use weasel words like 'I didn't SEE any drinking ..." I don't give her testimony any special credit.
OTOH if there really were drinky-poohs back at the ranch, that would have been made to be seen by several people. And if Cheney had been breathalyzed, everyone would have said - yes indeedee-doo, Cheney did steady his shaken nerves.
OR, the cocktail back at the ranch was a story concocted to account for BAC just in case.
Either way, they were strategizing for potential discovery of alcohol.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you assume the issue is that simple then it is probably a political belief rather then a fact. Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents? Because either one of them “got” far more people killed then Clinton and Bush combined. And as far as what “LAWS” are broken, what laws are broken? Accusing someone of breaking a law is not the same thing as breaking it. It’s political because it is vastly oversimplified. To suggest that Bush or Clinton are bad presidents because they got people killed in wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president to wield in defense of American national security is to jump way ahead of the facts and assert something that is not necessarily true based on the evidence. Now we can argue about whether it is true or not, or about what the limits of the presidency should be, etc but that will be a political argument, and you can believe that it is true, but that will be a political belief not a statement of fact.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If I say "Clinton was a bad President", or "Bush is a bad President", and back it up with how many they got killed, or what LAWS they've broken, how is that a political belief?
There is nothing wrong with political debate or political opinion. In fact I believe they are both very healthy and necessary for a liberal society. The problem enters when people attempt to draw conclusions without merit. It is one thing to have an opinion; it is something entirely different to assert that that opinion is true. Statements that assert that Bush or Cheney are evil or the “dark lord” or some similar moronic comment or referring to Cheney as “Cheney the Dick” step way beyond even political debate and enter into the realm of character assassination. I like political debate, but I don’t care anything about the kind of idiotic and childish discussion that often dominates the Bush and Cheney/Iraq discussion on this board. I don’t see the problem as being political opinion but rather irrational and even bigoted hatred of Bush and Cheney. That kind of stuff completely deflates the intelligence of the discussion, and that is unfortunate, because there are many very intelligent and well read people on this board who are unable to form a cogent and critical opinion of Bushs’ policies or the Iraq Campaign due to the distortion caused by their hatred of Bush and Cheney.
And I’m not talking, necessarily, about people who make humorous or impetuous comments that they know aren’t necessarily valid. Political humor is rife with unfair and inappropriate criticism, and it’s often very funny because of it. But there’s a difference between political humor and the constant drone of Bush hating. I commented to a friend a few weeks ago that the one thing that I could never forgive the Bush haters for was making Bush jokes passé. I was being somewhat facetious, of course, but it’s true that the constant drum of irrational and hateful nonsense directed at the Bush Administration has left nothing, it seems, for the political humorist.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Were Roosevelt and Wilson bad presidents?
WTF? They were terrible. Wilson was arguably the worst president this country ever had. Wilson is almost singlehandedly responsible for WWII, and he made the poor tactical decision to go to war with Germany, and another one to go to war with Russia, and wanted to sign the US back up as a subject of the British Empire, which is what signing the league of nations charter would have de facto done. His creation of the concept of a 'War Debt' was the catalyst for world economic collapse. He was a disaster. An unmitigated disaster.
Roosevelt, for his part, refuse to intervene to stop the holocaust, and instead went on a long bloody and utterly pointless war with Japan, thus tying up all American resources, not to mention staying in power forever like a dictator. I don't know if he fixed elections or anything, but ack. Also, concentration camps on US soil.
Yes, I would take that they were both worse than Bush without question.
Quote:
wars which are the Constitutional domain of the president
Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."
Lying is not a political opinion.
I agree with Chris.
A political position is X is an important problem, and Y is a way to deal with X that I think would work.
'Al Qaeda hates America' is not a political point of view. It's a statement of fact. 'Castro is a dictator' is a statement of fact. 'The US should remove Castro from power' is a political point of view.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.
My only problem is the 'above the law' syndrome. Both Clinton and Bush broke laws (Whitewater, illegal wiretaps, etc., Signy and Rue could make ya a real big list, I'm sure), and I don't see that it's necessarily 'political' to say they shouldn't break laws, and question their validity in office because of just that.
Imagine a call of 'foul ball' when it's clearly a home run. If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't be in the game, right?
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?
I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Finn, very intelligent and thoughtful reply, as usual.Quote:
Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.
Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.
Damn.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know that everything is always corrupt, but I do think that things are often not that black and white. What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome? This is a rhetorical question. The point is that the question is not only about whether the president may have instituted a policy that resulted in a law being broken, but rather what, as the People, are we prepared to accept in the defense of our country, our livelihood and even our lives. And is that a question that we our only interest is in attack a person whom we harvest an irrational hatred of?
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Or is the ultimate point that EVERYTHING is corrupt, and that we favour the corruption that gets the most good done? We accept law-breaking because no truly law-abiding presidents will ever hold office now?
Quote:That’s a legitimate question, and an important one. But if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong? It is critical to our liberal democracy that we criticize our government, but it is equally critical that we do so rationally.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I have never broken a law for monitary gain or to make a friend happy.
Can I not ask as much from my President?
Quote:The Constitution also defines the President as the Commander and Chief of the military and as such it is his Constitutional purview under the provision of civilian power over the military to wage war.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn. Okay, I won't say it. You do realize this is an oxy moron though, right? The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war."
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, at least you acknowledge the breaking of laws by presidents. But let's remember the reports pointing to an Al Queda attack didn't get enough attention to help avert 911, so why do you think secret wire taps are all of a sudden going to be so effective? (rhetorical question also).
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What if through these secret wiretaps the government had stopped the murder of possibly thousands of Americans? And therefore, if these wiretaps had never been done, and thousands of Americans were dead, would that be an acceptable outcome?
Quote:
if you begin from a position of irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney, how can you objectively argue that his policies are wrong?
I don't know the men, therefore I can't love or hate them. I don't hate Charles Manson, nor do I love Jessica Alba; I don't know them.
*looks off* Well, Jessica....
No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.
"(Presidents) are either a benefit, or a hazzard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem,"
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know that I would necessarily disagree with either of those statements, certainly not the second one.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, I don't like the policies.
Political statement: The Iraq War is one of the worst ways Bush could have responded to 911.
Realistic statement: The abuse at Abu Gharib should have never happened, and all responsible for allowing it, ordering it, or turning a blind eye to it should be prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes.
Quote:Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris has a lot more tact than I do. Given that he's likely to say what I basically agree with, maybe I should give up, and let him say it.
Except that this eternal flame war is all about numbers.
Damn.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME