How much will Bush screw you?

POSTED BY: Spookyjesus
UPDATED: Sunday, March 20, 2005 22:07
VIEWED: 5883
PAGE 4 of 4

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

I was curious, Hero, when I read this statement and it raised a couple of questions. Do you see international terrorism and domestic obstructionism as equivalent threats?

---

Naw. Its like like comparing apples to ants (not oranges). The War on Terror is the dominant world issue. Domestic obstructionism is a dominant domestic issue (I say this becaue it effects in some way every other domestic issue). Its like State and Federal court. In state court we litigate some issues, in Federal we litigate others, there is some overlap, but for the most part they are seperate and distinct. That might not be clear, so I will say that domestic obstructionists are not on the same level of international terrorists. However I do believe that their efforts have, at very specific times and for the most part unintentionally, served to aid the international terrorist agenda (for example, I think domestic and international opposition to the Iraq war, hey 2 years today, helped cause the very war they were trying to prevent by creating in Saddam a lack of understanding about the President's resolve and ability to see it through).

Quote:

---

Why I'm curious is because, for the most part, I disagree with the President on issues of policy. And so I'm wondering if you would lump me in with international terrorists.

---

Generally no. Disagreement with the President does not a terrorist make.

All terrorists disagree with the President. Jack is a terrorist, therefore Jack must disagree with the President. Jill disagrees with the President, is Jill a terrorist? Maybe. But given the proportion of terrorists to nonterrorists, I'd say Jill likely isnt a terrorist, so we need more information to make a full determination...thats what the Patriot Act is for.

Now speaking specifically about you...yeah, your probably a terrorist. I urge you to turn yourself in. As a Government attorney I promise you good treatment a fair trial and swift execution .

Remember to tell them I sent you, I need the reward money to pay my student loans, stupid govt salary...well you get the idea.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

So, is the President building a better world? Yes. But not in the way you think.

---

I'm sure you will point to the progress you think has been made, but not to any caveats, costs, or problems.
For example, I'm sure you believe Russians are better off under gangster-capitalism, since you alluded to that in your post. But you will neglect to note the 20+ year drop in lifespan the new economy caused. It was those economic conditions which handed "KGB" Putin his base.
So no, I don't see attaining an ideological goal as getting to a better world. I look for bottom-line real-world results, with accounting for both pluses and minuses.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You're a government attorney??? YIKES! When I see you make a breathless transition from the statement

"You sound like you're medicated" (paraphrase)

to

"You need to be mediated" (paraphrased from "Anybody who holds an opinion you don't agree with needs to be medicated"

I seriously, and I mean seriously, wonder about your grip on logic. How DID you get from the first statement to the second?? Please, explain in detail, you really lost me there.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

So, is the President building a better world? Yes. But not in the way you think.

---

I'm sure you will point to the progress you think has been made, but not to any caveats, costs, or problems.
For example, I'm sure you believe Russians are better off under gangster-capitalism, since you alluded to that in your post. But you will neglect to note the 20+ year drop in lifespan the new economy caused. It was those economic conditions which handed "KGB" Putin his base.
So no, I don't see attaining an ideological goal as getting to a better world. I look for bottom-line real-world results, with accounting for both pluses and minuses.

---

"Pluses and minuses", seems to you that the pluses don't count if there are minues (unless Clinton is President, then its the other way around).

Hmmm...sounds like your just a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. When I hear "American Revolution" I think liberty, you think Articles of Confederation. When I hear "Abe Lincoln" I think freed slaves, you think about, I don't know, maybe the draft (first one you know). "World War 2", thats the liberation of Europe and Japan or maybe justice for the murdered Jews, you think atomic arms race. "Collapse of Soviet Communism", thats the triumph of liberty, you see growing pains.

I know that sells you short. You see more then just one bad thing, you choose to see all bad things, at the expense of any good things or the overall good thing. Your one of those people who can't enjoy the forest because somebody stuck all those damn trees in the way.

To suggest the liberty is responsible for Russian corruption is a fundamental misubderstanding of the Soviet system. The life expectancy was not longer under Soviet rule. A person's life expectancy was only so long as the Soviet government allowed you to live...no longer. The corruption that existed after the fall was not new, it was systemic under the Soviet system, part and parcel, and when the government collapsed, the corruption lost its "cover".

Liberty is not the cause, its the solution, but our own experiance has taught us that liberty is a process, not an instant fix.


H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Naw. Its like like comparing apples to ants (not oranges). The War on Terror is the dominant world issue. Domestic obstructionism is a dominant domestic issue (I say this becaue it effects in some way every other domestic issue). Its like State and Federal court. In state court we litigate some issues, in Federal we litigate others, there is some overlap, but for the most part they are seperate and distinct. That might not be clear, so I will say that domestic obstructionists are not on the same level of international terrorists.

---

I’m interpreting that when you say domestic obstructionist you are referring to those who are working against the implementation of Bush’s stated policy objectives. Maybe another word to use could be a loyal opposition. I doubt that you think Bush is infallible, so I’m sure you agree that at some point what he thinks is good for this country might not actually be good for the majority of Americans, or even a minority. I doubt that you are arguing that we should give Bush carte blanche since I think we agree that no human being is perfect. The conservatives I know had, at least at one time, a healthy skepticism of big government and a healthy respect for patriotic dissent. I take you to be a conservative like that. Although I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe you do think that all Americans should agree wholeheartedly with every single goal of this administration and that anyone who feels differently is a traitor. I give you more credit, however.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
However I do believe that their efforts have, at very specific times and for the most part unintentionally, served to aid the international terrorist agenda (for example, I think domestic and international opposition to the Iraq war, hey 2 years today, helped cause the very war they were trying to prevent by creating in Saddam a lack of understanding about the President's resolve and ability to see it through).

---

Your interpretation sure gives a lot of power to those who opposed the Iraq War. I did not realize that our actions were so pivotal and actually succeeded in altering the course of two nations. But I think you’re reading events incorrectly. Another interpretation is that Hussein felt he couldn’t allow his neighbors to learn he had limited offensive capabilities and that Bush, and his advisors, were determined to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of the inspections (not for WMDs, not for al Qaeda ties, not because al Qaeda would get WMD from Hussein to attack the domestic US, but instead to start a domino effect of democracy in the Middle East – the PNAC goals. Whether or not the US should be involved in forcibly creating democracies around the globe is a question for debate – I come down on the side that we shouldn’t). The millions of people who protested pre-invasion worldwide had no impact whatsoever on the actions of Bush and Hussein. What did have an impact was the personality of the two men: stubbornness and egotism on the part of Hussein and a strong and resolute belief in his own intuition on the part of Bush. From the second Congress passed the resolution there was no doubt that we were going to war with Iraq, at least in my mind. My personal opinion, which I took to the streets with before the invasion, was that invading Iraq was a distraction from our efforts in Afghanistan going after al Qaeda – a fight against an already identified enemy who had attacked us on our own soil. At the time, I felt that we should be going full force in Afghanistan. Now, I just want us to get Iraq into a stable enough situation so that we can bring our troops home. In other words, I’m hoping and praying for a good outcome to a bad decision.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Generally no. Disagreement with the President does not a terrorist make.

All terrorists disagree with the President. Jack is a terrorist, therefore Jack must disagree with the President. Jill disagrees with the President,

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME