|
Post by lulu on Sept 21, 2006 13:39:12 GMT -5
This thread is too sensitive. Let's TRY to keep civility in it and not hurt anyone's feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Sept 22, 2006 11:46:39 GMT -5
I hate those who are ignorant and hateful and who have also been given power to act upon with only their evil to guide them. Therefore, although Bush Jr. may be 'a swell guy if you get to know him', I hate him all the same. here is list of known Bush crimes, any one of which would be legal cause for impeachment: And on top of this, the propoganda machine of the right, backed by the money of the ultra-elite (plus the hordes of their deluded pawns) has kept the ignorant of this country (read "the slight majority of voters) thinking that things aren't all that bad. ;D ..... and since the corrupt, GOP controlled congress has conveniently done away with the ethics and oversight committee (one of their first acts), there is no possibility for anyone (even any outspoken dem) to bring an impeachment motion before the senate/congress for consideration. P.S. --- Mind you. this list does not even touch upon his anti-environmental, anti-worker, pro cooperate, pro Christian right fanatics, etc...... actions while in office. All of which has turned the global love and respect of the U.S. felt by all in the wake of 9/11, into global antipathy, with (and this is important) even some whack comment by Chavez (calling Bush "el Diablo") gaining applause from most of the world's leaders at the U.N. If you are a U.S. citizen, and you do not hate and/or fear this president and his congressional monkeyes. You are woefully deluded, and a puppet of their propoganda......and you will resist accepting that.....but your resistance of the truth will NOT set you free. P.S. -- Nicknak - keep in mind that this is a partial list of why one might hate this man, and his regime. By the sound of your OP, you have been getting too much of your news from Limbaugh and Fox. Yes I do listen to them too, since I am a moderate, and not a left winger nut. But if you wish to know the truth Nicknak, you have to hear both sides, and try to get past the hateful fluff that both extremes try to pour onto the issues. However, since I have done so, I have found that the Bush administration is not "arguably" the worst/most corrupt administration in our nation's history....... it simply IS the worst/most corrupt. and its actions have resulted in thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lost innocent lives and the maiming of hundreds of thousands more. Such a leader IS to be hated, by all but his deluded spawn. And even they would be well advised to get rid of him.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 22, 2006 14:21:14 GMT -5
Daemon Sophic, please try to refrain from directly insulting anyone. This thread hasn't been a problem yet, and I don't want it to become one.
I will give a rebutal to your post in (hopefully) a few hours, but I ask that anyone else that replys to please discuss the subject rationally, honorably, and to be civil. Otherwise, there will be problems, and Nobody likes problems...
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Sept 22, 2006 20:06:50 GMT -5
All political " hatred" stems from extremist propaganda, whether it be from the left OR the right. People tend to forget that the political analysts from the big three cable news networks are just that... analysts stating their opinions. That list of grievances against the Bush administration is from a left wing web site and are not proven facts. We cannot condemn someone based upon conjecture or heresay. And as for that joker who gave the diablo speech at the U.N... I watched it and most leaders were NOT applauding, rather, there was some nervous laughter from a few leaders who were probably embarrassed by the joker's very UNdiplomatic diatribe. For the continued existence of all peoples around the globe, let us pray that the voices of moderation prevail above those of hatred.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 22, 2006 23:50:20 GMT -5
Alright, time to give a slightly more formal reply to you, Daemon Sophic.
In principle, I agree with Leviticus. Though I disagree with him on the causes of hatred. It isn't extremist propaganda, it is extremism in general that causes hatred.
Anyways, here's a reply to that website:
1. Show me the part of the Constitution that Bush violated by invading Iraq. As the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has every right to deploy US troops where ever he wants, as long as Congress supplys funding (which they did). Since the Constitution is the 'Supreme law of the land' in the US, it is the document that matters in the US, not the UN charter.
2. There is no proof that Bush or his administration knowingly lied to anyone about the reasons to attack Iraq.
3. Once again, no hard evidence.
4. I agree with you here, but once again, there is a bit of grey area. Did the powers that Congress gave Bush cover this? Or perhaps a better thought is the past steps that infringed upon civilian rights during times of war. The camps during WW2 and the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
5. Not grounds for impeachment.
6. Assassinations? No proof...
7. You want to arrest every single politician in the world, don't you?
8. Proof? I'm not an expert on the UN Charter, but I don't see any Constitutional violations there...
9. All 'enemy combatants' have thus far not been US citizens, who have been treated quite differently when captured.
10. A problem that the administration is activily trying to fix with new legislation in Congress.
11. Proof?
12. An over step of power? Yes, grounds for impeachment? Not really...
13. Proof? (If you have it, I'd really like to see it)
14. Proof?
15. Military courts are different than civilian courts, and operate with different rules. Once again, this is part of an ongoing attempt to fairly prosecute 'enemy combatants'
16. Proof?
17. That is largely the responcibility of the local and state governments, and while FEMA did drag it's feet, you can hardly link that directly to the President.
18. Proof?
19. While true, providing them to Congress provides them to the world.
20. We can't reject treaties anymore? I didn't get the memo...
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Sept 23, 2006 10:07:16 GMT -5
Bush v. Gore. 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution.
I do believe he was an illegal president for his term.
|
|
|
Post by Slipper Eater on Sept 23, 2006 17:24:50 GMT -5
Aside from the funniness, I just consider him to be completely inept and foolish.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Sept 23, 2006 17:32:16 GMT -5
So, if we don't hate with the fury of our hearts even though we don't want to hate, and feel that hating someone is, quite frankly, a waste of time, we are deluded?
While I respect your opinion, I disagree. I do not agree with our President, but as said, I don't hate anyone.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Sept 24, 2006 13:06:42 GMT -5
There was an interesting article in the NY Times magazine about the changes made in Guantanamo, and how the people detained there were basically impossible to work with... very interesting, and it seems the place there really wasn't as bad as some Federal prisons here. I'll try to find a link.
|
|
|
Post by duckofdoom on Sept 25, 2006 7:50:15 GMT -5
I don't hate GWB... that much Hell, I hate Madlen Albright, Richard Holbruck and a whole bunch of other arrogant American fu**tard politicians who are far worse than him (well, most probably smarter but still far worse than him). The way Bush Jr. leads his foreign policy, as dear Ratwar explained it so eloquently here in this thread, is the typical rugged stance that USA has toward the rest of the world, as seen all the way from WW1 up to today - but now it's becoming even worse, because US seriously believes it is the only superpower left in the world and can damn well stomp anyone it pleases, if that suits it's interests fine. Well, duckies, I've got a newsflash for you: It's not, You can't (at least not without some serious repercussions) and if you honestly believe that Steamroller Style of foreign policy, as well as flagrant disregard of other sovereign nations (who happen to be members of UN) will win you respect and friends, think again & think hard. No one likes a fu**ing bully. Internal policy in the US, on the other hand, is your own ache... if you don't like the way Bush Jr. runs things just take a look at the bright side: it's his second mandate and you won't have to put up with him much longer
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 25, 2006 11:27:52 GMT -5
Duck, you do know that Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke weren't politicians, right?
Anyways, you've missed the whole point of Bush's foreign policy. We don't want respect and friends. No country can stand toe to toe with the US as far as economic and military strength is concerned. We are the ONLY superpower, like it or not. Does this mean that I agree with the US's foreign policy? Not really, but we've seen what happens when the US doesn't get involved in Darfur (and we almost got another example in Lebanon until Europe decided to cough up more troops). The UN is a weak ineffective organization, and there's no way around that. Until somebody else is willing to take the role, the US will be the lone Superpower. The country that has the ability to get something done, when nobody else will. Sure, this will result in international disagreements, but when it comes right down to it, how many countrys were willing to stand up to the US and send troops to help Saddam? Sticks and Stones may break bones, but complaining foreign ambassadors will never hurt anyone.
|
|
|
Post by duckofdoom on Sept 25, 2006 14:38:46 GMT -5
Duck, you do know that Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke weren't politicians, right? Oh, I don't know... does being a Secretary of State and a highly positioned envoy doesn't count as 'politician' these days ? If so, then humble apologies, I must be confused... Anyways, you've missed the whole point of Bush's foreign policy. We don't want respect and friends. No country can stand toe to toe with the US as far as economic and military strength is concerned. We are the ONLY superpower, like it or not. Righteous ! You don't need friends, you don't want them either, you can beat up entire world, nation by nation, all by yourself... I must be delusional then, believing that rearmament and modernization of military forces in China, India and, of course, traditional American target (err, I meant to say, an ally) - Russian Federation - is making someone sweat... yes, I must be high All I can say is enjoy the 'supremacy' while it lasts, because in 20 years no one will have enough balls to fu** with the Chinese (that is, if you don't nuke the hell out of them first, which wouldn't be so bad, considering their delicious disregard for individual freedoms). Does this mean that I agree with the US's foreign policy? Not really, but we've seen what happens when the US doesn't get involved in Darfur (and we almost got another example in Lebanon until Europe decided to cough up more troops). The UN is a weak ineffective organization, and there's no way around that. Until somebody else is willing to take the role, the US will be the lone Superpower. The one & only time US intervention in the period after the fall of Berlin Wall gave any meaningful results was the intervention in Afghanistan,when US and its allies effectively tore down an oppressive clique of radicals who were terrorizing the entire region. Everything else - Sudan, Iraq, Kosovo, every single deployment of US or NATO troops, or even UN peacekeepers [yes, I know who they really work for, don't bother replying] was a shameful disgrace. I guess that I'd have more respect for US military and politicians if they decided to be honest and open for a change and just say "Hell yeah, we are doing all this for oil, other resources and strategic bases across the globe". The country that has the ability to get something done, when nobody else will. Sure, this will result in international disagreements, but when it comes right down to it, how many countrys were willing to stand up to the US and send troops to help Saddam? Please, PLEASE, don't even start me on Saddam Hussein. Just like Afghan Freedom Fighters, which later spawned Talibans, he was OK in your book in 1970's and 1980's, when he was doing chores for CIA - but, when the crap finally hit the fan and he got out of control, your government took the easy, blunt road and made the people of Iraq [rather than problematic leader himself] suffer the consequences of your misplayed [or well-played ??] actions in the region. Result ? You have overstretched forces in region, your soldiers are dying every damn day [for nothing, you can quote me on that anytime] and the economical & political cost of the 2nd Gulf War will be felt, maybe not immediately, but it will certainly be felt, in Middle East, Europe and in US. Sticks and Stones may break bones, but complaining foreign ambassadors will never hurt anyone. I really don't know how to comment this, so I'll just munch some of my duck trea... no, wait - I know ! "Whoever will come to us with a sword, from a sword will perish". So there, you can put that quote in your pipe & smoke it. p.s.: Dear Reader, I don't know what kind of a person you are, but if this next quote doesn't make you sick to your stomach, then I can't help but feel sorry for you:
|
|
Star
Outlander
STAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Star on Sept 25, 2006 15:48:49 GMT -5
Hate is a very strong word.
I don't hate him as much as I hate what he's done to this country, and the world. I hate that people are dying for his war. I hate that people are being tortured because of his war. I hate that people believe his lies. I don't hate him, but I hate everything he stands for.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 25, 2006 17:03:05 GMT -5
Neither of those positions is elected, therefore, the positions while inherently political in nature are not held by 'politicians'.
Neither China nor India has anywhere near the amount of nuclear weapons that the US or Russia has. They don't have the nuclear submarine force like the US has (24 Triton II is a lot better than 16 JL-2s), and India is even father behind than that. As for enjoying it while it lasts, I think we will. Just because we won't have it in 20 years doesn't change the fact that at the moment, we do have supremacy.
Kuwait?
It is good to know that you think the entire Iraq War has been a disaster, but if it was a wrong and unjust decision, why didn't the rest of the world help Iraq? The fact of the matter is that if the US doesn't do anything, nobody else will.
Oh, and I almost forgot...
*Hands Duck a cookie*
|
|
|
Post by duckofdoom on Sept 25, 2006 18:30:32 GMT -5
1. Neither of those positions is elected, therefore, the positions while inherently political in nature are not held by 'politicians'. 2. Neither China nor India has anywhere near the amount of nuclear weapons that the US or Russia has. They don't have the nuclear submarine force like the US has (24 Triton II is a lot better than 16 JL-2s), and India is even father behind than that. As for enjoying it while it lasts, I think we will. Just because we won't have it in 20 years doesn't change the fact that at the moment, we do have supremacy. 3. Kuwait? 4. It is good to know that you think the entire Iraq War has been a disaster, but if it was a wrong and unjust decision, why didn't the rest of the world help Iraq? The fact of the matter is that if the US doesn't do anything, nobody else will. 5. Oh, and I almost forgot... *Hands Duck a cookie* 'kay, in order: 1. Potato. Tater. So they're not elected, but they still had [have?] such major roles in US politicks ?? Ye Bird Deities of Chaos, that's even worse 2. Oh, but give them time, really... of course, Russians might always have some aces in their sleeves, you know how they love to gamble. Also, I find the "Supremacy & Interest, Here & Now, is all that matters" bit more than a little shortsighted. A true, devoted government should look at least 50-60 years into the future - many American governments in the past failed to do so and the result was pandemonium [but to be honest, nearly every government, with the possible exception of those insane Chinese, is also that shortsighted]. 3. Hahaha, touche... although, they have massive amounts of oil there, too ? 4. Hmmm. I don't know why no one bothered to help Iraq... maybe because USA would stomp on them, too ? Or maybe because Hussein was truly a bloodthirsty dictator ? See, I have no problem with such characters being assassinated by some secret service/special force - but no one bothered to try & do so. Heck, the world would be a much better place if many key figures, who were also major rapists of human rights, were assassinated. Saddam Hussein is one of these people - he was cruel to his own country and it's no wonder there were people in Baghdad who tore down his statue with the help of marines, even though those same marines came in to conquer their country. I will cut a long story short here - the war against Saddam would be righteous, but the war against entire Iraq for the same reason [getting rid of Saddam] was not. 5. XD I'm a Zombie Duck, which means I feed on flesh XD *starts chewing Ratwar's tasty hands*
|
|
Kained But Able
Aspirant
A generation standing with anger in their eyes...
Posts: 879
|
Post by Kained But Able on Sept 26, 2006 4:46:50 GMT -5
George Bush at least did something for someone with all his war profiteering etc. Tony Blair on the other hand has screwed everyone over. Even his own party hates him.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Sept 26, 2006 16:52:03 GMT -5
Say no to catchy phrases!
|
|
melchior1
Aspirant
Official PROTESF Necromancer
"This is my blessing, my curse."
Posts: 628
|
Post by melchior1 on Sept 26, 2006 17:27:25 GMT -5
4. Hmmm. I don't know why no one bothered to help Iraq... maybe because USA would stomp on them, too ? Or maybe because Hussein was truly a bloodthirsty dictator ? See, I have no problem with such characters being assassinated by some secret service/special force - but no one bothered to try & do so. Heck, the world would be a much better place if many key figures, who were also major rapists of human rights, were assassinated. Saddam Hussein is one of these people - he was cruel to his own country and it's no wonder there were people in Baghdad who tore down his statue with the help of marines, even though those same marines came in to conquer their country. I will cut a long story short here - the war against Saddam would be righteous, but the war against entire Iraq for the same reason [getting rid of Saddam] was not. (this may sound like I'm a Bush sycophant, but I'm not) yes but taking out a leader will never solve the problem. It may weaken the regime for a while, but the regime is still there. Taking out the whole group may not even be enough as it could create a horrible power struggle/civil war. Yes Sadam was an evil bastard and so were his sons and the rest of his cronies, and yes the war is still going on even though we killed them, but now it has to continue because the U.S. has to be able to trust the group in power. 5. XD I'm a Zombie Duck, which means I feed on flesh XD *starts chewing Ratwar's tasty hands* *hands duck a dead squirrel so he won't chew on hands*
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Sept 30, 2006 21:55:53 GMT -5
In some cases, yes, but I think he was refering to it meaning unable to have children. Im not planning on having children, we could do with a major decrease in our populations increastion rate. On topic, I dont hate Bush, I just think hes not the right guy to be in office.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Oct 1, 2006 19:05:41 GMT -5
In some cases, yes, but I think he was refering to it meaning unable to have children. Im not planning on having children, we could do with a major decrease in our populations increastion rate. On topic, I dont hate Bush, I just think hes not the right guy to be in office. QFMO (Quoted For My Opinion).
|
|
ema
Outlander
I could...set the building on fire.
Posts: 14
|
Post by ema on Oct 31, 2006 16:55:34 GMT -5
The worst place I ever had to experience this was in high school. Snide comments from teachers about how much Bush is doing this wrong, and how much Bush is doing that wrong. Some of them provided reasons, and other not.
Now let me say that both of my parents are Republican. In the first term they supported him, and then of course he started to *really* fumble things, and now it's just kind of a humorous indifference. However, going back in time to his first term, I, being young-ish, never questioned them. They're my parents, they couldn't be wrong, right? Well, obviously not exactly. So every time one of my teachers would make a subtle remark, I'd start simmering on the inside, and I'd roll my eyes. Respect for them dropped.
Until one day when I suddenly thought, well, why do I dislike people so much for saying things like this? A lot ofthem did it, and not all of them could be wrong, right? My English/Journalism/Yearbook teacher was very intelligent, and my favorite teacher I have ever had. He couln't stand Bush. But then again, he didn't take every opportunity to mention it either. He said something once that I remember to this day: "My dog is smarter than 50% of Americans. My dog wouldn't voted for George Bush." And he would start laughing to himself. Anyway, moving on.
I didn't have a good reason to be upset at my teachers. I had taken my parents word as truth, just as I used to take the religious teachings of my Sunday School teachers as complete, unfabricated truth. So I asked my parents about it. I asked them why I felt upset, and they told me that people's parents are a big influence on beliefs and such. They told me to feel however I wanted to feel about everything. And that was comforting, being told that it was okay to be different from them, rather than them telling me to believe what they believe or else I'm stupid. I've seen what that kind of relationship looks like. My cousin has the problem with his step-dad. His step-dad is a really nice guy, but is a Bush Zealot. He loves the guy, and believes everything he's doing is absolutely in the right. And my cousin isn't stupid. He tells his step-dad why he feels the way he does (very independent minded, anti-Bush, etc.) but his step-dad doesn't listen to him. So my cousin started to do something I found incredibly funny. He'd go into his room and put on Bob Dylan's Masters of War. I was over once when they got into it, and I've never wanted to laugh so hard in my entire life.
My point is this. People believe what they want to believe, no more, and no less. Some of them have valid reasons to love Bush (the President), and some have valid reasons not to. Both are right, and we have to learn to at least hear what the other side is saying. As Mark Twain wrote: "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to reform."
|
|