posted
The problem here is that some people are merely cheerleaders for their team- both sides suffer from these wonders that assume their party is infallable or that all members of one side or the other are corrupt/soft/ignorant, etc. without looking into what their own "team" is doing.
That's when people start calling the other party by deragatory nicknames and making broad generalizations.
Vanguard, you've obviously got your hackles up (Guardian too) over this thread and you're coming across as a "cheerleader" type- an easy thing to fall into when you feel like the only person on a forum with your set of beliefs.
For the record: I like you. I respect you. I dont agreee with ANYTHING you've said on this thread so far but I am reading your posts and being polite. Lets try to site facts and not radio-show talking points.
As to Bush, He presided over a huge decline in morality in our government, comitted many unlawful acts -some, such as warrantless wiretapping without FISA order and the suspension of Habeas corpus for gitmo detainees have been expressly noted by the Supreme Court. Many members of his administration have shown themselves to be corrupt and, in many cases, broke the law to further Republican political agendas: J. Steven Griles, David Safavian, U.S. Representative Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzalez, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney...the list goes on and on. Here's a list of the top abusers.
This does not indite ALL republicans- certainly there are many elected officials that serve this country from a desire to do right and defend America. But the Bush administration was a cesspool of corruption, devisivness and lies- and despite the feverent wishes of Mr. Bush himself, he will not be somehow vindicated by history- history will likely continue to uncover much more dirt as time goes by.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Even if you agree that 'Bush's Cesspool of corruption' was indeed a legitimate charge, how come Obama's administration, which has already had numerous scandals (taxes, illegal immigration, and, yes, sex scandals) get a complete pass?
Bush's record on corruption, indeed, was BETTER than that of Clinton. (Stuffing pants full of top-secret documents to hide 9/11 materials?) Yet there's never - EVER - a hint of self-criticism about the Democrat party's behaviour coming from the same people who are openly advocating Bush's summary execution.
And, what's more blatant, is that the same court and people who were so angry about Bush having the powers to do warrantless wiretaps, etc, are happily giving Obama not only those powers and even more without any real critique of the blatant hypocrasy.
I'm telling you, this can very easily be a very bad situation, but so many people are so enraptured by 'The One' or 'Hope and Change' that they're not paying a damn bit of attention to what exactly the Change is going to be.
Remember, every tyrant in history got into power by promising his people... hope and change.
posted
Just like Reagan, Clinton, and WBush. If things are going badly, you promise they'll get better. That's politics.
Nobody here is saying Obama is perfect, or that he's going to solve all our problems. (For that matter, nobody here is at the moment saying Bush is better or worse than Clinton, so I'm not sure where that came from.) If you run into people like that, I'm sorry, but they're not here. I think the problem is that you're criticizing people here as if they're people you've apparently run into elsewhere.
All I know is that so far, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Bush was. After five days, he'd have to be. We'll see whether it stays that way.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Bush is a war criminal. He had war prisoners waterboarded. Waterboarding is torture. Torturing war prisoners is a war crime. I'm not sure at what point people have trouble following that.
"...people who vote Democrat because they don't know that the Democrat leadership is full of leftist Che-corpse-blowing loonies..."
How astonishingly far to the right do you have to be to think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are communists?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: [QB] Bush is a war criminal. He had war prisoners waterboarded. Waterboarding is torture. Torturing war prisoners is a war crime. I'm not sure at what point people have trouble following that.
Ask Obama, then, because his administration has found that Waterboard is NOT torture as defined under the Geneva Convention. Ooops.
So, I'll wait for you to call for Obama's summary execution as well, then.
posted
Where exactly are you getting this information from? Link in a news story- dont just repeat what Rush or someone spouted. Obama's team has already begun the long process of restoring the system of checks and balances cast aside by Bush's cronies- starting with the declaration that waterboarding IS torture and will not be done by US personell.
After all, the United states has put people in prison for waterboarding in the past, it seems crystal clear that it's a crime.
But dont take my word for it- Bush Sr. outlined many guidelines for CIA operative's behavior during his tenure as Director and that was one of them. As was the passing of a law making the outing of CIA operatives a crime (which his son seems not to have understood). Bush Sr. called those taht would out a CIA operative "the worst kind of traitors". AND references to the position as Vice President as part of the Executive Branch of government (someting Cheney disputes to thumb his nose as pesky disclosure laws and FOIA requests). AND he said ""I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war." I guess George Jr really did not follow in his dad's footsteps after all.
The best advice he has is something yuo should take to heart: ""I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it.""
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
First, most of my news for politics starts from www.instapundit.com .
Jason, you're making a lot of assumptions here, many of which are simply factually untrue.
Valerie Plame was outed by her husband, and that connection was made by a reporter (Novak), and NO ONE IN TH ADMINISTRATION. This is an oft-repeated lie. Libby was convincted, very scurriously, on 'lying' about remembering a conversation.
The Vice President is defined as an excutive, though he has no defined executive powers by viture of his office. Cheney's half-right here. He can, however, be given tasks by the President (like anyone else can) and be made a part of the executive branch of the government in that way. But there's nothing about the OFFICE that's empowering.
I cannot call a decade a rush into war. Hell, the buildup for the actual attack on Iraq was nearly a year long, with negotiations continually tried all along. The "rush to war" meme is simply a lie.
Waterboarding was declared 'torture' by NONBINDING measures by the House as a political statement. The house, under the same leadership, has now OVERTURNED that decision to 'enable Obama to have all the tools he needs to fight Terrorism'. Suddenly, since Obama's in charge, it's not a crime anymore apparently. Publically, they'll continue to count it as 'torture', but they will NOT prosecute it as such during Obama's term, nor expressly prohibit it in law.
I wouldn't tell you to get references from mainstream media necessarily, but please, not from such an obviously leaning website.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Your linked website is so far to the right as to be direct issuances from the GOP- how about you link in some quotes from ekected officials backing up those claims? The author of that "article" linked is Roland Radosh , an author that only attacks Democrats -what he sees as leftists and communists. He's just shy of Ann Coulter for crazy.
Obama's new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told Congress there will be no torture and no warrantless wiretapping either, anymore. Blair called Guantánamo "a damaging symbol to the world," and promised to restore Americans' trust in the agencies he'll head. "The intelligence agencies of the United States must respect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people, and they must adhere to the rule of law."
Four days into office and the Obama administration has ordered Gitmo closed, stopped the sham trials being carried out there, declared torture illegal, restored sensible funding to planned parenthood organizations, stopped Bush's unethical "midnight regulations" which undermined several laws, stated before congress (and the official public congressional record) that there will be no illegal wiretapping, met with Mexico's president (bout their drug-gang crisis mostly), and helped push through the SCHIP expansion that republicans were so opposed to (while they gave huge tax cuts to the most wealthy).
If he can keep up this frantic pace, gets two terms and the republicans start doing what's right for the country instead of obstructing everything, Obama just might undo most of the damage caused by the Bush administration.
Also in the news, House Republicans want huge tax cuts for the wealthy and big business to stimulate the econemy: 'cause that's worked so well already.
Also, (Rep chair of S. Carolinia) Katon Dawson wants chairmanship of the Republican Party. So after the GOP's crushing defeats over the past two cycles, what is his platform? To smear the "Democrat Party" and to become President Obama's "worst nightmare." At a time of national crisis - created by George Bush and the Republic Party. So much for setting aside partisanship to do whats right for the country in a time of crisis.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Valerie Plame was outed by her husband, and that connection was made by a reporter (Novak), and NO ONE IN TH ADMINISTRATION. This is an oft-repeated lie."
I think the best response to this is the one attributed to Wolfgang Pauli : "That's not right. It's not even wrong."
Joe Wilson's column in the New York Times that started the whole thing never mentions his wife. It never even hints that he's married.
Bob Novak's Washington Post column specifically says that his information on Valerie Wilson came from "two senior administration officials". There's no way Novak could have figured out on his own that Joe Wilson had a wife working undercover for the CIA. Even if he could have, it still would have been a crime for those "two senior administration officials" to confirm it.
"So, I'll wait for you to call for Obama's summary execution as well, then."
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the phrase "as well". For it to work here, I would have to have called for someone else's summary execution. Since I happen to know that I oppose executions, I think it's very unlikely that I did so.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN, nice of you to skirt facts, though I'm not remotely surprised by the tactic. Joe Wilson outed who his wife was, himself, in Who's Who in Washington - even going so far as to identify WHERE she worked. Valerie Plame, for her part, was ALREADY GIVING INTERVIEWS about her involvement with the CIA and Iraq, before this 'outing' could have occured.
TSN, also, you cannot say "Bush is a war criminal" if you're not also going along with the Geneva Convention mandated punishment for war criminals... their execution. So, by your own logic, which is A) The Geneva Convention is Holy Writ. B) Bush is a war criminal. C) Obama is continuing Bush's policies which made Bush a war criminal. D) Both Bush and Obama should be punished by the Geneva Convention's rules. E) Both Bush and Obama should face execution.
posted
Okay, this is my last post on this, since I'm behind getting other things done (such as Jaynz, which I'm sure you would all RATHER me be doing), but I'll finish up here.
To me, Obama is just a Democrat. He's got Clinton's charisma, Kennedy's acumen, and Carter's policies. I'm predicting that he's going to be a one-term president that will wind up over-regulating the country so much - particularly for left-wing agendas - that our economy and well-being will be devastated. I'm already seeing shades of 1976-1979. But that's actually it for my opinion on Obama, and I honestly didn't see McCain as much better of a choice, except for the chance to 'balance the capitol' a little bit.
What concerns me is the adoration this man, who has literally no track-record to speak of, to degrees that are eerily reminiscent of Germany in the early 1930s. There's a video on YouTube out where a number of holllywood celebs swear the absolute loyal to Obama and then Mankind as an afterthought. This is a cult of personality taken to degrees which, frankly, scare the shit out of me.
You guys deny that it even exists. This is despite the fact that I'm not talking about the typical loonies here, but outlets such as CNN which actually refer to his inauguration officially as "The Moment", or the NYT which refer to him as "The One" in serious terms.
The degree of this has never happened in American politics before, particularly at the levels that it is happening. As someone who's family came close to being wiped out by a fascist three generations ago, understand that I'm very troubled by the number of Americans willing to march to Der Furher, even if the man they're worshipping doesn't happen to actually be one.
"TSN, also, you cannot say 'Bush is a war criminal' if you're not also going along with the Geneva Convention mandated punishment for war criminals... their execution."
For one thing, as I understand it, war criminals don't get executed anymore. And, even if that is ostensibly the punishment, I'm still allowed to disagree with it. I live in a state where murder is punished by execution. I can still say that someone here is a murderer, even if I don't think they should be killed in exchange.
Also, I would point out that you referred to "summary execution", which is not at all the same thing as an execution resulting from a properly conducted trial. (Although, I would oppose either type.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Bush would not be a war crimininal. Perhaps crimes against peace, due to him instigating a war in contrary to international laws, etc, etc. by starting the Second Iraq War.
As a side, so would Blair. A war crime is one that takes place during a war and is against the rules and laws of warfare. Mistreating POWs is a warcrime, but I think it wolud be the people doing, rather than their president.
One last thing - at the Nuremburg Trials, not every defendant found guilty of war crimes hung, so while you can execute a guilty party, you don't have to.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
