Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I don't see what the focus on the last 30 years is supposed to prove. To me, it seems like an arbitrary point with no real significance. Also, it fails to adjust for important changes in the last 30 years. Some have been technological, some social, and some have been do to outside forces. For instance, the Bush administration might have the worst record on infringing on rights in the last 20 years (and I'm not making that claim), but I would like people to point out where in the 30 years previous to the Bush administration where there was a significant attack on US soil that caused the loss of life of 9/11. Is that justification for all acts afterwards? No, but by the same token it puts this period in a different frame than the last 30 years. By only focusing on the supposed loss of liberty in the last 30 years, you fail to look at other factors that might contribute to the supposed loss of freedoms.
|
Well than let's compare Bush to every major political figure since the dawn of time. We'll start with the first political leaders in the history of mankind: warlords. During the dawn of human intelligence, humans were pack animals, moving in small family units. When the first organizations of multi family units formed, or tribes, competition excalated to what could be considered the first human wars. The leaders of the tribes were not patriarchs, but military leaders. Those with the best strategy and most powerful tribes would win and accumulate more and more land. How does this political leader relate to Bush. I'm glad I asked. The military leaders of ancient human tribes were very rarely the most intelligent. They were the alpha males who would surround themselves with the intelligent members of the pack, while keeping other males from trying to usurp his position by using any and every motive necessary, whether honorable or not. Bush, like the cave man military leader, is obviously not of the same intelligence of those around him. He uses the intelligence of those around him to keep his position in power, even if that means acting in a dishonorable way (see the 2000 and 2004 elections).
We'll move onto the second great political leader in history. With the development of basic philosophy came basic spirituality and the roots of religion. Those who were in charge of interpreting signs from Gods and teaching spirituality and philosophy were called priests. The preists used religious dogma and complete control of any religious stories and texts to control those who worshiped under them. It was not uncommon for a priest to elevate themselves to near God or God positions, being served and worshiped by their followers. The used their ability to interpret or speak to God as a way to control those who believed in their Gods. In much the same way, George W. Bush flaunts his religion in speaking of political decisions in order to give the illusion that his decisions coincide with his support's religion.
As tribes grew, their developed nations. Political leaders, in order to guarentee that their posterity stayed in power, established monarchies. In a monarchy, the king was (and still is in some places) a male soverign ruler of his domain or kingdom. Mush the same way, Bush was given a better chance to win because of his fathers connections to the established government. Also, because Bush's party rules over all three branches of government, he is the closest leader in a democratic nation to a king, IMHO.
I can go on. I can even start to compare Bush to every political person in history. The fact is that going back more than maybe 60 years would be completly unnecessary. I admit to hesitating about the 30 year thing (but I wanted to respect the question put fourth by Poppinjay), as the 9/11 attacks can be compared at least on a superficial level to Pearl Harbor. And 9/11 has deep connections to most peoples hatred, mistrust, or dissapointment for Bush.
Can we all agree not to go back further than 60 years?