Your thoughts on the Bush administration? Be honest. - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

elfstar · 04-15-2004, 12:55 PM

mml, I don't count myself as a member of any political party, and in fact i have never voted for a mainstream candidate (i'm 26 so that's only 2 pres. elections) - mostly because I hate the two party system.

So obviously I'm not the person your question was meant for. What I would like to point out is a rather subtle, and possibly unintentional aspect of your post. You suggest that Republicans support Bush simply because of his party affilliation, whereas Democrats support Kerry because he is not Bush.

I think that's a very important difference. The main reason for Democrats to support Kerry isn't that he is a Democrat, but rather that they have seen first hand the way Bush handles his job, and they know that practically anybody would be a step up.

I may be reading too much into what you said, but regardless I think there is some truth to it. I admit that many (probably most) Democrats would support Kerry regardless of his opponent, but I think in this election they have much more reason to stick with him than blind loyalty.

Personally, I believe there is far too much at stake in this election for me to cast my vote for a third party candidate, as I have done in the past. I think the worst possible thing for this country would be to continue down the road that Bush is leading us. His foreign policy is reckless, and he lies to cover his innumerable mistakes.

mattevil · 04-15-2004, 01:35 PM

I think Bush gets away with alot more than he should. I think he plays the press into thinking he's ignorant so they have low expectations. I'm not saying he's brilliant but not as unintelligent as he seems. I see his administartion as the person in school who foucuses on winning class president at all costs and focuses little on what they'll actually do for progress. lastly i think the appointment of ashcroft was one of the worst moves ever and was done to win over the far right. There's something to be said when you lose overwhelmingly to a dead guy.

Harman · 04-16-2004, 12:10 AM

It was quite a learning discussion.

But as a Belgian I’m also curious to know what the America people think about our country.

Lebell · 04-16-2004, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harman
It was quite a learning discussion.

But as a Belgian I’m also curious to know what the America people think about our country.

While it might be better to start another thread, I will try to give you a brief idea:

We don't.

I am NOT saying that in any insulting way, just the simple truth.

I am a relatively intelligent American with a much better than average knowledge of the world, and I couldn't say who your political leaders are, what their leanings are or anything. And I know more about your country than most Americans.

The fact is, that the larger/noisier countries (US, Russia, N.Korea) garner more attention than the smaller, quieter countries (Belgium, Lichtenstein, Micronesia) and hence, people know more about them.

Heck, I'm not 100% sure who is currently the Prime Minister of Canada (didn't Cretien get voted out or something?) My attention ATM is firmly rooted in Data Networks and Systems Analysis with TFP on the side.

So please don't take it personally.

If it is any consolation, you guys make great beer that I wish we had more of

Bill O'Rights · 04-16-2004, 04:13 AM

It sucks, and it's sad, but Lebell's right. I'm going to try my best here though. If my feeble-assed memory serves Belgium is Parlimentary Democracy with a monarch, kinda like England. King Albert, I believe? He took the throne in the early '90s, right after some shake up with the Belgian Constitution. I don't remember the details. The Prime Minister is Verhofstat. (Don't ask me to spell it.)

And...some mighty damn fine waffles.

. Sorry...I just couldn't resist, anymore.

onetime2 · 04-16-2004, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mml
In an attempt to get this back on target, would some of the more conservative members give us their take on President Bush? I am curious, as most of my conservative friends have a real "love/hate" feeling about him. I get the feeling that the only reason they are standing by him is that he is a Republican(just like many Democrats couldn't have cared less who got the nomination, they just want to beat Bush).

While I can't speak for all other "conservatives", I do not support Bush simply because he is a Republican. In fact, most of what he does is not strictly "Republican" and I agree with the moves. I neither love nor hate Bush, I accept him for his beliefs and the beliefs that I am most concerned with tend to agree with his.

I agree with the drug benefit for seniors. While it's not in a perfect form, it is a benefit that will help people that need it. Going forward the rules can be massaged and worked to help more people. Working in the pharmaceutical industry I know what it can cost for common and not so common treatments.

I agree with his administration's stand on the supposed "outsourcing" that's going on. It does not warrant government regulation and most attempts to mitigate global employment market effects that only impact a relative few industries will fail, hurting American companies in those industries, and opening all US industries up for retribution for any protectionist policies enacted.

I absolutely agree with an aggressive stand against terrorism. The US reputation on terrorism pre-9/11 was one of weakness and no terrorist group or terrorist supporting government feared suffering significant consequences from funding or directly attacking and killing US citizens. At worst (as evidenced by Iraq) a country would face some economic sanctions, leaders would remain in power, their bank accounts would grow, other coutnries would ignore the sanctions or continue to trade for "humanitarian" purposes. 30 years of pacifism in the face of terrorism has only served to allow terrorist networks to grow and worm their way into all manner of business and government. It's time to take a different tack and cause them to feel repercussions.

Pushing back against those countries who claim to be our "allies" yet continually prove they will put even their slightest of interests over the interests of the US and the world is appropriate.

Tax cuts are good. Tax cuts are appropriate. The government is inefficient when it comes to spending our money, gauging benefits of longstanding programs, ending programs that have outlived their usefullness, etc, etc, etc. Throwing more money into the pot to be wasted is unacceptable to me. Without a doubt funding cuts need to be the next step but that does not mean we should continue to allow Congress to reach into our pockets to pay for these inefficient, unproductive, or useless projects in the interim.

His plan for offering illegal immigrant workers a chance to go "legit" is decent. Not spectacular but it moves things in the right direction. I would gladly trade a hundred unproductive and lazy American workers (not that I think this is the norm, but we all know plenty who contribute nothing and still bitch about how they are unfairly treated or go unrecognized) for a single motivated "illegal" worker. I have known plenty of migrant workers from Central America from my days as a farmer and the vast majority of them were hard working, upbeat, responsible, and, in general, great people. They deserve the chance to be a legitimate part of our society. Hell, half of them deserve it more than me.

shakran · 04-16-2004, 06:56 AM

you know statistically, 40% of the voters vote republican every time no matter what. 40% vote democrat every time no matter what, and it's the remaining 20% of swing voters that a campaign really has to worry about. Where it will be interesting this time around is that Bush has pissed off a bunch of republicans - he's even got some republicans saying publicly that they're not happy with him. Will that influence the republican 40% to perhaps vote for Kerry - or at least not vote for Bush? Should be very interesting to see what happens in November.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-16-2004, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
you know statistically, 40% of the voters vote republican every time no matter what. 40% vote democrat every time no matter what, and it's the remaining 20% of swing voters that a campaign really has to worry about. Where it will be interesting this time around is that Bush has pissed off a bunch of republicans - he's even got some republicans saying publicly that they're not happy with him. Will that influence the republican 40% to perhaps vote for Kerry - or at least not vote for Bush? Should be very interesting to see what happens in November.

I doubt it. If you are referring to the Bible thumpers that are pissed at Dubya, do you really think they'll vote for Kerry (pro-gay pro-abortion)? Most might be less then happy, but I somehow doubt that they would rather have Kerry in there.

Superbelt · 04-16-2004, 07:12 AM

Not the bible thumpers. Bush has secured that vote very well. It's the classic conservatives. The ones who oppose the Iraq war, the ones who don't like his tremendous lack of fiscal restraint. The ones who aren't enamored with his cowtowing to the bible thumper vote. The ones who don't like the social programs he has expanded like medicare.

These are people Bush has to worry about. They could go to Kerry as Kerry touts his fiscal conservative pledge plus military record. Or go libertarian or other third party. Or they could abstain from voting this term.

One of this boards conservative members, Sixate has expressed anger at Bush to the point that he absolutely will not vote for him. (did it in General Discussion) This came out of the Howard Stern censorship situation. I highly doubt he is the only one. He won't vote Kerry, but Bush isn't getting the vote either. That's still a net positive result for Kerry.

mml · 04-16-2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elfstar
What I would like to point out is a rather subtle, and possibly unintentional aspect of your post. You suggest that Republicans support Bush simply because of his party affilliation, whereas Democrats support Kerry because he is not Bush.

I think that's a very important difference. The main reason for Democrats to support Kerry isn't that he is a Democrat, but rather that they have seen first hand the way Bush handles his job, and they know that practically anybody would be a step up.

I may be reading too much into what you said, but regardless I think there is some truth to it. I admit that many (probably most) Democrats would support Kerry regardless of his opponent, but I think in this election they have much more reason to stick with him than blind loyalty.

You actually got my point. Many Democrats are so concerned with the policies of the Bush Administration and with President Bush that they are willing, even eager to put a Republican on the ticket with Kerry - John McCain. The feeling I get from conservative friends of mine is that they are "putting up" with Bush even though he has let them down. I was just curious if other conservatives or those who voted for Bush in 2000 felt that way. It is clear that the religious conservatives will support Bush, but as others have said, some of his support seems to be slipping amongst traditional conservatives.

edit/ By the way, this take on the Democrats and Kerry should not be seen as a lessening of my enthusiastic support of Senator Kerry. It is just a realistic view of the political world. Excuse me while I go straiten the Kerry for President sign out on my front lawn.

elfstar · 04-16-2004, 01:01 PM

mml,

I performed a quick google search for "republicans against bush" and found one individual's answer to your question:

<a href="http://world.std.com/~3Diff/bushletter.html">http://world.std.com/~3Diff/bushletter.html</a>

Quote:

An Open Letter to all Republicans

Note: This letter was written in early Dec. 2002.

Fellow Republicans:

President George W. Bush today enjoys wide popularity, fostered I believe in part by the reluctance of Americans to criticize their president in "wartime". As Republicans, we bear a special responsibility to raise our voices, as we are more resistant to attacks on our patriotism, and more responsible for Bush's presence in the White House. Here are my top five reasons why Republicans should speak out today against President George W. Bush:

1. The drive for war on Iraq.

a) The Republican party used to be the party that kept America out of international entanglements. Until the Reagan years, the party had taken pride in the fact that all major wars in the last century had been entered into by Democrats (WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam). The peace treaty for WW I was signed under a Republican, Warren G. Harding, and Nixon had extracted the US from Vietnam. Why are the Republicans suddenly the party of war?

b) The war on Iraq is being justified as part of the "war on terrorism". What connection does Saddam Hussein have with anti-American terrorism? He has supported anti-Israeli terrorists, but so has much of the Arab world. There is no known link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Saddam certainly oppresses his own people and has invaded two of his neighbors (losing both times), but is presently largely contained and impoverished under the sanctions policy established by George Bush Sr. and continued under the Clinton administration. What real threat does he represent to the US?

c) The world in general fails to see our justification for war on Iraq; what little support exists seems to be clearly due to US arm-twisting. There have been massive anti-war rallies around the world. The US's international reputation is sinking. The idea of the "pre-emptive invasion" is widely viewed as an unwise precedent that will cause the world much trouble in the future.

2. The attacks on civil liberties, under the guise of the "war on terrorism". The US has a long tradition of civil liberties, and many Republicans have been strong defenders of those liberties. Now we have secret military courts? US and foriegn citizens held as neither prisoners of war nor criminals, denied access to lawyers or even their families? A "big brother" database where all transactions will be tracked (an idea many Republicans have opposed for years)? A French-Canadian thrown in jail in rural Maine for a month for driving 50 feet over the border to visit a gas station with a gun in the back of his pickup? Barry Goldwater would not be pleased...

3. The abandonment of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The Republican Party has not in recent years been known as the party of environmentalism (although Teddy Roosevelt, responsible for much of the modern National Park system, was a Republican). But as the party of business, Republicans know that once you have signed an agreement, you don't back out of it. Our renouncement of the Kyoto Treaty caused the US immense international embarrassment, and damaged our relations with Europe and Japan. I would also argue that scientific research seems to strongly suggest that doing something about global warming is a good idea. But after all, Hawaii is a Democratic state, so if a few low-lying islands got lost...

4. The crisis of confidence in corporate governance. I think it is fair to say that, except for SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt resigning under cover of the midterm elections, nothing has been done. It is surprising that a Republican administration has not done more to promote clean accounting and corporate accountability, conditions which are essential for investor confidence. (Update: Since I wrote this, the Bush administration finally got around to proposing an increase in the SEC budget for enforcement. How much follow-through this will get remains to be seen.)

5. The 2000 election. Yes, this is old news by now, but think - wouldn't the Republican party have looked better if Bush had asked his campaign to make sure that all the Florida votes were recounted fairly? And Bush might well have won anyways (authorities differ on this, but mostly I believe they say a careful recount would have still declared Bush the winner). The resulting scandal over the vulgar legal and extra-legal maneuvering has made it harder to persuade other countries to run fair elections - dictators such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe have pointed to the Florida scandal and said, "Hey, I ran elections at least as fair as that!"

I feel that Republicans should speak out against Bush, not only because of the damage which Bush is doing to our country and its international reputation, but because of the damage he is doing to the Republican party. The Republican party is not the party of warmongering, fascism, and stupidity - it is known for its defence of civil liberties, its good management, and its prudent conduct of foreign affairs. By not standing up to Bush, we risk a generation of election losses when the American people wake up from their obsession with safety after the 9/11 attacks. We should demand changes in Bush administration policy, and a new standard-bearer for 2004.

If you would like to send me a comment on this piece, your own list of reasons why Bush is not a good Republican or a good president, or perhaps express interest in creating a real "Republicans Against Bush" organization, I can be contacted at the following address: republicansagainstbush@yahoo.com. Please feel free to distribute this widely, as long as you don't alter the content without my permission.

Sincerely,

- Brian Youmans

A Republican party member in Boston, MA

qtpye4u84 · 04-16-2004, 01:08 PM

Bush is Just a guy that has a very big job.
He is very brave, and probably under a lot of stress so I would not want his job.
I am a republican and so is he, thats why I would vote for him.

mml · 04-16-2004, 05:12 PM

Thanks elfstar, that is generally the feeling I get from people. and qtpye4u84 your follow-up makes me think that I am right. And to be honest, I am a fairly partisan fellow, and would most likely vote for the Dem even if I did think Bush was capable. I have however voted for Republicans before (Bush 41 vs Dukakis and Senator McCain on several occations)

shakran · 04-16-2004, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by qtpye4u84

He is very brave, and probably under a lot of stress so I would not want his job.

What makes you say he's brave? What bravery has he shown? (I'm not attacking, I'm genuinely curious)

Quote:

I am a republican and so is he, thats why I would vote for him.

Voting along party lines is a tremendous mistake IMO. It's the lazy way out. It means you don't have to think or look at the qualifications of the candidate or even know what the issues are. You just vote whoever has (R) by his name. I consider myself a democrat, but I have been known to vote republican when I felt the republican was the better person for the job.

Warf Rat · 04-20-2004, 07:44 AM

I know that I am one of the few right wingers on the board, but I want to know what some of you think about Bush, and if you are not a fan, do you think that Gore would have done as good a job.

I have many problems with Bush domestically. However I think a war on terrorists was unavoidable. If you think about it, suicide bombing did not exist 30 years ago. Now it's common practice in far to many places. I can think of no better way to solve the problem than through strength, and if they start to believe we will break any treaty or cross any border to find and kill them, maybe can stop this terrible trend.

I know how that sounds, but if you disagree, please tell me what else you think we can do.

Rekna · 04-20-2004, 08:09 AM

Hate only breads more hate. Kill a terrorist and 5 more pop up in his place. There is no solution to the terrorist problem that involves war that does not include genocide.

We need to combat the problem by changing the perception people have of us. We need to stop our unwavering support of Isreal. We need to do what they want and just leave them alone. Reducing our dependency on forgien oil would be a great start to curving terrorism, we would then be able to leave the middle east and say have it your way. Let them sit there and fight amoungst themselfs until they grow up.

To me it seems that Bush is one of the greatest threats to America in a long time. He is willing to take away our freedoms (since when do we need free speach zones?) He uses the word unpatriotic to bully people into doing what they know is wrong.

For someone who is a self proclaimed christian he sure doesn't follow the bible very well. The bible teaches us to love our enemy as ourselfs. It teaches us to turn the other cheek. Violence only leads to more violence.

My biggest gripe about Bush is he has to much of the American additude that "Everything should be done my way". He doesn't think about the consiquences of his actions. Let's face it we are in a world now where we can't just have everything our way. We need to work together if we want to make things better. This means we need to ask ourselfs what would the rest of the world think when we do things.

Would things be different if Gore was president? Of course they would. Would they be better? I have no idea. I'd hope that the forgien oppion of us would at least be better.

Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? How would you like it if your neighboor down the street one day said "Everyone in this city must be in bed by 10 at night and to work by 8 in the morning" What gives him the right to say that? If he was the mayor does he have the right to say that? What if he is the governer? Or President? What is best for him is not always what is best for everyone.

Peetster · 04-20-2004, 08:21 AM

I have my thoughts, but rather than participate in the discussion I will simply issue a general warning that this could quickly get out of control. We will lock this thread down if it becomes uncivil.

Please, feel free to disagree. Just do it politely.

analog · 04-20-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Warf Rat
If you think about it, suicide bombing did not exist 30 years ago. Now it's common practice in far to many places.

Sure it did, we just didn't hear about it like we get to now. News coverage is an amazing thing in these days. The ability to create homemade explosives has been around for a good while.

I'd like to see some actual facts to back this up.

Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death.

Warf Rat · 04-20-2004, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
I have my thoughts, but rather than participate in the discussion I will simply issue a general warning that this could quickly get out of control. We will lock this thread down if it becomes uncivil.

Please, feel free to disagree. Just do it politely.

I posted this in hope of hearing alternatives to our current path. I think it may be our only chance to curb terrorist activity before it destroys the way we live, but I honestly don't know.
I am open minded, and I am very uneasy about the state of things currently. I just can't think of another way.

Please be thoughtful, and help me to see another way.

Warf Rat · 04-20-2004, 08:37 AM

Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are totally corrrect. I was thinking more of major attacts for political gain.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-20-2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

For someone who is a self proclaimed christian he sure doesn't follow the bible very well. The bible teaches us to love our enemy as ourselfs. It teaches us to turn the other cheek. Violence only leads to more violence.

Thats a crock of shit, the President isn't afforded the choice to "turn the other cheek" when it comes to matters of national security.

OFKU0 · 04-20-2004, 09:38 AM

[QUOTE][i]

Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? [QUOTE]

I have to agree with that. Unless there is some greater benefit to Bush's actions that no one is privy to yet, his actions are questionable, mainly regarding Iraq.

Some people enjoy Bush's style of ' just watch me' or as it were, ' taking the bull by the horns.' I think all leaders should have those characteristics. I just prefer those to envelop some tact and diplomacy with such resolve.

Lebell · 04-20-2004, 10:04 AM

I guess I don't see the purpose of this thread, considering how many anti-Bush threads there already are.

Warf Rat · 04-20-2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Thats a crock of shit, the President isn't afforded the choice to "turn the other cheek" when it comes to matters of national security.

That is certainly true, but I wonder about Iraq.

I am certain Sadam needed his people and his neibors to fear him. That would explain all the lies about WMD's, even at the cost of war. If it was known that he was defenseless, he would have been taken down by his own people or one of his neibors.
I think he would rather lose to us than another country. After all it looks like a war of religions now. So in a way Sadam went out in a way that might hurt us more than he ever could have done on his own.
So, the question is, has this administration gone too far.

onetime2 · 04-20-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I guess I don't see the purpose of this thread, considering how many anti-Bush threads there already are.

I guess I don't see how this thread differs from this one:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=52377

Sparhawk · 04-20-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by analog
Sure it did, we just didn't hear about it like we get to now. News coverage is an amazing thing in these days. The ability to create homemade explosives has been around for a good while.

I'd like to see some actual facts to back this up.

Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death.

It's a relatively new phenomenon. From the Atlantic:

Quote:

...

Before 1983 there were few suicide bombings. The Koran forbids the taking of one's own life, and this prohibition was still generally observed. But when the United States stationed Marines in Beirut, the leaders of the Islamic resistance movement Hizbollah began to discuss turning to this ultimate terrorist weapon. Religious authorities in Iran gave it their blessing, and a wave of suicide bombings began, starting with the attacks that killed about sixty U.S. embassy workers in April of 1983 and about 240 people in the Marine compound at the airport in October. The bombings proved so successful at driving the United States and, later, Israel out of Lebanon that most lingering religious concerns were set aside.

...

So, uh, thanks Reagan!

onetime2 · 04-20-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
It's a relatively new phenomenon. From the Atlantic:

So, uh, thanks Reagan!

I believe analog was talking about the concept of suicide attacks in general not specific to Muslim extremist suicide attacks.

Hell, kamikaze pilots are a prime example of such tactics.

OFKU0 · 04-20-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Warf Rat

I am certain Sadam needed his people and his neibors to fear him. That would explain all the lies about WMD's, even at the cost of war. If it was known that he was defenseless, he would have been taken down by his own people or one of his neibors.
I think he would rather lose to us than another country. After all it looks like a war of religions now. So in a way Sadam went out in a way that might hurt us more than he ever could have done on his own.
So, the question is, has this administration gone too far.

I really don't know if the administration has gone too far or not enough. Have they bitten off more than they can chew? Or did they take small bites instead of big ones? I look at terrorism like lung cancer. If you smoke,you have a better chance of it attacking you than if you don't.

So how does Bush deal with terrorism? Does the U.S let terrorists exist as long as U.S interests are not targeted and take a chance they won't attack ( I can't believe I am even thinking that terrorists might think of the rules of engagement concerning war) or does Bush go hard at every turn knowing as long as the U.S tries to eradicate it, those so inclined will have more reasons to attack?

It's hard to see a win win situation given the context that exists. Maybe something catastrophic like a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki might bring the world back to peace. I hate to think that way but something that rocks the world might be the recipe for a reality. But when does it come back to bite your ass?

Sparhawk · 04-20-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I believe analog was talking about the concept of suicide attacks in general not specific to Muslim extremist suicide attacks.

Hell, kamikaze pilots are a prime example of such tactics.

I was taking it in the context of the thread "terrorists" => "suicide bombers" => "Muslim extremists"

*shrug*

Peetster · 04-20-2004, 11:28 AM

The Atlantic is wrong.

In World War II, kamikaze pilots acted as "human missiles" by flying their planes, heavily laden with explosives, directly into enemy warships. After World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" were used against the French colonial army.

"Turn the other cheek" is more complicated than that. The original greek uses two different words for strike. The first word suggests the relationship between a slave and an owner, and typically involves striking with the back of the hand. By "turning the other cheek", you are telling the assailer to strike you in a manner that suggests a peer, with the palm of the hand.

It's a brilliant way to stand up to someone non-violently and assert yourself as an equal at the same time.

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2004, 11:36 AM

Seems to me we just played this out last week.

By the way:

Quote:

Thats a crock of shit

BAD

Quote:

No, I disagree with your viewpoint, and heres why

GOOD

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
"Turn the other cheek" is more complicated than that. The original greek uses two different words for strike. The first word suggests the relationship between a slave and an owner, and typically involves striking with the back of the hand. By "turning the other cheek", you are telling the assailer to strike you in a manner that suggests a peer, with the palm of the hand.

Well now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly learned something new today. Now, my day's not a total loss, afterall.

Thanks, Peetster.

Warf Rat · 04-20-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OFKU0
I really don't know if the administration has gone too far or not enough. Have they bitten off more than they can chew? Or did they take small bites instead of big ones? I look at terrorism like lung cancer. If you smoke,you have a better chance of it attacking you than if you don't.

So how does Bush deal with terrorism? Does the U.S let terrorists exist as long as U.S interests are not targeted and take a chance they won't attack ( I can't believe I am even thinking that terrorists might think of the rules of engagement concerning war) or does Bush go hard at every turn knowing as long as the U.S tries to eradicate it, those so inclined will have more reasons to attack?

It's hard to see a win win situation given the context that exists. Maybe something catastrophic like a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki might bring the world back to peace. I hate to think that way but something that rocks the world might be the recipe for a reality. But when does it come back to bite your ass?

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Too far, or not far enough. I only hope we know soon.

I hope that nothing catastrophic happens, but sadly you may be correct

shakran · 04-20-2004, 12:37 PM

You know, if we would just establish a "we'll leave you alone unless you fuck with us, and if you do we'll annihilate you and ONLY you" foreign policy, we'd have a much better time of it.

That's just my opinion though.

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
You know, if we would just establish a "we'll leave you alone unless you fuck with us, and if you do we'll annihilate you and ONLY you" foreign policy, we'd have a much better time of it.

That's just my opinion though.

That might work...but, who would the "only you" be? These radical fundamentalists are not connected to any one country. They are connected through a twisted and perverse view of Islam. Though a lot of nations do support them. Do you annihilate the supporting nations, or go after just the individual terrorists themselves. Hell, we can't even find Osama, how are we going to succesfully identify and take out a less charismatic figure?

Lebell · 04-20-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I guess I don't see how this thread differs from this one:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=52377

It doesn't.

Peetster · 04-20-2004, 03:11 PM

Now merged for your enjoyment.

matthew330 · 04-20-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Rather, I view his bumblings (such as word mispronounciations and folksy sort of pronouncements) to be a carefully orchestrated manuever to garner maximum support from the population.

Article III, section b, subsection 2 of the vast right wing conspiracy's guide to the new world order.

Jesus, how do you argue with any of this.

145 views and 120 replies, i didn't really have anything to add - i just didn't want to be left out.

Bush fuckin rocks!!!

shakran · 04-20-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
That might work...but, who would the "only you" be? These radical fundamentalists are not connected to any one country. They are connected through a twisted and perverse view of Islam. Though a lot of nations do support them. Do you annihilate the supporting nations, or go after just the individual terrorists themselves. Hell, we can't even find Osama, how are we going to succesfully identify and take out a less charismatic figure?

If the nation is supporting the terrorists that attacked you, get 'em. Afghanistan was supporting the terrorists that attacked us, and we got them. Iraq was not, though interestingly enough Saudi is more connected to the 9/11 terrorists than Iraq was, yet we didn't go after them. What we're doing makes no frikkin' sense from a "get the terrorists" standpoint.

Sparhawk · 04-20-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
The Atlantic is wrong.
*snip*

Like I mentioned to analog in the post above yours, the Atlantic was exploring Muslim suicide attacks (which were rare pre-1983). The culture of suicide in Japan has of course been documented for centuries, but the Koran's teaching of the shameful nature of suicide has only been corrupted for the last 20-odd years.

So, no, in the context of Muslim suicide attacks (which is what the article, which of course you read, explored), the Atlantic is not wrong.

04-16-2004, 04:13 AM	#85 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	It sucks, and it's sad, but Lebell's right. I'm going to try my best here though. If my feeble-assed memory serves Belgium is Parlimentary Democracy with a monarch, kinda like England. King Albert, I believe? He took the throne in the early '90s, right after some shake up with the Belgian Constitution. I don't remember the details. The Prime Minister is Verhofstat. (Don't ask me to spell it.) And...some mighty damn fine waffles. . Sorry...I just couldn't resist, anymore. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-16-2004, 07:12 AM	#89 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Not the bible thumpers. Bush has secured that vote very well. It's the classic conservatives. The ones who oppose the Iraq war, the ones who don't like his tremendous lack of fiscal restraint. The ones who aren't enamored with his cowtowing to the bible thumper vote. The ones who don't like the social programs he has expanded like medicare. These are people Bush has to worry about. They could go to Kerry as Kerry touts his fiscal conservative pledge plus military record. Or go libertarian or other third party. Or they could abstain from voting this term. One of this boards conservative members, Sixate has expressed anger at Bush to the point that he absolutely will not vote for him. (did it in General Discussion) This came out of the Howard Stern censorship situation. I highly doubt he is the only one. He won't vote Kerry, but Bush isn't getting the vote either. That's still a net positive result for Kerry. Last edited by Superbelt; 04-16-2004 at 07:15 AM..

04-16-2004, 01:08 PM	#92 (permalink)
qtpye4u84 Flavor+noodles Location: oregon	Bush is Just a guy that has a very big job. He is very brave, and probably under a lot of stress so I would not want his job. I am a republican and so is he, thats why I would vote for him. __________________ The QTpie Last edited by qtpye4u84; 04-16-2004 at 01:10 PM..

04-16-2004, 05:12 PM	#93 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Thanks elfstar, that is generally the feeling I get from people. and qtpye4u84 your follow-up makes me think that I am right. And to be honest, I am a fairly partisan fellow, and would most likely vote for the Dem even if I did think Bush was capable. I have however voted for Republicans before (Bush 41 vs Dukakis and Senator McCain on several occations) __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

04-20-2004, 07:44 AM	#95 (permalink)
Warf Rat Psycho Location: Philadelphia	Your thoughts on the Bush administration ? I know that I am one of the few right wingers on the board, but I want to know what some of you think about Bush, and if you are not a fan, do you think that Gore would have done as good a job. I have many problems with Bush domestically. However I think a war on terrorists was unavoidable. If you think about it, suicide bombing did not exist 30 years ago. Now it's common practice in far to many places. I can think of no better way to solve the problem than through strength, and if they start to believe we will break any treaty or cross any border to find and kill them, maybe can stop this terrible trend. I know how that sounds, but if you disagree, please tell me what else you think we can do. __________________ A day late, and a dollar short.

04-15-2004, 12:55 PM	#81 (permalink)
elfstar Upright	mml, I don't count myself as a member of any political party, and in fact i have never voted for a mainstream candidate (i'm 26 so that's only 2 pres. elections) - mostly because I hate the two party system. So obviously I'm not the person your question was meant for. What I would like to point out is a rather subtle, and possibly unintentional aspect of your post. You suggest that Republicans support Bush simply because of his party affilliation, whereas Democrats support Kerry because he is not Bush. I think that's a very important difference. The main reason for Democrats to support Kerry isn't that he is a Democrat, but rather that they have seen first hand the way Bush handles his job, and they know that practically anybody would be a step up. I may be reading too much into what you said, but regardless I think there is some truth to it. I admit that many (probably most) Democrats would support Kerry regardless of his opponent, but I think in this election they have much more reason to stick with him than blind loyalty. Personally, I believe there is far too much at stake in this election for me to cast my vote for a third party candidate, as I have done in the past. I think the worst possible thing for this country would be to continue down the road that Bush is leading us. His foreign policy is reckless, and he lies to cover his innumerable mistakes.

04-15-2004, 01:35 PM	#82 (permalink)
mattevil Addict Location: Virginia	I think Bush gets away with alot more than he should. I think he plays the press into thinking he's ignorant so they have low expectations. I'm not saying he's brilliant but not as unintelligent as he seems. I see his administartion as the person in school who foucuses on winning class president at all costs and focuses little on what they'll actually do for progress. lastly i think the appointment of ashcroft was one of the worst moves ever and was done to win over the far right. There's something to be said when you lose overwhelmingly to a dead guy.

04-16-2004, 12:10 AM	#83 (permalink)
Harman Upright Location: Belgium	It was quite a learning discussion. But as a Belgian I’m also curious to know what the America people think about our country.

04-16-2004, 06:56 AM	#87 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	you know statistically, 40% of the voters vote republican every time no matter what. 40% vote democrat every time no matter what, and it's the remaining 20% of swing voters that a campaign really has to worry about. Where it will be interesting this time around is that Bush has pissed off a bunch of republicans - he's even got some republicans saying publicly that they're not happy with him. Will that influence the republican 40% to perhaps vote for Kerry - or at least not vote for Bush? Should be very interesting to see what happens in November.

04-20-2004, 08:09 AM	#96 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Hate only breads more hate. Kill a terrorist and 5 more pop up in his place. There is no solution to the terrorist problem that involves war that does not include genocide. We need to combat the problem by changing the perception people have of us. We need to stop our unwavering support of Isreal. We need to do what they want and just leave them alone. Reducing our dependency on forgien oil would be a great start to curving terrorism, we would then be able to leave the middle east and say have it your way. Let them sit there and fight amoungst themselfs until they grow up. To me it seems that Bush is one of the greatest threats to America in a long time. He is willing to take away our freedoms (since when do we need free speach zones?) He uses the word unpatriotic to bully people into doing what they know is wrong. For someone who is a self proclaimed christian he sure doesn't follow the bible very well. The bible teaches us to love our enemy as ourselfs. It teaches us to turn the other cheek. Violence only leads to more violence. My biggest gripe about Bush is he has to much of the American additude that "Everything should be done my way". He doesn't think about the consiquences of his actions. Let's face it we are in a world now where we can't just have everything our way. We need to work together if we want to make things better. This means we need to ask ourselfs what would the rest of the world think when we do things. Would things be different if Gore was president? Of course they would. Would they be better? I have no idea. I'd hope that the forgien oppion of us would at least be better. Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? How would you like it if your neighboor down the street one day said "Everyone in this city must be in bed by 10 at night and to work by 8 in the morning" What gives him the right to say that? If he was the mayor does he have the right to say that? What if he is the governer? Or President? What is best for him is not always what is best for everyone.

04-20-2004, 08:21 AM	#97 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	I have my thoughts, but rather than participate in the discussion I will simply issue a general warning that this could quickly get out of control. We will lock this thread down if it becomes uncivil. Please, feel free to disagree. Just do it politely.

04-20-2004, 08:37 AM	#100 (permalink)
Warf Rat Psycho Location: Philadelphia	Martyrdom itself has been around since our earliest points in history, and if they couldn't make backpacks to blow themselves up, they would just kill people by hand, knowing it would result in their own death. [/B][/QUOTE] You are totally corrrect. I was thinking more of major attacts for political gain. __________________ A day late, and a dollar short.

04-20-2004, 09:38 AM	#102 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	[QUOTE][i] Bush's opinion of you are with us or against us is horrible. Since when does Bush decide what is the best for everyone else in the world? [QUOTE] I have to agree with that. Unless there is some greater benefit to Bush's actions that no one is privy to yet, his actions are questionable, mainly regarding Iraq. Some people enjoy Bush's style of ' just watch me' or as it were, ' taking the bull by the horns.' I think all leaders should have those characteristics. I just prefer those to envelop some tact and diplomacy with such resolve. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

04-20-2004, 10:04 AM	#103 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I guess I don't see the purpose of this thread, considering how many anti-Bush threads there already are. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-20-2004, 11:28 AM	#110 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	The Atlantic is wrong. In World War II, kamikaze pilots acted as "human missiles" by flying their planes, heavily laden with explosives, directly into enemy warships. After World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" were used against the French colonial army. "Turn the other cheek" is more complicated than that. The original greek uses two different words for strike. The first word suggests the relationship between a slave and an owner, and typically involves striking with the back of the hand. By "turning the other cheek", you are telling the assailer to strike you in a manner that suggests a peer, with the palm of the hand. It's a brilliant way to stand up to someone non-violently and assert yourself as an equal at the same time.

04-20-2004, 12:37 PM	#114 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	You know, if we would just establish a "we'll leave you alone unless you fuck with us, and if you do we'll annihilate you and ONLY you" foreign policy, we'd have a much better time of it. That's just my opinion though.

04-20-2004, 03:11 PM	#117 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Now merged for your enjoyment.