News Bush: Failed Presidency - Debate the Impact

[Zantra]

Anyone care to argue against the obviousness of this? Aside from hunting down Al Queda after 9-11, what has he done for the country?

 

[Zero]

He hasn't had oral sex with an intern, and he, umm...is destroying social programs, and funneling tax dollars to churches, and heping the rich get richer and the poor remain umemployed...all good things, according to the brand of 'conservatism' to which he belongs.

 

[RageSk8]

He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil... Who is going to argue with God?

 

[renedox]

Originally posted by RageSk8
He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil... Who is going to argue with God?

I see, so, how is going to fight himself? :P

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by renedox
I see, so, how is going to fight himself? :P

With a pretzel?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by RageSk8
He believes that God placed him in power to fight evil... Who is going to argue with God?

Hmm. Just like Osama.

 

[megashawn]

He hasn't had oral sex with an intern,

The only thing Clinton did wrong was get caught.

Who is going to argue with God?

I will if the panzy would show himself.


But we can't blame it all on bush. How about the people who voted for him. Of course, you can't help but wonder what kind of disaster Gore would have left us with after 911.

The only good thing Bush did was his actions after 911. But then again, all the negative things this has spawned sucks too. Not to mention that they knew about the attacks, and didn't warn anyone.

Yup, I can't think of one thing that disagrees with this thread.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by megashawn
The only thing Clinton did wrong was get caught.


But we can't blame it all on bush. How about the people who voted for him. Of course, you can't help but wonder what kind of disaster Gore would have left us with after 911.


.

Assuming 911 would have happened if Gore was president. A lot of people had to screw up to allow 9-11 to happen.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Zero
He hasn't had oral sex with an intern

Poor guy.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Assuming 911 would have happened if Gore was president. A lot of people had to screw up to allow 9-11 to happen.

Could you clarify please? Do you think there would have been a reasonable chance of Gore preventing 9/11? Like what kind of odds are we talking about?

Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.

 

[RageSk8]

Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.

I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues). Apart from your parochial view of what are major issues, I am having a lot of trouble seeing Bush as being positive in the two areas you listed, terrorism and economics. First, on terrorism, Bush in many people's minds has been a failure at combating terrorism because of his neocon approach.

The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.

On the economy, will the economy recover? Yes. Will the economy recover to the degree that it should? No. Are Bush’s tax cuts going to create jobs? Yes, of course. Are the tax cuts a good[ approach to creating jobs? Hell no. As I have stated before in this forum, because the marginal propensity to consume decreases significantly as incomes increase, cutting taxes for the rich is not an effective way to spur the economy. Tax cuts for the middle and lower classes are much more effective in creating jobs as the middle and lower classes spend a greater percentage of their tax breaks and the money they do spend goes into goods rather than investments. To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet:

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be…

Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.

So, even if one limits the scope of major issues to the economy and terrorism, Bush doesn’t seem to be a positive leader at all.

 

[Zero]

Bush hasn't done anything especially positive in his nonsense 'war on terror'...when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure. Bush keeps making missteps, mostly because he has the attitude that whatever he wants to do must be the right thing...and he is very often wrong! You don't spur the economy by cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations, for the simple(and simplified for this post) reason that by doing so you maintain their wealth without their having to do anything to increase productivity. Increased productivity is where you see jobs and sustainable growth. A tax cut for the middle class, and heck, free money for poor people, would have created spending on goods, and the increased demand would have created jobs. This 'jobless' recovery isn't a positive step for anyone but the wealthiest few.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure.

erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun...Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun...Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

I think you know exactly what I mean. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy! Honestly, this whole 'war on terror' is 1)overblown, 2) doomed to fail, 3)bound to cause more harm than good, 4)trade liberty for 'safety', and we won't even get safety. Terrorism isn't as much of a threat to America as the 'war on terror' is. What a joke, the idea disgusts me on an intellectual as well as emotional level.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues).

By this I simply meant that if you ask people after an election to give the main reason they voted for/against a candidate, the vast, vast majority will cite one of these two. I didn't mean to imply that there aren't other problems in this country.

To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet:

I don't disagree with him often, but on this one I do (its a popular article and I've read it and seen it cited before). The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.

Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy!

Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.

 

[megashawn]

Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.

Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class. I can assure you that since Bush has been in office, things have been more difficult for me. I won't say its his fault, (International conspiracy theory to make shawn's life dificult) but I do not think the things he's done to "help the economy" are working. If they are, why is there daily job cuts, companys going under, etc, etc?

I agree with Zero. How can you fight a concept? Better yet, how can you send thousands of troops to fight a concept? Terrorism is not warfare, its not groups of people who pick a nice open field and line up and shoot at one another. Its not even opposing forces in foxholes and bunkers. Its not war at all.

How can you declare war on something that is not war? Its not like Al-queda has an organized state and military. The only way to stop terrorism is to prevent it. Just like the kid from NC that put the packages of box cutters on the plane to show how weak our security is, after the things Bush put in place to combat such actions. Now they are talking about giving him 10 years for it, when he should apparently be running the show.

But basically, what has Bush done to combat terror? Essentially nothing. If a kid can sneak weapons on a plane 2 years after 911, what's to say a terrorist can't do the same? The only thing bush has done, IMO, is spread more terror around the world.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class.

Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

 

[RageSk8]

Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

Gotta love cliche conservative responses... What does this have to do with anything? From what I can tell it is merely a move to shift focus away from the undeniable growing disparity between the upper middle class and the lower middle class. Such statements are, of course, irrelevant to any discussion about economics and/or politics within the United States, but none the less give conservatives a mantra to latch on to. Funny how things work out... Sudenly the simple fact that poverty is always relative to a specific socio-economic spectrum does much more than it rationally should... It should just lead one to draw a picture of the socio-economic spectrum in question, but conservatives somehow miss the whole point...

 

[RageSk8]

The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.

Actually it means A LOT to the rest of us. The fact that part of the Bush plan gives what will amount to billions of dollars a year in tax breaks to the super rich, the people who need the money the least, when giving the middle and lower classes, the people who actually need the money, comprable tax breaks would stimulate the economy more, creating more jobs. How is this fact irrelevent?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.

WWI...Woodrow Wilson said it in 1917 or 1919. You know, back when wars were actually wars, and not the new type of insanity we have now.

 

[megashawn]

Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.

And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.

I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by RageSk8
The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and receive support in all possible ways.

BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.

Peace and long life.

 

[RageSk8]

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient. The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country when these middle eastern sources will just send many more instead and give them even more money and weapons. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these organizations are really located and where they are formed and receive support in all possible ways.

Sorry to inform you that the war on a Iraq has created more terrorists in the area. Sorry to inform you that government agents working on terrorists cells were reasigned to the war on Iraq. Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give... Granted, it is what the Bush Administration puts forth, but it has NO basis in reality.

 

[Hurkyl]

Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good.

I'm having trouble swallowing this logic...

 

[megashawn]

Well, I see what your saying Hurkyl, but I think he's just got that worded funny.

At the same time, he makes a very strong point. Remember, the 19 terrorists behind 911 were trained here in america, by american pilots, and used american planes. Certainly the USA is not sympathetic towards a groups of extremist bent on toppling our monuments, killing thousands and wrecking our economy.

And certainly there are still terrorist groups plotting attacks right here in the USA.

And what are we doing about local terrorism? Well, getting ready to sentance a US Citizen for revealing a blatant flaw in the airline security. I'd say it is our right to do the right thing in defense of our country. Every citizen is responsible for our defense.

But when the government steps in and punishes the people who try to expose the flaws, what kind of a way is that to motivate me to bring some other government failure to light?

Still have to agree with the title of the thread.

 

[RageSk8]

I misspoke on more than wording. When trying to draw a distinction that the Bush Administration is overemphasizing states in their international agenda a went further I should have (and actually feel). States can be important. Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists. Saddam supported terrorism ideologically, the worst he did in supporting terrorism was giving aid to terrorists was giving the families of suicide bombers money - not that this isn't bad, but it is not grounds for a war, especially a war that, again, required the reassignment of agents who were working on actual terrorists cells. So, in other words, I regret going as far as I did, which underemphasized States, but I wholeheartedly stand by saying that Bush and his supporters overemphasize States.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by megashawn
And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.

And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.

I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted?

I also built my computer. That doesn't change the point: we both have computers. I frankly don't believe that you went hungry to buy your computer. Eating is more important than owning a computer and you can get used/refirbished parts to build a functional computer for much much less.

Even still, its all about choices: I also own a $1200 used car and live in an apartment. A friend of mine is leasing (idiot) a $15,000 car and still lives with his parents.

, no links to any terrorist organization has been found

RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.

 

[Zero]

Let's not play the 'our poor are richer than your poor' thing...stay on topic, gents.

 

[RageSk8]

RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.

I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and receive support in all possible ways.

BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.

Peace and long life.

Ummm...nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.

This is the sort of 'backyard bully' attitude that helps make Bush a lousy president.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).

The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East, and the Iraq/9-11 link is a game of 'Six Degrees of Saddam'...taking this idea one step further, G.H.W. Bush is responsible for 9-11.

 

[Zero]

Another reason Bush sucks is because he has been working hard to smirk his way to complete U.S. isolation from the international community. How long is it going to be before America starts a war with Europe?

 

[Zero]

Let's add to the list that, despite his efforts to the contrary, many of his supporters, appointees, and the like are watered-down versions of the culture that helped produce the breeding ground for terrorism in the first place: a crowd of religious zealots who probably admire the Taliban's goals, if not their methods. "Right idea, wrong God" seems to be an attitude that keeps popping up at random from this administration and its supporters.

 

[Njorl]

And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Njorl
And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/

Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.

No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.

Right, and they turn it around and say that anyone who is smart is bad, as though a high IQ and real experience make you less capable to run things.

Here's a long article about Bush's lies, and why they are required by his philosophy:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=13471&mode=&order=0&thold=0 ...and here's teh stem cell part:

That cavalier dismissal of expert analysis isn't limited to the national-security arena. In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was looking for a decision the president could make on the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research. His Christian-conservative base wanted an outright prohibition. But such a ban would have alienated swing voters eager for the therapies that could come from that research, such as cures for Parkinson's disease. As Nicholas Thompson explained in the Washington Monthly, Bush's advisers came up with a scheme they thought would pass muster with both the core and the swing voters: the president would limit research to only those stem-cell lines that existed already. But before the decision was announced, federal scientists warned the administration that there simply weren't enough reliable existing lines to be useful to researchers. The White House ignored the warnings, which have subsequently proved all too accurate, and went ahead with the decision, thereby setting back crucial medical research for years

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by RageSk8
Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give...

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists.

Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.

LMAO! And after that, Bush will part the waters, and make the sun stand still?? The POINT of terrorism is that you can't attack it like you would a military target. Someone can throw a Molotov cocktail, turn the corner and they are a law-abiding citizen again. You cannot beat terorism with military tactics.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.

What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.

Originally posted by Zero
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East...

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.

Just as soon as there is a threat, we should take it seriously. In the absense of one, we shouldn't act for the sake of acting.

And, I didn't tell a lie about you or Russ...I just took your logic to the next level, to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.

 

[RageSk8]

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Oh well, I feel exactly the same way about you and Russ...ignorant(from my perspective) beyond belief about certain things, and I KNOW neither of you are stupid...long live the 1st Amendment, I guess...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)

I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.

I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?