How has the Bush presidency affected your political views?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
69 replies · 9K views
Hey listen, just some advice:

You guys aren't having a conversation in person, you're posting comments on a forum for people to read.

It would be reallty helpful (at least for me) if you didnt reply in sentence fragments -- makes it kind of hard to follow along lol.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MaxS said:
It would be reallty helpful (at least for me) if you didnt reply in sentence fragments -- makes it kind of hard to follow along lol.
Pfft, I think I'm done here anyways, Ron has revealed his true colors (interesting analogy, don't you think?)
 
MaxS said:
I gaurantee you would see the same outcome had the roles been reversed.

interesting
 
Smurf said:
Ron has revealed his true colors

which are?
 
Ron_Damon said:
interesting

By the way I'm not necessarily suggesting YOU OR I (as we are right now, and not influenced by the pressures of an occupation) would be the ones responsible for committing such atrocities.

What I am guaranteeing is that there WILL be a segment of the population that resorts to such measures, especially after being influenced by generations of propaganda (which is incidentally the reason we currently have troops fighting in Iraq for "our freedom").
 
MaxS said:
(which is incidentally the reason we currently have troops fighting in Iraq for "our freedom").
and why we have always (and still do) had people who will think someone else is to be considered a "barbarian".
 
Smurf said:
and why we have always (and still do) had people who will think someone else is to be considered a "barbarian".

so there is no such thing as?

btw, I'm awaiting your answer to my previous question
 
Ron_Damon said:
btw, I'm awaiting your answer to my previous question
Red, white and blue :smile:
 
MaxS said:
By the way I'm not necessarily suggesting YOU OR I (as we are right now, and not influenced by the pressures of an occupation) would be the ones responsible for committing such atrocities.

What I am guaranteeing is that there WILL be a segment of the population that resorts to such measures, especially after being influenced by generations of propaganda (which is incidentally the reason we currently have troops fighting in Iraq for "our freedom").

I don't think cultures, and the actions they allow and give reality to, are that interchangeable. Meanings can be worlds apart, even though externally its corresponding actions can be seen as kindred.
 
Some folks are born
made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, whit and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
they point the cannon right at you.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks are born
silver spoon in hand,
Lord don't they help themselves.
But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks inherit
star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war.
And when you ask them,
"How much should we give?"
They only answer "More! More! More!"

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no military son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no Fortunate Son.


----------------

Absolutely boggles the mind that people still play this song at Republican rallies, thinking it is pro-establishment. LOL.
 
Ron_Damon said:
I don't think cultures, and the actions they allow and give reality to, are that interchangeable. Meanings can be worlds apart, even though externally its corresponding actions can be seen as kindred.

Step outside your prejudice PLEASE.

Cultures are ABSOLUTELY that interchangable. There are no barbarians. There are no savages. There are no RACES. THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

All human beings are capable of horrible atrocities if driven to commit them, whether it be by religious fervor, nationalistic zeal, or some other cause.
 
pattylou said:
I think I'm falling in love again.
I think I hear a GD thread rushing up...
 
MaxS said:
THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

what is a human being without his/her mind? how can one conceive of mind separate from culture?
 
What do I need to spell everything out for you now?

All human beings are imbued with the same capacity for evil. How hard is that for you to grasp. There are plenty of maniacs in america right now that don't see anything wrong with INVADING A SOVEREIGN NATION AND BOMBING CITIES REGARDLESS OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!

Would you not call these acts by their proper names? As atrocities?
 
MaxS said:
Would you not call these acts by their proper names? As atrocities?
Of course not, they're done by his culture. His culture, by inference, can't be barbarians. Only barbarians commit atrocities.
 
MaxS said:
Would you not call these acts by their proper names? As atrocities?

Are cars an "atrocity" because more people die as a result of them than in all modern wars combined?

I know I'm setting myself up for some shrill remarks here, but if you creatively think about it, you'll find some interesting conclusions hiding in the above comparison.
 
Ron_Damon said:
Are cars an "atrocity" because more people die as a result of them than in all modern wars combined?

I know I'm setting myself up for some shrill remarks here, but if you creatively think about it, you'll find some interesting conclusions hiding in the above comparison.

Holy ****, this is your justification?

Because people die in car accidents, its ok to bomb civilians?

Oh you want me to think about this "creatively" do you? Sure, I'm certain we can find all sorts of "creative" ways to justify THE INTENTIONAL MASS MURDER OF CIVILIANS IN WAR!
 
FFS this isn't some kind of PR focus group where we try to spin war-time atrocities into acceptable casualties, you sick ****.
 
MaxS said:
Holy ****, this is your justification?

Because people die in car accidents, its ok to bomb civilians?

Oh you want me to think about this "creatively" do you? Sure, I'm certain we can find all sorts of "creative" ways to justify THE INTENTIONAL MASS MURDER OF CIVILIANS IN WAR!

I was thinking more in terms of whether there is a purpose in history, and what meaning can be seen in death vis-a-vis progress. Should the civil war have been avoided to spare the inevitable innocent casualties? How about WW II? Can't we extend the reasoning to other endeavors, such as transportation? Do we even admit the concept of progress?

And don't forget the ones deliberately bombing civilians are the same ones you refuse to call barbarians.
 
Ron_Damon said:
And don't forget the ones deliberately bombing civilians are the same ones you refuse to call barbarians.
Yeah, so? If I'm not going to call muslims barbarians why would I call yanks barbarians? Not everyone is racist like you.
 
:rolleyes: since some people can't handle much challenging of their preconceptions, I'll be signing off for now
 
RD.. YOU are the one that cannot handle any challenge of your preconceptions.

YOU still believe that there are savages out there to be tamed

Get it through your thick skull that barbarian and savage are relative terms.
 
MaxS said:
Get it through your thick skull that barbarian and savage are relative terms.

of course it is a relative term Einstein; that's what I've been trying to explore...

ok, I'm taking a break now :smile:
 
Ron_Damon said:
of course it is a relative term Einstein; that's what I've been trying to explore...
Another racist trying to justify his beliefs with relativism...
ok, I'm taking a break now :smile:
pfsh, you can't stay away.
 
MaxS said:
What do I need to spell everything out for you now?

All human beings are imbued with the same capacity for evil. How hard is that for you to grasp. There are plenty of maniacs in america right now that don't see anything wrong with INVADING A SOVEREIGN NATION AND BOMBING CITIES REGARDLESS OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!

Would you not call these acts by their proper names? As atrocities?
Here's one example to be reminded about:
Ten years ago terrorist Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Among the victims were 19 children attending day care in the building.
American Barbarian!
 
As to the original Question, "How has the Bush presidency affected your political views? "

No, was agin him from the beginning.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
It doesn't surprise me that nothing would change your views.
I'll say it again, Ivan: I'm not a big fan of people misquoting me. It is dishonest.
 
Astronuc said:
I would have to agree with loseyourname regarding Harding and Jackson, but the parallels between the Harding and Bush administration are great, and IMO, Bush is up there with Harding.

True, the appearance of just utterly bumbling everything and cronyism in his appointments is reminiscent of Harding. What's interesting about Harding is that he was such a bad speech-writer that I believe no president since has written his own speeches. Now confronted with Bush's inability to even read articulately a speech written for him, will we see professional speakers giving speeches for the president? (Okay, I say this in jest.)

I would love to see Republicans like Alan Simpson, John Danforth, Warren Rudman and even Fred Thompson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson ) back in office, as well as Democrats like the late Paul Tsongas. Rudman and Tsongas cofounded the Concord Coalition - http://www.concordcoalition.org/

I was watching C-Span earlier and saw, for the first time, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas giving a speech at the National Press Club, and I have to say I was very impressed. He was eloquent, charming, personable, and even heads a rock band. He may have alluded to a run at the presidency in '08 (the 'joke' he made about it was somewhat ambiguous). Although I don't much about him and would obviously have to look into it more, on a prima facie basis I wouldn't mind seeing him nominated if Giuliani fails or decides not to run.
 
Last edited by a moderator: