How has the Bush presidency affected your political views?

[Smurf]

(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".

 

[ron damon]

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

 

[Smurf]

btw, I'm awaiting your answer to my previous question

Red, white and blue :rofl:

 

[ron damon]

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.

 

[MaxS]

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.

 

[MaxS]

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]

I think I'm falling in love again.

 

[ron damon]

Red, white and blue :rofl:

very cute ..

 

[Smurf]

I think I'm falling in love again.

I think I hear a GD thread rushing up...

 

[ron damon]

THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

what is a human being without his/her mind? how can one conceive of mind separate from culture?

 

[MaxS]

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?

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[ron damon]

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.

 

[MaxS]

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!

 

[MaxS]

FFS this isn't some kind of PR focus group where we try to spin war-time atrocities into acceptable casualties, you sick ****.

 

[ron damon]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[ron damon]

since some people can't handle much challenging of their preconceptions, I'll be signing off for now

 

[MaxS]

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 :grumpy:

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

 

[ron damon]

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

 

[Smurf]

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

pfsh, you can't stay away.

 

[SOS2008]

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!

 

[Lapin Dormant]

As to the original Question, "How has the Bush presidency affected your political views? "

No, was agin him from the beginning.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

It has taken the worst natural disaster in our country's history to make him change his course, and only slightly at that.

I'm not trying to subvert the point you made or anything, but you have to know by now that I'm a stickler for historically inaccurate hyperbole. The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was a greater natural disaster than Katrina. Deaths are estimated at 3000-6000, 300,000 people were left homeless (75% of the city's population), not to mention that martial law and a sunset curfew were instituted on those who remained in the city. The government also greatly underreported the death toll to avoid the devaluation of real estate.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What the Bush administration has done to MY political consciousness is to make me even more furious than I wzs at the east coast pinks who have so thoroughly come to dominate the party and turn it into a sure loser even against the likes of Bush. In the old days Midwesterners like Truman and west coasters like Scoop Jackson gave us a party that could beat the GOP nine times out of ten. I don't agree that the change has been due to the flow of historical change. I think it's been all those red diaper babies grown up to dominate the part machinery.

 

[loseyourname]

Have you seen statistics for crime in the US, including child abuse, molestation, and porn? What does that say about our society?

I guess it says that the segment of our population engaging in these activities in barbarian and uncivilized.

 

[loseyourname]

What the Bush administration has done to MY political consciousness is to make me even more furious than I wzs at the east coast pinks who have so thoroughly come to dominate the party and turn it into a sure loser even against the likes of Bush. In the old days Midwesterners like Truman and west coasters like Scoop Jackson gave us a party that could beat the GOP nine times out of ten. I don't agree that the change has been due to the flow of historical change. I think it's been all those red diaper babies grown up to dominate the part machinery.

Who is Scoop Jackson? The man I know by that name is a sports writer.

 

[pattylou]

I'm not trying to subvert the point you made or anything, but you have to know by now that I'm a stickler for historically inaccurate hyperbole. The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was a greater natural disaster than Katrina. Deaths are estimated at 3000-6000, 300,000 people were left homeless (75% of the city's population), not to mention that martial law and a sunset curfew were instituted on those who remained in the city. The government also greatly underreported the death toll to avoid the devaluation of real estate.

OKay. I claimed what I had read and haven't done any comparative analysis myself.

Was Katrina worse in terms of cost?

 

[loseyourname]

OKay. I claimed what I had read and haven't done any comparative analysis myself.

Was Katrina worse in terms of cost?

Beats me. For one, we don't know exactly how much repairs will cost. Second, property value was much lower then than now. San Francisco was pretty much completely decimated, though. Most of what didn't collapse in the quake burned down during the ensuing firestorms.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I was a republican supporter

I even voted for Bush the first time out. Then came the war in Iraq which I thought was OK at first, but then the republican agenda began to move forward and I realized that these people were all crooks.

 

[Astronuc]

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.)

:rofl:

I would prefer politicians to write their own speeches. If one cannot write (or read in Bush's case) and communicate clearly with the public, one does not deserve to be put in a position of authority.

I prefer to extemporize or speak for myself. I don't need anyone else to explain my thoughts or ideas. Then again, sometimes I am misunderstood, and this can be frustrating - so bear with me.

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).

I am a big fan of the National Press Club and Commonwealth Club. I listen quite often to many interesting speeches.

http://npc.press.org/

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/

I value being able to hear people in their own words, even if I do not agree with them. I heard Bill Frist the other day. I agreed with some of his points, and disagreed with others - but at least I know first hand his positions.

 

[Astronuc]

Who is Scoop Jackson? The man I know by that name is a sports writer.

Senator Henry M. Jackson

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

http://www.hmjackson.org/bio.html

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Jeez here I was going to made a Joke about how I couldn't have been 'Fur' him, cause I'm A Freakin Rabbit, need the Coat for Myself.