Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The US: A Nation Divided?

  1. Jul 21, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I had to post and tell of a humorous response from some disenchanted Bush fans that I encounter though work. I have done a lot of work in the Bible belt the last few years. When it was all about Clinton, these were often the first to be outraged and stomp their feet and blow smoke from their ears. Now that its their guy, they are outraged at the division in this nation. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    It is who we are bombing and why, and not who we are doinking that is the greater issue in my mind.
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 22, 2004 #2
    So are you saying that Republicans should be outraged at the President, even if they support the War?

    Your entire argument rests on the premise that the war in Iraq is a mistake. But that is just a matter of opinion.
  4. Jul 22, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I don't think that's what he was saying, John. He just finds it funny that conservatives who whine about liberals dividing the nation are the same people who called for Clinton's hide and well, divided the nation. All partisans do it, left and right. All are to blame.
  5. Jul 22, 2004 #4
    He said "doinking". Hehe. :P
  6. Jul 22, 2004 #5

    The response now is obvious: One referred to support for the country in times of war; the other referred to support of a President so he could get score hanky-panky in times of peace.

    Say what you like, but you cannot compare criticism of US's actions in Iraq with criticism of Presidents performing sexual acts with employees in the Oval Office.
  7. Jul 22, 2004 #6
    What! You mean there are people who have different beliefs and opinions than me! What! Our whole government is based off of someone's right to choose according to their own thoughts and experiences! I'm outraged!!![/sarcasm]
  8. Jul 23, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, sure, criticism of the nation's policy and actions are an essential part of the democratic process. Intense scrutiny of a president's personal life is not, and is probably counterproductive. Heck, we would have had to impeach Jefferson.

    Don't get me wrong. Clinton was wrong, and the fact that he flat-out lied to a grand jury and to the nation itself pisses me off, but I care less what he does with his intern. That's between him, Monica, and Hilary and I'd rather not know about it. When my country is at war, on the other hand, you better believe it matters to me and I'm going to be opinionated about it.

    Whether or not the liberal criticism of the war is off-base or on-base, surely you agree that such scrutiny, even if sometimes unfair, must be allowed and even encouraged. This government is built on a principle of checks and balances, and one of the most important checks is that of this nation's citizens on its leaders. Standards must be high and every action must be performed under a microscope.
  9. Jul 23, 2004 #8
    But in times of war we have to temper our criticisms with an understanding that the US has to appear to be united. Much of the criticism of Bush was nothing but partisan politics (essentially, if Clinton had done the same thing some of these criticisms would not have appeared).

    First of all, I am not sure what Jefferson did that would call for impeachment. After all, Clinton's impeachment was based on the fact that he lied under oath.

    But that's just your opinion. Others think that Presidents need to act mature and responsible so as to set a good example. If President George W. Bush was caught having sex with a White House employee the Democrats would be all over him, claiming that he was acting like an out-of-control kid with no appreciation for the job. And if Bush wagged his finger at the US and lied, oh ho! There would be calls for impeachment, and you know it.

    But a lot of the naysaying was done primarily because George W. was a Republican. One USA Today columnist even admitted that he secretly liked to hear about the problems our military was having in accomplishing its mission. As shown on Fox News, some are even cheering on the insurgents when they attack US forces. At UC Irvine some even wanted a terrorist group to be honored during Commencement.

    There are a lot of people out there that will be severely disappointed if Iraq is able to maintain a stable democracy, simply because Bush will be credited on a global scale. Some privately rooted on Saddam Hussein when he was hiding, because his escape was an embarrassment to the President. When Qusay and Odar were shot, they claimed that the killings were unnecessary.

    When Private Lynch was rescued, many went out of their way to somehow paint the rescue mission as a setup, a fraud. And it has nothing to do with seeking the truth, but rather taking glory away from the military. They simply do not want things to go well.

    And when times got a little tough, they called the Iraq War a defeat. A quagmire. A Viet Nam. And it wasn't that they were calling it as they saw it. They really wanted the Iraq War to become a quagmire, because this would give them ammo against Bush.

    This hatred for the President above what is good for the country is the type of criticism I find objectionable.
  10. Jul 23, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Hey, don't get me wrong here. I strongly disapprove of partisan politics on both sides. Constructive criticism is the foundation of a strong government. Character attacks on an individual leader are not. Criticize the policy, not the man.

    I disagree about the united front as well. The only war this nation has ever been united on was WWII. It is perfectly natural for war to divide people. As long as everyone honestly has the best interests of the nation in mind, let them disagree. Ultimately, only time can prove one side right and the other wrong, and blind allegiance for the purpose of appearing united (when you are, in fact, anything but) is silly. Even when parent's do it, the kids can see right through it.

    Yes, but you did not criticize Clinton for lying. You criticized him for cheating on his wife, which I feel has no bearing on his ability to run the nation. If you believed it did, then you would have to believe the same for Jefferson, who also cheated on his wife. The lying is a separate matter, and Clinton got what he deserved for that. My problem is that the focus of the criticism of Clinton was never the fact that he lied under oath, which is what it should have been about.

    What's your idea of mature and responsible? Surely you're aware that a good deal of the world thinks Bush is an immature fool. There is a good reason for that, and it isn't just politics. He has a reputation as a spoiled little kid, he butchers the English language on a regular basis, and he gives speeches like William Shatner imitating John Wayne. What does any of this have to do with his ability to be president? Nothing. You're well aware of that. If you are going to judge a president in any significant manner on the public perception of him, very few will make the cut.

    And if Bush was caught having sex with an employee, and the democrats called for his foreskin on a platter, they would be wrong.

    And these men are scroundrels for doing so and for feeling this way. This in no way takes away from the strength of legitimate protests of the war.

    I am definitely with you on that.
  11. Jul 23, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Why don't we ask Max Cleland who started using the war on terror for partisan gain.

    The Democratic party were being good little sheep until shepherd George decided to lead us to slaughter instead of just a shearing.

  12. Jul 23, 2004 #11
    Unfortunately this ideal is violated time after time. Comparing Bush to Hitler? I have heard it numerous times. And when your country is trying to win a war, calling the Commander-in-Chief such things is not going to help the war effort. That is the type of divisive politics that pisses people off.

    Which was the last war we won decisively. There is little doubt that domestic squabbling and the media hurt our chances in Vietnam. In fact, such divisive attacks turned a victory into a defeat (Tet Offensive).

    Consider the Doolittle Raid in WWII. Today, the media would play up our losses to hurt Bush's image.




    What chance would we have had in WWII with such attacks? And that is what is happening today.

    But they don't. Many people have their own political agendas in mind, and they would love to see a military embarrassment if it meant knocking Republicans out of power.

    Both Clinton and Bush have this ability to incite complete, total hatred among their opponents, moreso than any presidents in recent memory. And I think this is the way it is going to be from now on, no matter who is elected.

    We criticized him for having sex with an employee inside the Oval Office while he was President. I'm not that well read up on Jefferson, so I am not sure he did anything similar.

    Well, many thought the same of Clinton. Those that oppose a man's policies will always castigate him in such unpleasant manners.

    Criticism of those that side with you is easy when considering hypothetical examples, but tougher if it actually occurs.

    Again, not everyone thinks that every reasonable protest of the war is divisive politics. But certainly much of what has happened IS very much divisive. And that's what worries me.
  13. Jul 24, 2004 #12
    all most all of the worlds problems are caused by the religious FUNDIES
    the religion matters not the FUNDIES are the problem in all of them
    nut moslems, nut christian or nut jews none of them help and all hurt
    your BuSh2 and many of his followers are nut christians, who support nut jews
    who are the root cause of the nut moslem terror

    the news media is not leftwing owned
    it is owned and run by the very rich
    no poor worker controls the news media, ever has or ever will
    that is BS started by one A Hitler a good buddy and biz partener of
    your BuSh2's grand dad "W" [look it up]

    we need to get control of this country out of the hands of the nut christians
    like BuSh2 and his gang of thugs :surprise:

    good that you draged Viet-Nam in to this as that is exactly what Iraq is turning in to
    and the DO-LITTLE raid was very little then the loss of aircraft and NO NET DAMMAGE but used as propaganda in a war that we could not lose
    but fear was over amped to put 10,000s americans fron japan sent to camps
    NEEDLESSLY much like ashKKKrofts current plans to link the drug war to the terror war , what next a link to porn and terror???
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
  14. Jul 24, 2004 #13
    Your post is nothing more than a juvenile rant unworthy of a response. I suggest you re-think your approach. It would help if you wrote in English.
  15. Jul 24, 2004 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow! I never expected that this would start a genuine discussion. It was just an observation of some sore losers.

    JohnDubya, as for your initial objections, my entire premise was based on Bush supporters who feel betrayed.
  16. Jul 24, 2004 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    btw, I changed "Now that its there guy," to "Now that its their guy," in the original post; that's all. I hate it when that happens! :mad:
  17. Jul 24, 2004 #16
    and your posts are little more then a collection of rightwing regurgitations
    of their BIG LIES ie do not question us we know what we are doing
    well the FACTS prove they DON"T have a clue what they are doing
    ie no WMDs no links to terror and no general wellcome from the people
    we can set up a puppet [like the shaw] but it willnot last long

    and yes questioning the Viet-Nam war stoped the war, one that I think we NEVER could have WON because the other guys were willing to fight
    ONE DAY LONGER then we were. so we could still be fighting over there and our young people dieing to prove we could do that. but the commies would still be willing to fight one day longer then we were and if we invaded the north we would risk WW#3 or at least a korean rerun of china jumping in and sending a few million troops in to the mess
  18. Jul 25, 2004 #17
  19. Jul 25, 2004 #18
    rush limpballs responce dude
    style matters far more than TRUTH to the right wing
    I supect you can't answer the points I made
  20. Jul 26, 2004 #19
    I can't understand the points you made because you write like a Neanderthal.

    I have my arguments with Adam, and Dissident Dan, and baltic. I respond to their comments all the time.

    Now, if you want to formulate an argument that makes a lick of sense, I will consider it and respond. Not until then, however.
  21. Jul 26, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Stop this. This crap has no place on PF.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook