Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jdjtcagle on September 12, 2004, 02:48:53 pm
-
Can someone find a reliable source that points out all of the things Bush has done wrong within his term?
thanks :)
-
I think all his wrong-doing boils down to one incident: Not choking to death on the pretzel.
-
Great, I'll keep that in mind...
(http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/tweetz/spam1.gif)
-
Hey, I need to get those 84 posts somehow.
-
Oh come on guys...
a teacher is arguing with me about how Bush has does nothing wrong and you people keep pointing out these horrible things he's done.
So can I get an answer before my parents come home in about 30 min? Please?
-
http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html
Lots of examples.
[color=66ff00]Fixed[/color]
-
change you link, there is a period at the end of the URL
-
Iran is pursuing nuclear technology on an increasing pace, as is DPRK. Isreal-Palestine cluster**** is still there. Iraq is on a verge of civil war, with every faction wanting to A) get all power and B) **** **** up, yo. This magnificent achievement was based on ****ty and shady intelligence and also was pretty big factor in trying to miniscule UN and give it attributes it doesn't have or need. Glad at least 1000 US troops and ****loads of civilians died for this cause, because nothing seems better at this moment. Kurds want independence, too. At least Afghanistan is no longer a Taliban ****hole and might someday resemble democracy, but hey, not much good news from there because participants lack troops and warlords are once again fighting for power. At least you have Pakistan as an ally, dictatorship with strong islamist movement is something I as a president would approve above some suckers like most of the western and civilized country.
Of course, serving just USA is totally fine, because the huge drift between USA and rest of the world, generally really unpopular Iraq war, the War on Terror [LOL] which looks to many Arabs like some sort of crusade and stuff like that will benefit USA in the long run, of course. Yeah, and you have this 500 billion deficit, with 200 billion already spent on Iraq. Did I mention Iraq? I guess I did. Oh yes, remember the Sadr guy? He gets more respect as time goes on.
-
don't forget wrecking the environment, infringing upon civil liberties (PATRIOT), illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay, support for 3 coups (Haiti, Georgia and Venezuela), two of which were succesfull. The usual support for dictators and tyrants as long as they serve American interests (Mubarak, Karimov, Musharaf etc).
See, if international law meant anything, Bush would be getting tried at the Hague right now, as would Tony Boy. Not to mention that he should have been impeached several times over, not least of all for lying to America and to the world regarding Saddam's WMD.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
don't forget wrecking the environment, infringing upon civil liberties (PATRIOT), illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay, support for 3 coups (Haiti, Georgia and Venezuela), two of which were succesfull. The usual support for dictators and tyrants as long as they serve American interests (Mubarak, Karimov, Musharaf etc).
See, if international law meant anything, Bush would be getting tried at the Hague right now, as would Tony Boy. Not to mention that he should have been impeached several times over, not least of all for lying to America and to the world regarding Saddam's WMD.
**** I knew I forgot something. But let's be dead serious here: Bush is just a Stormtrooper.
Cheney is Palpatine and Rumsfeld is Darth Vader.
Condi Rice is Jar Jar Binks
**** I JUST MANAGED TO DESTROY MY KEYBOARD WITH BEER :(
-
Some of you guys are just plain out yellow dog democrats. I bet if kerry had been in Bush's situation he probably wouldnt have done the right thing (if anything for that matter) so just lighten up on the guy. I think he is the lesser of 2 evils. If I had a vote It would go to Nader....
EDIT: Spelling mistake.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Some of you guys are just plain out yellow dog democrats. I bet if kerry had been in Bush's situation he probably wouldnt have done the right thing (if anything for that matter) so just lighten up on the poor guy. I think he is the lesser of 2 evils. If I had a vote It would go to Nader....
what
I am confused. What are you trying to tell us?
-
Originally posted by an0n
I think all his wrong-doing boils down to one incident: Not choking to death on the pretzel.
:lol: i can vouch for that
-
Ah, the good old days of harmless-idiot-Bush. Falling off a Segway, that whole babbling "Fool me once" line, and so on; a laughingstock is so much better than the current relations nightmare. I think the little guy is still under there somewhere, he's just hiding behind that pesky war thing.
-
While I won't claim that Mr. Bush is anywhere near the perfect president, I will say this once and clearly:
None of you, and I mean NONE[/b] of you, could have done a better job in the same situation.
You fear strong leadership because it means that you'll have to take a side and take action.
Your stances on most issues are jokes based on philosphies that, while looking good on paper, can't work in real life. Your leading figures are left over hippies that should've stayed in the commune toking up on hemp and lying wherever they fell. They keep trolling about the same issues while the world has moved on.
Meanwhile, millions of babies are killed, AIDS is running rampant, and any of a myriad of other tradegies and atrocities take place on a daily basis worldwide.
It's not GW's fault, it's not America's fault, and yet some people seem to think that it's OUR responsibility to fix it, it's not.
We can't police the world, we would be guilty of the imperialism we get accused of so often.
We can't provide medicine for everyone, we don't have the resources.
We can help sure, but it is NOT the responsibility of the United States to pander to and use our resources in the name of less-that-significant has-been and never-will-be nations.
-
maybe, but allowing US Corporations to run rough-shod over the natives as your secret services fix yet another election (or just plain other throw said leaders) while pampering to the local dictators 'cos he'll provide cheap oil or buy 75 F16's doesn't do your image anygood. Oh, and for the rcord, the US is near the bottom of the "how much aid to GDP a country gives" (most to Israel as it happens)
-
no, see, the only thing that the world is asking is for America to do no harm. You don't have to help everyone, or even anyone, just do no harm. Sort of like the doctor's oath.
I don't know everyone else, but most of my criticisms against Bush (and America policy in general) are for things that he did not, not for things he failed to do.
and I think that you are mistaken when you say that none of us could have done better than Bush were we in his place. He has made once bad decision (I don't mean to imply they were mistakes ) after another. Just pick a decision, any one, and I'll tell you how it could have been done beter.
Frankly, I don't think the problem is that the Bush administration is incompetent, far from it. I just think that they have no interest in such values as equality, peace, justice, freedom etc.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
While I won't claim that Mr. Bush is anywhere near the perfect president, I will say this once and clearly:
None of you, and I mean NONE of you, could have done a better job in the same situation.
[/b]
We're not the potential leaders anyways, you know. Some of us just happen to think that making the entire world pissed off at you is not the brightest idea. However, I just love this:
X [whoever he is, doesn't matter] does something, X is only one with capability to do anything at all -> nobody else could have done a better job than X, ever. Anywhere. X is godlike, he makes no mistakes.
You fear strong leadership because it means that you'll have to take a side and take action.
(http://img87.exs.cx/img87/5397/rollbarf.gif)
hey i think i should act like a polar bear suffering from congenital syphilis, nechrotis and paranoid schitzofrenia but hey that only means that I AM A STRONG LEADER
Your stances on most issues are jokes based on philosphies that, while looking good on paper, can't work in real life. Your leading figures are left over hippies that should've stayed in the commune toking up on hemp and lying wherever they fell. They keep trolling about the same issues while the world has moved on.
[/b]
You can't even bake an omelet without thinking along the lines I COOK OMELETS IN POST-9/11 ENVIROMENT, YOU FAG. Aplodes.
Meanwhile, millions of babies are killed, AIDS is running rampant, and any of a myriad of other tradegies and atrocities take place on a daily basis worldwide.
[/b]
Cry me a river, but what has this to do with the conversation anyways?
blah not our job
[/b]
ok then :confused:
We can help sure, but it is NOT the responsibility of the United States to pander to and use our resources in the name of less-that-significant has-been and never-will-be nations.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
Janos...er, the point is made. Let the man speak his mind, its common curtesy dude.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
While I won't claim that Mr. Bush is anywhere near the perfect president, I will say this once and clearly:
None of you, and I mean NONE of you, could have done a better job in the same situation.
You fear strong leadership because it means that you'll have to take a side and take action.[/b]
You seem to be neglecting the fact that I'm here.
We can't provide medicine for everyone, we don't have the resources.
We can help sure, but it is NOT the responsibility of the United States to pander to and use our resources in the name of less-that-significant has-been and never-will-be nations.
Firstly: Way to promote Humanitarianism.
Secondly: You DO have the resources. It costs literally hundredths of a cent to make a pill, but then American drug companies tell AIDS-riddled children that they can't live a happy, normal life unless they cough up $5/pill for the 10000 pills they'll need to stay alive.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Janos...er, the point is made. Let the man speak his mind, its common curtesy dude.
INTERNET
-
woah, they have on computers now?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
While I won't claim that Mr. Bush is anywhere near the perfect president, I will say this once and clearly:
None of you, and I mean NONE of you, could have done a better job in the same situation.
You fear strong leadership because it means that you'll have to take a side and take action.
Your stances on most issues are jokes based on philosphies that, while looking good on paper, can't work in real life. Your leading figures are left over hippies that should've stayed in the commune toking up on hemp and lying wherever they fell. They keep trolling about the same issues while the world has moved on.
Meanwhile, millions of babies are killed, AIDS is running rampant, and any of a myriad of other tradegies and atrocities take place on a daily basis worldwide.
It's not GW's fault, it's not America's fault, and yet some people seem to think that it's OUR responsibility to fix it, it's not.
We can't police the world, we would be guilty of the imperialism we get accused of so often.
We can't provide medicine for everyone, we don't have the resources.
We can help sure, but it is NOT the responsibility of the United States to pander to and use our resources in the name of less-that-significant has-been and never-will-be nations. [/B]
I think it would be hard to do a worse job than George W Bush in terms of international & global security.
It;s pretty simple to me, really... I'm in the UK. If the American president - any president - was doing a good, average, or even poor job I wouldn't care. The fact that I do, illustrates just how much of a **** up the Bush (2) administration has been for the entire planet.
(even excluding the increase in terrorism and the negative impact of the pointless was against Iraq, the Bush environmental policies in particular are deeply, deeply dangerous for the entire world)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
None of you, and I mean NONE of you, could have done a better job in the same situation. [/B]
Rubbish. After 9/11 everyone in the world was on America's side. If you mean that I couldn't have managed to turn almost the entire world against my country without getting myself impeached they yes you're correct. I probably couldn't do that.
Lets face it. If in Jan 2002 you'd replaced Bush with a stuffed cabbage you'd have done less damage to America's reputation abroad.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Secondly: You DO have the resources. It costs literally hundredths of a cent to make a pill, but then American drug companies tell AIDS-riddled children that they can't live a happy, normal life unless they cough up $5/pill for the 10000 pills they'll need to stay alive.
Possibly, but then again, it takes alot of resources to do the needed research for those pills as well. ;) But what do they do with the profits? Well they pay for research on other drugs, pay for people to make the pills, and make a return for the people who risked the money in the first place.
You know, I can't help but chuckle to myself when people complain about the big bad corporations making profits, but then complain about it when they layoff employees because they (the corp.) aren't making profits. Damn it people, business' aren't charities. Shutup, read some basic economics and then shutup again.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Lets face it. If in Jan 2002 you'd replaced Bush with a stuffed cabbage you'd have done less damage to America's reputation abroad.
I thought they had.....
-
They certainly should have...
-
First of all, I think it's probably true that none of us could do a better job than him, but his being the PRESIDENT OF THE NATION, we sorta hold him to different standards, which many believe he has failed to meet. Just because he did better than I could doesn't mean he did well. And besides, I know I at least have more tact than that man.
Fear of strong leadership? Perhaps, but then again the patron saint of strong leadership is arguably Machiavelli. I think perhaps a free society does not need strong leadership so much as restrained leadership. I don't trust people who are always decisive from the get-go about what has to be done. The world simply is not that simple.
Oh, and a little point about the AIDS running rampant statement: Bush refuses to fund AIDS programs because they support birth control. Let's stop AIDS, but without condoms. Right on.
-
Funny, this happens every time Lib posts in a political debate type thread... :p
-
to be fair, it happens every time anyone posts in a political debate, as long as their views are sufficiently at odds with someone elses. and like we all learned in grade two, it takes two to fight.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Ah, the good old days of harmless-idiot-Bush. Falling off a Segway, that whole babbling "Fool me once" line, and so on; a laughingstock is so much better than the current relations nightmare. I think the little guy is still under there somewhere, he's just hiding behind that pesky war thing.
It ran out of power. John Kerry has fallen off his bike, thats a lot harder to accomplish then falling off of something that is powered by an outside source.
EDIT: Ford, I just gained a little respect for you.
-
I could do a better job.
I wouldn't get re-elected because I'd piss a bunch of people off making the country better, but I'd still end up doing a better job.
-
.
You can dream.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
It ran out of power. John Kerry has fallen off his bike, thats a lot harder to accomplish then falling off of something that is powered by an outside source.
EDIT: Ford, I just gained a little respect for you.
Ok, where in there was did I reference Kerry? Way, way outside the realm of the point. It was intended primarily as a joke, since these silly debates get way too heated at times. Still, you can't say that Bush has shown a very high aptitude in anything remotely involving more than a basic education.
Whether any given person could have done a better job as President than Bush is not a valid question, there are too many traits that would have to be considered first. The ultimate question is whether a given person could have better served (1) the American people, and (2) those influenced by American policy who are not American citizens (and no amount of arguing changes that fact; the first duty of a leader is to those he leads) and quite frankly the only people Bush has served have been those that share his own special interests. Not the job of a President. Would I have done differently? I don't know, but I would like to think I would have. As would most people.
And when it comes to the debate as to whether dubya has done things correctly, well, there isn't much of an argument that can be had there. He could have done a million things differently and come out better in the long run. Hell, he could have done everything the same but been a little less transparent in his ulterior motives and would be more highly regarded. That's not the point. The point for the Americans here is are we better off now than we were before he was elected, on our own soil as well as internationally? I say we aren't, but then I get to go and vote like everyone else. For the rest, well, you don't vote for him, so there's not much that can be done. Complain all you like, it won't get him to step down, and as these dabates so clearly illustrate, you aren't convincing anyone else either.
-
[color=66ff00]Holy **** you guys actually feel sorry for him?!? :wtf:
Bush intentionally ****ed everything up for his own gains, why can't you see that? He's nothing short of a monster.
He ruined the democratic process taking the right to choose a president away from the american people and improved matters only for his rich friends. I find it appaling that so much evidence exists that he screwed the majority of americans in grandios fashion yet nobody is willing to call him on it.
Is the media brainwashing that good?
[/color]
-
Maeg, it's not the media brainwashing. Average intelligence has dropped to dangerously low levels, and this sort of behavior is just the tip of the iceburg. That's why Bush's "success" disgusts me, it reflects a blinding ignorance of the masses to such stupidly transparent intentions. The same goes for Kerry, but between "bad" and "bad," one has to make some sort of distinction. And what's sad, I'm conservative in principle. It's Bush that isn't in any sense of the word, except where it doesn't apply to a public office (or shouldn't), religion.
-
[color=66ff00]Honestly the elections should be heavily regulated, everyone should be allocated an equal amount of money and it should be the person and the ideas that win it not the person and the 12 ****ing multinationals.
America has always been the subject of much annoyance for me, so much potential pissed away because the greedy few control the masses.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Holy **** you guys actually feel sorry for him?!? :wtf:
Bush intentionally ****ed everything up for his own gains, why can't you see that? He's nothing short of a monster.
He ruined the democratic process taking the right to choose a president away from the american people and improved matters only for his rich friends. I find it appaling that so much evidence exists that he screwed the majority of americans in grandios fashion yet nobody is willing to call him on it.
Is the media brainwashing that good?
[/color]
I'm not willing to call him on it?
Actually, most of the world, and a sizeable chunk of the American population, is.
-
Apparently everyone is now a liberal-commie-terrorist or a rightwing-nutjob-with-no-regard-for-the-truth.
-
can't I be a nutjob terrorist commie wioth no regard for the truth?
that sounds like the best of both worlds
-
Ah, you want the Hillary Clinton package.
-
Well, what I personally complain at is a company making huge profits and laying off employees, or making no profits, laying off employers and then the directors giving themselves a 25% pay-rise for doing so.
A suspect a great number of stonger people could have done better than Bush, he isn't strong, he's too stupid to realise his advisors are leading him down the Garden path. George Bush is fooled by his own advisors propaganda and has destroyed America's reputation, it's resources and wasted it's people in a war for nothing more than oil, as an excuse to spread 'freedom' whilst taking 'freedom' away from both Iraqis and his own citizens.
He kinda reminds me of the kid at school who always wanted to be part of the 'Elite' so he sucks up to them. He is a sheep posing with Wolves, and that scares me.
-
Three words and one mathematical symbol:
Twin Towers = Reichstag
-
Originally posted by Flipside
He kinda reminds me of the kid at school who always wanted to be part of the 'Elite' so he sucks up to them. He is a sheep posing with Wolves, and that scares me.
[color=66ff00]Flip, he had major interests in oil, he had his own drilling company.
G. W. Bush is anything but an innocent lackey, he's at the reins.
[/color]
-
with his IQ?
I don't think so.
Not in regards to foreign policy anyway. Yes, certain domestic initiatives may have originated with Bush, but abroad, he's a puppet. Guys like Cheney, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons are pulling the strings.
You honestly think that guy has the wit to understand world affairs? Come on.
-
No, he's the kid with a pool.
-
Bush gains sympathy for his idiocy. He's Cletus the redneck done good, and it appears that voters relate to that.
Incidentally, A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Bush gains sympathy for his idiocy. He's Cletus the redneck done good, and it appears that voters relate to that.
Incidentally, A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm)
My response: Who the hell cares what the rest of the world thinks? They can't vote on Nov. 2. Leave our political system to us.
As for the rest of you: Give it a rest with the whole "Bush is a dumb@$$" routine. What a typical liberal response: "I hate what Bush has done, so he must be stupid." I hope it makes you feel better about yourselves. Bush was intelligent enough to get a C average at Yale, which is more than you can say about a lot of people. Bush was intelligent enough to be elected president. Bush was intelligent enough to surround himself with a top team of advisers who know what they're doing. Bush is no puppet; he runs a tight ship and is on top of every decision his administration makes. I don't really care whether or not you're for or against Bush, but I'm really getting tired of this puerile name-calling and moronic Bush-bashing. I, for one, am not for Bush because I sympathize with his stupidity or any other such nonsense; I think he is a good president who has done a great job coping with some very difficult events. I also agree with his stance on the issues. Does that sound like a vote for Cletus? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
My response: Who the hell cares what the rest of the world thinks? They can't vote on Nov. 2. Leave our political system to us.
As for the rest of you: Give it a rest with the whole "Bush is a dumb@$$" routine. What a typical liberal response: "I hate what Bush has done, so he must be stupid." I hope it makes you feel better about yourselves. Bush was intelligent enough to get a C average at Yale, which is more than you can say about a lot of people. Bush was intelligent enough to be elected president. Bush was intelligent enough to surround himself with a top team of advisers who know what they're doing. Bush is no puppet; he runs a tight ship and is on top of every decision his administration makes. I don't really care whether or not you're for or against Bush, but I'm really getting tired of this puerile name-calling and moronic Bush-bashing. I, for one, am not for Bush because I sympathize with his stupidity or any other such nonsense; I think he is a good president who has done a great job coping with some very difficult events. I also agree with his stance on the issues. Does that sound like a vote for Cletus? :rolleyes:
If you want to **** about with the rest of the world, accept the judgement of the world when you do so.
I can honsestly say that i have never seen an ounce of the qualites I would want in a leader in George Bush. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I see him is a liability upon the planet. What he's done in the years since 9/11, has acted to massively destabilise many areas of the world, damaged the global environment, damaged the global economy (i.e. illegal trade sanctions & government assitance for supercorps), damaged civil liberties in the US (which has sadly been mirrored to a lesser degree over here), promoted religious discrimination (funding to non-secular organisations), damaged the UNs ability to act as a mediating power and - of course - resulted in thousands of civillian deaths.
Not to mention the lower level things such as Guantanomo bay, which is a blatant attempt to circumvent the Geneva convention through hazy reclassification of what is a POW.
Incidentally, on the subject of stupidity, why is 'liberal' being used as an insult?
Lets have a look at some definitions;
liberal, progressive -- (a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties)
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
A person who believes that the government should actively support social reform within the existing system. Liberals stress the importance of individual rights and believe the government should promote equality in affairs of private citizens and businesses.
one who advocates greater freedom
A liberal is a person who supports moderate social progress and reform.
I feel complimented by being placed under that bracket.
-
aldo, give it a rest, its a brick wall.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo, give it a rest, its a brick wall.
Tis not really the 'Bush' thing that annoys me, it's the attitude of '**** what the rest of the world thinks, we're AMERICA!'. Which kind of embarasses other merkins, I'd imagine.
That and this stupid arsed misappropriation of 'liberal' for purely political purposes, and then using it as an insult, when the actual proper meaning is positive.
-
aldo, I'm using the political terminology, not the philosophical one; basically, left vs. right wing. You can replace it with the people who think, "I hate Bush because he's st00pid" or something as equally as intelligent. I didn't mean "liberal" as an insult, at least not that time :p.
Rictor, is everyone who disagrees with your viewpoints a "stupid brick wall" who doesn't deserve intelligent discussion? I'm just curious...
-
Humanity makes baby Jesus cry.
Any year now, something's going to snap, and the nukes will all explode and everyone will die and the universe will implode and God will sit on his fluffy little cloud and wonder why the hell he bothered. :p
-
Please, can you (and anyone) just use the standard meaning of 'liberal'?
It's less confusing for non-US people, especially at there are multiple Liberal parties (i.e. Liberal Democrats in the UK, who are reallty the centrist 3rd party and probably nothing like the US Democrats) in other countries It also avoids the politicised bastardization of the worlds meaning (which really gets on my tits, especially as it means the real, positive meaning of the word is being slowly removed, Newspeak style).
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
My response: Who the hell cares what the rest of the world thinks? They can't vote on Nov. 2. Leave our political system to us.
:lol: :rolleyes: :lol:
Must... stop... laughing :lol:....... irony alert... reaching... maximum level... :lol:
ok ok... *cough*
So when anyone in the US government supports coups on other countries they are really "using their own political system"? :lol:
Or when they decide to invade another nation they are "using their constitucional right"? :lol:
-
no Mongoose, its just that it seems that the word "liberal" is so entrenched as a pejorative is some people's mind. As aldo said, liberal has a positive meaning attached to it, and only in America (that I know of) has the word been bastardized by certain idiotic pundits to mean something negative.
The word is highly politicized, and when slung as a insult, means anything from "terrorist appeaser" to "communist pinko" to "religion hater" to "feminazi" to "eurosocialist" and any of the vast number os such phrase.
In fact, not only is calling some a liberal a compliment, it is also the most mild of several political leanings (liberal, progressive, radical etc). So if you're trying to imply a radical left-wing agenda, liberal is not the best word to use.
-
It's almost Orwellian in nature, actually.... by changing the meaning of 'liberal' to a partisan, political one, you're creating a situation where it can become the enemy (as we can see to a lesser degree with the current US usage).... and thus all the positives it stands for can be eliminated. It's a very dangerous thing, more so because it seems as much societal as introduced by a manipulative entity such as a government.
Which is what i meant by Newspeak, incidentally. :)
-
I always laugh when people laugh at 'Peaceniks' as though preferring peace to people dying is somehow treacherous. And the worst bit is that the public is gullible enough to buy into that train of thought :(
-
[q]And the worst bit is that the public is gullible enough to buy into that train of thought [/q]
The entire population is addicted to MSG and kept rather unhealthy by Aspartame - ur suprised they'r easily controlled?
Stop drinking diet products and sugar replacements... now dude.
Monosodium Glutamate, the nicotine of the food industry
-
You have to look into the minds of the people you're talking to to understand the Pro-Bush sentiment here. HLP is a decent microcosm I guess, though I can;t really be sure of that since I haven't got much of a comparison model.
Look at things from their point of view. They see their day to day lives, and they compare them with the Clinton era four years ago, and frankly, not all that much has likely changed. It's unlikely they 've needed major health care recently, or tried to buy a house or get a job. Most likely, they're not major taxpayers, either living at home, or in a low taxable income state (eg. studying), so any increases or decreases there aren't affecting them so much. They probably complain about petrol prices (if they drive at all) but ultimately, it's a few extra bucks every time you fill up your car. They're also exposed to the spin a lot more than we are - they hear the presidents weekly radio addresses, the televised speeches, and presumably get similar government funded ads that we do whenever a major new policy is implimented. Chances are, they're not trained in environmental biology, so they're not aware of the devastating potential effects of Bush's environmental plans. The economical repercussions of many of Bushs policies also probably aren't affecting them yet - they might be consciously aware that the US has gone from a healthy surplus to a record deficit, but the government still has readily available money, even though it's technically not real money, so for them it's not an issue.
Keep in mind also that they've seen Bush latch on to 9/11 and never let go. Historically there's always been support for leaders during a conflict of any kind - you only have to look at the discrepancy between the quality of Reagans policies and the degree of reverence the people seem to have for him to demonstrate the strength of that argument, even these days. They've seen their president go in and blow stuff up and sat watching their TVs with a vague smile on their face secure in the knowledge that that's the just reward they deserve for messing with the almighty US of A. They see Bush as a protector, a fighter, someone who's not afraid to do what he sees as right, despite massive international opposition. In short, it appeals to the militant patriotism that is so deeply ingrained into them by American culture.
Then compare it with ourselves, the "foreigners", those of us outside the system. Our news reports are of dry numbers - we see things far clearer than they do because they don;t directly affect us. We know that Bush's tax cuts have been aimed almost exclusively at the rich, and since that doesn't really affect us either way, we can oppose it on principle. Moreover, none of his moronic policies are tempered by anything that we can see in the same light as the Americans can see his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (ie. fighting against personal aggressors). On the flipside of that though, we doo see Bush's foreign policy in a far more personal light than the Americans do. They know he'll never **** them over in the same way he did, say, France, but we don't. We never know when the axe might fall our way. And those of us in less politically stable nations might even be worried about more direct American interference in their own governments (coup support etc.). Since that's not something he'll ever support in America, they don't see it as a problem.
Basically, you have to get inside their heads and realize that, effectively, it all comes down to the fact that they're never going to be able to see him as impassionately and clearly as we can, and thus, there's always going to be some degree of support for him.
-
Well said Black Wolf. It's always nice to know why the brick wall you're banging your head against is so strong ;)
-
Wait, so because you're outside the system, your view is "clearer" and more well-informed than mine? Yeah, that's right, the only reason I support Bush is because I'm deluded by my American upbringing. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I rationally, clearly agree with what he's done and what he plans to do, as well as trusting his confidence a lot more than that pansy Kerry. Let me put it in terms you can understand: Bush supporter does not equal mindless sheep.
Oh, and by the way, regarding Reagan: ever hear of the fall of communism? No, I guess bankrupting the Soviet Union was a terrible policy as well. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
In short, it appeals to the militant patriotism that is so deeply ingrained into them by American culture.
I actualy think that is a prety good explaination
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Then compare it with ourselves, the "foreigners", those of us outside the system. Our news reports are of dry numbers - we see things far clearer than they do because they don;t directly affect us.
now here is a question that I often see people dodge, how you you know that you are 'outside' of anything, how do you know that your political leaders arn't useing anti-American retoric to gain political power, surely you don't think them above this.
Originally posted by Black Wolf
We know that Bush's tax cuts have been aimed almost exclusively at the rich, and since that doesn't really affect us either way, we can oppose it on principle.
now I'm going to address this specificly, it isn't that we don't know about this it is that some of us don't think it's right that people have to pay more in taxes just becose they make more, please don't give me the old 'you've been brainwashed into worshiping rich people as superior' montra
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Moreover, none of his moronic policies are tempered by anything that we can see in the same light as the Americans can see his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (ie. fighting against personal aggressors). On the flipside of that though, we doo see Bush's foreign policy in a far more personal light than the Americans do. They know he'll never **** them over in the same way he did, say, France, but we don't.
ok how did _we_ screw France?
remember you brought this up
I think there is a bit more of a diveide here than you think, and I think it all comes down to power and who has it and what form of power they have. the USA has mostly military power, it has a lot of ecconomic and political power yess, but comparitively it's big ace is the military. compare this to Europe, which while posesing competent military power has over the last half century relyed almost entierly on ecconomic and political power to get what they want, becase they simply did not have the millitary power to face there enimies (the USSR). the mentality of both nations is set up to benifit there streingths, and there dominant ideologies.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now here is a question that I often see people dodge, how you you know that you are 'outside' of anything, how do you know that your political leaders arn't useing anti-American retoric to gain political power, surely you don't think them above this.
Because our government likes America at the moment. The opposition doesn't, so politically, we get a fairly balanced view. The rest of the data comes from the media. I'll admit that there could be a huge, all encompassing conspiracy designed to make us hate America, but I very much doubt it.
Originally posted by Bobboau
now I'm going to address this specificly, it isn't that we don't know about this it is that some of us don't think it's right that people have to pay more in taxes just becose they make more, please don't give me the old 'you've been brainwashed into worshiping rich people as superior' montra
Because taxation funds government, simple as that. The government needs money, and the rich are the logical source to tap, since they can afford it. By cutting tax to the rich, all you do is decrease inflow of funds, but the government still needs to get those funds from somewhere, so the burden logically has to shift to the lower classes, who can less afford it. Keep in mind, if someone earns a million dollars a year, and the government takes half of that, they're still earning ten times more than your average joe blow on the street earns, or more.
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok how did _we_ screw France?
remember you brought this up
France was an example, and I'll admit, a bad one, of what happens when you disagree with America. At best you get ignored (as in there case). I'm sure there have been worse consequences for other, smaller nations, I just couldn't think of any at the time.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Wait, so because you're outside the system, your view is "clearer" and more well-informed than mine? Yeah, that's right, the only reason I support Bush is because I'm deluded by my American upbringing. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I rationally, clearly agree with what he's done and what he plans to do, as well as trusting his confidence a lot more than that pansy Kerry. Let me put it in terms you can understand: Bush supporter does not equal mindless sheep.
Of course my view is clearer - I'm on the outside looking in. I'm not going to go through my post again though - I think I made my case pretty clearly up there. All I'm going to do is remind of you of the simple and undisputable fact that your country went from a healthy surplus under Clinton to a record deficit under Bush in less than a single full term.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Oh, and by the way, regarding Reagan: ever hear of the fall of communism? No, I guess bankrupting the Soviet Union was a terrible policy as well. :rolleyes:
The fall of the soviets was more their own doing than Regans - to all intents and purposes, he just happened to be the lucky one sitting in the big chair when they did fall, executing policy that had been set up decades previous. A stalinist government is inherently unstable, and one that is forced to try to keep up technologically and militarily with an opposing superpower (something that was initiated well before Reagan) is almost guaranteed to fall eventually. It's all a matter of time.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Wait, so because you're outside the system, your view is "clearer" and more well-informed than mine? Yeah, that's right, the only reason I support Bush is because I'm deluded by my American upbringing. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I rationally, clearly agree with what he's done and what he plans to do, as well as trusting his confidence a lot more than that pansy Kerry. Let me put it in terms you can understand: Bush supporter does not equal mindless sheep.
Oh, and by the way, regarding Reagan: ever hear of the fall of communism? No, I guess bankrupting the Soviet Union was a terrible policy as well. :rolleyes:
Yes - we're in a position of passive neutrality, seperated from targeted advertising-stroke-propaganda by both political parties, and in a position of being able to make objective observations without threat of being labelled as 'un-patriotic' or whatnot.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Can someone find a reliable source that points out all of the things Bush has done wrong within his term?
thanks :)
Woah, that's a hole with no bottom.
Instead of wasting my life writing down all the bajillions of things that guy has muddled up, let us focus on the positive.
Um...he didn't...er... :confused:
*Gets up and walks away into the distance
-
he hasn't droped the bomb yet
-
Hey, good one!
-
Oh, and by the way, regarding Reagan: ever hear of the fall of communism? No, I guess bankrupting the Soviet Union was a terrible policy as well.
Yes, it was, literally hundreds of billions of your own money was spent to do so, it was a race that need never have been run, and mostly it was the USSR trying to keep up with the US, not vice verse. So Russia collapsed and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians like you starved and/or got dragged into civil war etc. go reagan.
EDIT : Come to think of it, this is a perfect example of how we are involved in American politics, whether we like it or not. I am passionate about Bush not getting in again, but then, I have my doubts about Kerry too. The American system is designed these days to only allow the rich to apply. This worries me greatly. I think Bush getting is would be the biggest mistake ever made in history, because it would have been an entire country doing it, it's not dynasty or anything, so the American people would have voted him in.
I think if he stays on for another 4 years he is going to throw this world into a turmoil of war, I honestly do.
-
Probably not a very reliable source but still... entertaining :p
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, it was, literally hundreds of billions of your own money was spent to do so, it was a race that need never have been run, and mostly it was the USSR trying to keep up with the US, not vice verse. So Russia collapsed and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians like you starved and/or got dragged into civil war etc. go reagan.
Partially the Russians fault, however. Sorta. Mostly our fault.
But wait, it gets better. Now, old uranium rods and nuclear weapons are easily stolen from Russia (in its weakened state).
At least the arms race ended, though. But it was not without after effects.
-
Oh, I agree with you Blitzerland, Russia was just as stupid as America, but at the end of the day, all that really happened when the USSR fell is that thousands starved, and the people in power stayed in power, just swapped uniforms for Armanis :(
-
Someone...agreed with me? Hey, there ARE smart people on this planet. :D
*Orders cats to inscribe Flipside's name on wall, gets hit in the face by carp
Don't order cats. Not a good idea.
Uh...anyways, you're right as well.
I wonder why it has taken ol' Russia so long to recover anyways. I mean, they STILL haven't come close to fully recovering. Poor guys. :(
-
I think it is still their military budget, The problem is that, because the Military stayed in charge even after the fall of the Soviet Union, their thinking is very much that people exist to pay for the army, that's how it's always worked.
There are still hardliners in Putin's cabinet, Putin himself is ex-military, so the chances are a great deal of Russias budget goes to maintaining it's army in Chechnya. Theres possibly lessons to be learnt from that as well if we look hard enough ;)
And yes, don't order cats, mine just looks at me and then ignores me :)
-
Of course. Especially with the rebels that have been attacking Russia. You read about the school? 'Nuf said.
Thus, the Russians NEED that military. Kind of a death spiral.
1.) Citizens suffer to pay for military
2.) Military protects Citizens
3.) Repeat. Citizens are perpetually taxed to death.
CUT BACK ON THE MILITARY, GUYS! Try diplomacy.
*Asks cats for a ham sandwich, gets pegged with a table leg
Uh, oh, they're getting stronger...that and i'd better go check out my table. :nervous:
EDIT: Think my theory is flawed somehow...
Oh yeah.
4.) Rebels attack. Military spending increases
5.) Citizens suffer more
That covers it, I hope.
-
People seem to take for granted the idea that Reagan's gross spending destroyed the Soviet Union when in fact this is highly debatable. The Soviet Union's economy was already a complete disaster beacuse of... well, because of communism. Funny how that works, huh?
But lucky Reagan got to be president when a liberal came to power in the USSR who realized that the country was going nowhere. There is a stronger case for the assertion that, if anyone, Gorbachev brought the Cold War to a close by opening economic and political channels with the west, which Reagan was wise enough to accept.
The only thing that Reagan destroyed with his military shopping spree was the system of social programs that Johnson had put in place.
-
What I don't understand is, why has the US not only maintained, but actually escalated its military expenditures since the end of the Cold War. Not like I care, I mean, its not my money going down the toilet, but I find it odd that people haven't woken up to the fact that literally hundreds of billions of their tax dollars are going to prop up inefficient and unnecessary arms contractors, who are rolling in cash by way of government subsidies: a gift from their friends in Washington. None of these companies could survive on the much vaunted free market. Next to oil and maybe telecom, "defense" industries are probably the biggest theft operation in the US.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What I don't understand is, why has the US not only maintained, but actually escalated its military expenditures since the end of the Cold War. Not like I care, I mean, its not my money going down the toilet, but I find it odd that people haven't woken up to the fact that literally hundreds of billions of their tax dollars are going to prop up inefficient and unnecessary arms contractors, who are rolling in cash by way of government subsidies: a gift from their friends in Washington. None of these companies could survive on the much vaunted free market. Next to oil and maybe telecom, "defense" industries are probably the biggest theft operation in the US.
Give the people an easy enemy and they'll look the wrong way........
-
What I don't understand is, why has the US not only maintained, but actually escalated its military expenditures since the end of the Cold War. Not like I care, I mean, its not my money going down the toilet, but I find it odd that people haven't woken up to the fact that literally hundreds of billions of their tax dollars are going to prop up inefficient and unnecessary arms contractors, who are rolling in cash by way of government subsidies: a gift from their friends in Washington. None of these companies could survive on the much vaunted free market. Next to oil and maybe telecom, "defense" industries are probably the biggest theft operation in the US.
It's psychological. For half a century, America was united against a common, demonized opponent. Right down to the scale of the individual family, all our efforts were made to be somehow connected with our fight against communism. When this abruptly ended, our society was left with a deeply instilled feeling of purpose, but with no target at which to direct it, and that is what is still lingering. We're building weapons to fight an enemy that does not exist because it's just what we feel we're supposed to be doing.
-
That makes sense Ford, it would also explain the level of vehemence present against 'Terrorists' that seems to fill America at the moment, it's used, oddly enough, in exactly the same way as the word 'Communist' was used in 1950's America, to the point of waging a 'War' against it in Vietnam, with much the same outcome.
Yes, 9/11 was a terrible day, but I suppose to a person who has seen thousands of people starve to death etc, the thought of 3000 people dying in a big building thousands of miles away is as imprtant as the plight of, say, Ethiopians is to the average Westerner, i.e 'Oh, that's a pity, I hope things get better, heres a fiver.'
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It's psychological. For half a century, America was united against a common, demonized opponent. Right down to the scale of the individual family, all our efforts were made to be somehow connected with our fight against communism. When this abruptly ended, our society was left with a deeply instilled feeling of purpose, but with no target at which to direct it, and that is what is still lingering. We're building weapons to fight an enemy that does not exist because it's just what we feel we're supposed to be doing.
Profound.
*Cats purr
-
Hey, also remember that the weapon systems the USA uses have become more expensive, as has training.
Compare, for example, the price of arming one F-22 or F-35 with all the hi-tech munitions they will use, to arming a B-52 with dumb bombs. Also, I suspect a price of a single M4 with all the nice toys is a bit higher than standard M16 with just iron sights and pretty much nothing else.
Also, R&D. Stealth, modern communications and stuff like that do not only cost money while built - actually getting to know how to build an UCAV costs a ****load of cash.
-
Ok, no time to look... but did anybody put anything worthy down?
please quote