[doppelganger rex]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

Did you read btw that an FBI file on Kerry was stolen from the house of a historian who was borrowing it for research?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/West/...rry.documents/

Wow. I'd like to say I'm surprised at how low Bush will go to win these elections but I can't say I am. They are really that desparate to get some mud to throw...

Before you say "What makes you think it was Bush"... well, it's pretty glaringly obvious, isn't it?

Watergate was a long time ago, i don't thinka htat they woudl restor to those tactics now, they are smarter than that.

[mag]

Originally Posted by James
Well, you did vote for him [or not vote at all. it appears that 25% of the country can elect the world's most powerful man - 50% turn out, followed by 51% therein].

That's actually not true. Gore won both the popular and the electoral vote. Bush managed to win because his good buddy Diebold, the number one manufacturer of voting machines in the country, added 500,000 votes for Bush in Florida. That was enough to put him over the top and allow him to win the electoral vote. But the majority of Americans did not vote for "President" Bush.

Of course, even if they had, I really can't blame anybody who voted for Bush in 2000 for what's happening now. At the time there was no indication that he would be this far right. Before 9/11 there was no way anybody could have known he'd turn out to be a psychotic fascist tyrant. Now whoever votes for Bush in 2004 won't have that excuse. But I won't be too hard on anybody who voted for Bush in 2000.

Originally Posted by doppelganger rex
Watergate was a long time ago, i don't thinka htat they woudl restor to those tactics now, they are smarter than that.

It must be nice to have that sort of naive optimism. Politicians do this kind of stuff all the time. The only thing they learned from Nixon is don't get caught. That's what set Nixon apart from all the other politicians. He got caught.

mag

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I'll probably already be dead anyway (considering the number of fag haters in Congress and the military), and even if not, I'll be way too old and feeble to lift an AK47. Tough.

WOW! That was pretty harsh Intrepid!

Not that it means much, but I don't hate you. Well, not because of your sexual orientation anyway.

[James]

i actually think he needed to be this harsh. root out what he percieves as problems. it has scared some - look at libya, and sure has created further problems, but they werent going to go away. bush isnt the type of president to assess why america is the subject of jihad, he is a president of action, however misdirected. that what was needed to assure the public - justice must not just be done, but be seen to be done. two regimes have been overthrown - who ever is elected needs to ensure that chaos is not allowed to ensue - america needs to clean up after its wars. they also need to take a long hard look at the reasoning of terrorists, and then capture the bastards. i really have no qualms about war on al qaeda. suicide bombers and terror tactics are not big or clever, and certainly not honourable or couragous. regard of what you think of bush he is consistent - and thats all you can ask of an elected official.

[mag]

Originally Posted by James
i actually think he needed to be this harsh. root out what he percieves as problems. it has scared some - look at libya, and sure has created further problems, but they werent going to go away.

The thing about Libya giving up its weapons programs is only good in the short run. Coercive power is the absolute worst kind of power you can ever use. All it will get you is immediate compliance. In the long run, though, the person will end up hating you even more. Threatening people into obeying the US at the point of a gun is the reason so many groups like Al Quaida are trying to kill us in the first place.

Originally Posted by James
i really have no qualms about war on al qaeda. suicide bombers and terror tactics are not big or clever, and certainly not honourable or couragous. regard of what you think of bush he is consistent - and thats all you can ask of an elected official.

Well, I will agree he's consistent. He's just consistently wrong. If he really were fighting terrorism I wouldn't have as much of a problem with him as I do. But "President" Bush has done more to help spread terrorism than any other president ever has. He just uses the "war on terrorism" to push his own political agendas.

mag

[James]

theyre the agendas he was elected to fight - his interest in oil, big business and aggressive foreign policy are well documented. unlike the ambiguous democrats, you know what you get with a republican, even if you dont agree with it.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by James

theyre the agendas he was elected to fight - his interest in oil, big business and aggressive foreign policy are well documented. unlike the ambiguous democrats, you know what you get with a republican, even if you dont agree with it.

Is that meant to be a compliment?

[James]

why not

consistency and clarity are preferable in politics and indeed in law to high morals and promises and low policies and results. i admire that. so yeah

[Ninja Dodo]

I admire Bush' naive stupidity in a "Good thing he's not running the wo-- oh hang on, he is. Damn." - sort of way.

[mag]

Originally Posted by James
theyre the agendas he was elected to fight - his interest in oil, big business and aggressive foreign policy are well documented. unlike the ambiguous democrats, you know what you get with a republican, even if you dont agree with it.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Granted, Republicans do tend to be a great deal more homogenous than Democrats. But there are still key differences. Most of the high ranking people in the Bush Administration, for example, are not typical Republicans. They're way more extreme in their idealogy. Republicans do have some valid points on certain issues. It just so happens that Bush represents the absolute worst that conservatives have to offer. If we had a more normal Republican like McCain in office, I doubt we'd have a lot of the problems we have now.

Besides, one of Bush's qualities that made him most appealing to me in 2000 was that I figured he'd be too stupid to get anything done. Then 9/11 happened and screwed up everything.

mag

[Kingzjester]

Why did I escape from the draft in one fucked-up country into another fucked-up country about to draft me? Then again, by some weird act of providence, I was eligible for financial aid from the govenrment, but not for registring for selective service.

[Titan]

Let's see if I got this right. Bush is the cause of escalating terrorism in the 2000's but Clinton and the Dems weren't the cause of escalating terrorism in the 90's?

And Libya was a short term benefit that will have long term disadvantages, but Iraq is not a short term problem that will have long term benefits. Hmm, seems fairly balanced to me.

None of you guys better be majoring in logical analysis. Perhaps advertising or law school would suit you better.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Titan
Let's see if I got this right. Bush is the cause of escalating terrorism in the 2000's but Clinton and the Dems weren't the cause of escalating terrorism in the 90's?

You know, I'm really sick of hearing this. Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations for blaming the Clinton Administration. Why can't Bush ever take responsibility for his own decisions?

To answer your question, the Clinton Administration is no more responsible for escalating terrorism than their predecessors. That's not to say they're not guilty. Clinton has his own mistakes to answer for. But only Bush has managed to actively help terrorism on such a enormous scale. Being as he is the one in office at the moment (Clinton left office about four years ago, in case you didn't know), I think it's perfectly fair to look at how he's handling the situation.

Originally Posted by Titan
And Libya was a short term benefit that will have long term disadvantages, but Iraq is not a short term problem that will have long term benefits. Hmm, seems fairly balanced to me.

How do you figure that works in reverse? Just because a short term benefit can have long term disadvantages you think that any short term problem will have long term benefits? That doesn't even make bad sense.

Iraq and Libya will be problems in the long run for the same reason. We've given them every reason to hate America. We've proven to them that all those horrible things they've been told about America are absolutely true. They might be nice to our face to avoid being bombed some more, but behind our back you can be pretty sure they're trying to destroy us. You can thank "President" Bush for that.

Originally Posted by Titan
None of you guys better be majoring in logical analysis. Perhaps advertising or law school would suit you better.

I know you like Bush for some reason. But just because you say something doesn't make it "logical." Especially given that all you did to try to refute my argument is bring up some totally unrelated cases. Heck, I could put my argument into a truth table.

And since when does law school not require logic?

mag

[Titan]

mag, you just exhibited precisely what I had stated. Thanks for making my case. You're right about lawyers and logic though. They use it to argue either side of a question.

Do you really believe Iraq, Libya, etc didn't hate America long before dubya became president? Someone used the naive word earlier and this thread and others like it has it in spades.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Titan
mag, you just exhibited precisely what I had stated. Thanks for making my case.
...
Someone used the naive word earlier and this thread and others like it has it in spades.

Actually, you've just disproved your own point. You see, in logic if you want to refute an argument you have to prove that either the conclusion does not follow from the premises or that the premises are flawed. But rather than responding to anything specifically that was said or even stating how I have "exhibited precisely what you said," you have responded with what is called an "ad hominem attack," which invalid as an argument. If you want to talk about logic, that's cool. But at least learn a little bit of what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Titan
Do you really believe Iraq, Libya, etc didn't hate America long before dubya became president?

I know that since Bush has started his "war on terror" membership in Al Quaida has skyrocketed, terrorist attacks against America worldwide are up, and Iraq has gone from being the one place in the Middle East where it was impossible for terrorists to operate to being a breeding ground for terrorism. So I don't know. You tell me whether Bush's actions have helped terrorism.

mag

[Titan]

mag, my point is that most of the arguments in this thread have been made over and over and refuted a few times (while the raw occurances of the two are unequal, so are the sources of the arguments, per capita they are roughly equivalent). It is boring to rewrite what I or others have said on same points of contention. I can only muster the energy to respond to that which is new, which leaves additional room only for comments on the process at work in these debates on this forum.

Thus ... my comment that Clinton has not had a word of criticism concerning terrorism on this forum while Bush has had shitloads. You respond by saying you're tired of hearing this? Not on this forum.

Thus ... my comment implying the short term benefit/long term detriment works equally well the other way around. I stipulate you are correct in your short term reading of terrorism (there's more and it's more blantant and it can logically be attributed to Bush), but would argue that terrorism has always been on the increase and the only way I see it's long term diminition is through political change leading to cultural change in certain countries. The long term affect of the overthrow of the Iraqi government is unknowable at this time. I'm for trying something new as opposed to the prior status quo (talking, which failed miserably). I know you disagree and emphasize that it is America that needs to change politically and culturally. I find this naive.

[Ninja Dodo]

but would argue that terrorism has always been on the increase and the only way I see it's long term diminition is through political change leading to cultural change in certain countries

This is basically true in itself, except you're referring to the wrong countries.

The country in desperate need of cultural and political change is the US. You are right that Bush cannot be given the sole blame for terrorism. It is through the sadly misguided foreign policy held by the US since its inception that terorrism has been allowed, nay made, to become what it is today.

The US isn't the police of the world...

It's the mafia.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

The US isn't the police of the world...

It's the mafia.

That is a great line. LMFAO!

[mag]

Originally Posted by Titan
Thus ... my comment that Clinton has not had a word of criticism concerning terrorism on this forum while Bush has had shitloads. You respond by saying you're tired of hearing this? Not on this forum.

You're right. I wasn't referring to this forum specifically. Just that this thing about Clinton has been coming out of every pundit's mouth for weeks now. Yes, there are valid criticisms of Clinton's handling of terrorism. But that's the past. He's what was. I'm more concerned with how Bush is handling terrorism. And frankly, what I've seen of that so far is a miserable failure. I don't even want to think about the damage he can do with another four years.

Originally Posted by Titan
... my comment implying the short term benefit/long term detriment works equally well the other way around.

It might be true, but that conclusions doesn't really follow from the argument you gave.

Originally Posted by Titan
I'm for trying something new as opposed to the prior status quo (talking, which failed miserably). I know you disagree and emphasize that it is America that needs to change politically and culturally. I find this naive.

The thing is, this isn't really something new. It's really the same thing America's been doing. More of it, perhaps. But certainly not new. And it's exactly this attitude of "America can do whatever it wants and the rest of the world can go screw itself" that has so many people in the Middle East and elsewhere hating us. Raising our nationalism to an even higher level than before will only make them hate us more.

Frankly, I think there needs to be changes in the ways that both sides think. But somebody has to be willing to go first. Being as America is supposed to be a world superpower, I thought we might be mature enough to do that. Maybe I was wrong.

BTW, for those of you who are interested in the potential reinstatement of the draft here in America, Aaron Russo, the Libertarian candidate for president, has a petition to stop the draft on his website. There's also some information about the bill there. I haven't read most of it yet, but it looks like it's worth a read.

mag

[Ninja Dodo]

Originally Posted by Bastich

That is a great line. LMFAO!

Thanks.

I've been considering putting it on a T-shirt or in my signature, but I figure I might alienate any unsuspecting Americans that should cross my path. That would be a bit unecessary...

On a lighter note: http://allthingsflash.com/endofworld.swf