1. Bush has the capacity to write a book (or have someone write it for him [And yes, that will be the end of Bush-bashing for my thread here]).
2. I just read a British newspaper, unless the Telegraph is more a source of toilet paper and less a source of news (which would be interesting to see if people used the Telegraph online as a source of toilet paper...wouldn't your computer screen turn brown afterwards?).
3. THIS was the article I used to highlight G.W. Bush wrote a book.
Reading extracts from George Bush’s memoirs, it struck me that, like a lot of Americans, he overstates the extremes of his alcohol consumption.
“I could easily have a beer or two, or a martini, before dinner, bourbons, B&Bs. I was a drinker,” he writes, “It became a love and, therefore, began to compete for my love with my wife and my daughters.”
Now, I’m not saying that’s not quite heavy consumption; just that it still seems pretty controlled. A few drinks before dinner and a few more during – particularly if they are spirits – is easily enough to cut the edge off the irritation built up during the day. But it’s hardly out of control, alcoholic behaviour.
Yes, Bush did get convicted for drink-driving in 1976, when he was 30. But, all through his 30s, before he gave up drinking aged 40, he was holding down a responsible job as an oilman, and he even ran for office in Texas in 1978. Hardly the behaviour of the out-and-out drunk.
But then they have a different definition of these things in America. When Laura Bush confronted her husband with the fact that he hadn’t had a day without a drink in years, that is taken as a form of alcoholism.
Try using that line in France or Italy, where wine is taken as an intrinsic part of dinner, and you’d have to say that most of the adult population there were – by the American definition – alcoholics.
The British aren’t as sophisticated in their drinking as on the Continent; we’re more at the famine-or-feast end of the spectrum. We still drink less, in alcohol volume, each year, than the average Frenchman or Italian. But take a trip on a Saturday night to a provincial town centre – in particular the pedestrianised fighting areas you’ll usually find by the old market square – and you’ll see drinking that far outstrips Bush’s consumption at its highest.
Tony Blair seems to follow the American definition of alcoholism. In his memoirs, released earlier this autumn, he worried that his nightly half a bottle at dinner, with a stiffener before, was breaking into the outer limit of safe drinking.
I’m not at all advocating, in a laddish way, that either man should have drunk more. And I’m sure Bush is right in saying that he might well not have become President if he’d gone on drinking; going dry releases vast resources of energy, and time. It’s just that, neither man strikes me as an alcoholic in the real, dreadful, full definition of the word.
I just wanted to say that, I watched the movie W. and I dont know how true it all is, but it made me like Bush more as a person. Im sure that was the point, but it worked. Also my oldest brother has met/protected him 2 or 3 times when over seas, and he said George (thats what he wanted them to call him, not Mr. President) was a pretty funny/cool guy in person
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.
The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.
I think you miss the bigger point here:
George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."
But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.
What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?
Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.
Hey, he may or may not of written this book.
More likely, it is the work of a cabal of secret liberals who wish to discredit the greatest of real true blood Conservatives and cause them all to lose respectability with their peers.
Even more likely, it is aliens who are attempting to cause the future leader of the rebellion to become so paranoid about public perception of him that he goes into hiding and avoids any sense of leadership that would allow him to save the human race.
Super more likely, it is the evil mole people who wish to invade Texas, so they lure him away from Texas by writing an outlandish book by him and then publish it, informing him at the last moment he has to go on a book tour...through Antartica...in order to ensure a good press release.
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.
Hey, he may or may not of written this book.
More likely, it is the work of a cabal of secret liberals who wish to discredit the greatest of real true blood Conservatives and cause them all to lose respectability with their peers.
Even more likely, it is aliens who are attempting to cause the future leader of the rebellion to become so paranoid about public perception of him that he goes into hiding and avoids any sense of leadership that would allow him to save the human race.
Super more likely, it is the evil mole people who wish to invade Texas, so they lure him away from Texas by writing an outlandish book by him and then publish it, informing him at the last moment he has to go on a book tour...through Antartica...in order to ensure a good press release.
Yes...I get my deductive reasoning from this guy:
Thats the funniest Glenn Beck picture Ive ever seen. Win
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.
The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.
I think you miss the bigger point here:
George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."
But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.
What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?
Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:
That was particularly great - 'Britain gave them refuge now all they want to do is repay us with death.'
This one is courtesy of those erudite chaps at The Daily Sport:
Aah... The British press. The broadsheets are much, much better though. The Times, in particular is excellent.
The book was apparently written by one " Christopher Michel " a 28 year old former speech writer. Known as "junior bird man" apparently .... No, me neither.
Oh, to head them off now... Mr. Bush himself said "This is going to come as quite a shock to people... that I can write a book, much less read one," so *puts on optimist hat* lets not just have this descend into "amusing" pictures and/or hurled insults please. there do appear to be some points of interest in the book already revealed.
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...
hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.
I've seen a bit of film of Bush making a speech when he was much younger, and he was fast and lucid, using big words and the lot, everything people take the piss out of him for now would not have been said. What the hell happened between these kinds of performances and those as the president when he would stutter and fumble and leave horrible pauses or make up words. It's like he was a different man, the infamous debate with John Kerry was dire. I can't say I liked many of his policies which I see as being backward in relation to things like environment, science and education without even talking about the wars abroad, but I can't understand the difference between what I've seen of his younger self and the one we are more acquainted with, was it a terrible case of the nerves or was there some other issue?
Hey the guy might be right! My American girlfriends mother sat me down and asked me if i had a "problem" (she really was serious) because a few days earlier i drank 20 cans of Budweiser (that stuff just doesnt get me pissed) and fell asleep naked on the couch downstairs.
I mean, that would just be taken as normal weekend hijinx in the UK right?
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...
hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.
And that has what to do with anything?
You placed it alongside achievements like being governor of Texas and the President. I suggest that it's no great achievement, perhaps his attendance at Harvard would be more relevant in writing a book.
I placed it along side the others because it came to mind first and unless the military has radically changed their stance on fighter pilots they don't let idiots fly multimillion dollar supersonic jets. Yes, Harvard works too but in the end there's plenty of evidence the man more than intelligent enough to write a book. Hell, judging by the quality of a few books I've purchased lately I'm not even sure high school English is required to get a book published.
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...
hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.
And that has what to do with anything?
You placed it alongside achievements like being governor of Texas and the President. I suggest that it's no great achievement, perhaps his attendance at Harvard would be more relevant in writing a book.
He placed it not as an achievemant, but as to show his capabilities. They don't make idiots fighter pilots.
Bush never claimed to be a war hero, nor stood on his laurels as one, like Kerry did.
Stupidity was never Bush's problem. His problem was more a lack of curiosity, coupled with a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism.
It isn't that he was incapable of learning sensible fiscal policy, or couldn't grasp the complexities of foreign relations. He rejected the need to learn these things, and figured his 'common sense' answers were all he needed to know.
I predict a book equally lacking in a genuine search for answers.
djones520 wrote:He placed it not as an achievemant, but as to show his capabilities. They don't make idiots fighter pilots.
Bush never claimed to be a war hero, nor stood on his laurels as one, like Kerry did.
Your point in posting that picture? He arrived on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3 Viking. It was a combat aircraft, which means if you are in it, you are wearing a flight suit and all of the associated gear that comes with it.
Doesn't matter if your President, or joe bloe. You enter one of those aircraft that's taking off, your wearing that suit.
I'm assuming your trying to draw some point in that he's grandstanding as a pilot or something... but you're failing at it.
djones520 wrote:Your point in posting that picture? He arrived on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3 Viking. It was a combat aircraft, which means if you are in it, you are wearing a flight suit and all of the associated gear that comes with it.
Doesn't matter if your President, or joe bloe. You enter one of those aircraft that's taking off, your wearing that suit.
I'm assuming your trying to draw some point in that he's grandstanding as a pilot or something... but you're failing at it.
It was used as a major point of publicity for his presidency. The pictures were spread across the globe. There was an action figure released, for God's sake. Trying to pretendt Bush didn't play off of his former fighter pilot status is absurd.
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.
The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.
I think you miss the bigger point here:
George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."
But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.
What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?
Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:
Laughing Man wrote:And he arrived in a combat aircraft why...?
He was landing on an aircraft carrier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Stupidity was never Bush's problem. His problem was more a lack of curiosity, coupled with a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism.
***You have absolutely nothing but your own rantings to base that on. What makes you qualified to comment?
It isn't that he was incapable of learning sensible fiscal policy, or couldn't grasp the complexities of foreign relations. He rejected the need to learn these things, and figured his 'common sense' answers were all he needed to know.
***So you're bashing his fiscal policy which is worse than any other politican how? How are those Aussie politicians in handling budgets again?
***Foreign policy-you're forgetting that small matter of a major attack. He managed to get more allies to support the US than Obama has. Europe loves Obama. Love is irrelevant.
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.
The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.
I think you miss the bigger point here:
George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."
But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.
What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?
Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:
Do you have anymore pics of Lucy there?
Just Oogle your way over to Google and type in "Lucy Pinder" or if you want I have a PDF of an issue with her and the delightful Ms Marsh
Kilkrazy wrote:Especially if it is nuclear powered.
Now it all makes sense!
Exactly. Plus with support craft fastlining burgers and coke down to him, he could literally ski for a year. Whats the point of being President if you can't win the Guinness World Record for water skiing behind an aircraft carrier? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Not me brother. Next thing you know you'lll have mods gettng reported for Fawke's Day references. Take that Taft!
Frazzled wrote:***You have absolutely nothing but your own rantings to base that on. What makes you qualified to comment?
Umm, really? You're free to make the argument that he was an intellectual president rather than a man driven by instinct. You might be alone in that, though.
***So you're bashing his fiscal policy which is worse than any other politican how? How are those Aussie politicians in handling budgets again?
To be fair to you guys, who are going through a pretty poor time economically, I'm happy to look at pre-financial crisis government debt levels, so maybe 2007? The US governemt debt at that time was around 65% of GDP, whereas Australia has among the lowest government debt to GDP in the developed world, coming in at a tick under 2% in 2007.
So it's probably fair to say we're handling it very well, and you're handling it very poorly. So what's your point?
***Foreign policy-you're forgetting that small matter of a major attack. He managed to get more allies to support the US than Obama has. Europe loves Obama. Love is irrelevant.
Are you going to argue that Bush's policies were a foreign policy triumph? I wish you good luck with that effort, and am interested to see how you try.
Frazzled wrote:***You have absolutely nothing but your own rantings to base that on. What makes you qualified to comment?
Umm, really? You're free to make the argument that he was an intellectual president rather than a man driven by instinct. You might be alone in that, though.
***So you're bashing his fiscal policy which is worse than any other politican how? How are those Aussie politicians in handling budgets again?
To be fair to you guys, who are going through a pretty poor time economically, I'm happy to look at pre-financial crisis government debt levels, so maybe 2007? The US governemt debt at that time was around 65% of GDP, whereas Australia has among the lowest government debt to GDP in the developed world, coming in at a tick under 2% in 2007.
So it's probably fair to say we're handling it very well, and you're handling it very poorly. So what's your point?
***Foreign policy-you're forgetting that small matter of a major attack. He managed to get more allies to support the US than Obama has. Europe loves Obama. Love is irrelevant.
Are you going to argue that Bush's policies were a foreign policy triumph? I wish you good luck with that effort, and am interested to see how you try.
I'd rather not argue with an Aussie who's own lame ass politicians or country for that matter haven't done a damn thing ever about the merits of a US President when he makes sweeping statements without support. Come back to me when you, your politicans, or your country have done anything more than make a movie about a redneck who kills gators goes to the civilized world.
I love these threads that inevitably slam the US or US politicians/presidents, with full commentary from foreigners. How come we never debate Aussie polltiics? Oh yea, no one gives a gak.
WarOne wrote:So I believe that the Australian Opposition Leader made a strong argument for being bitten by a snake after that outrageous comment.
What do you think?
No thats unpatriotic, any Aussie politician worth his salt would be attacked by a Kaula dropbear first, or at least kicked in the nards by a kangaroo. Snake bite is far too normal for an Aussie politician.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Bush pissed out of his tree makes a lot of sense in hindsight.
but not horticulturally
He ought go team up with Yelstin.
Yeltsin started a revolution to bring democracy to 160MM people. Thats not bad company to be in actually.
Its my understanding Chruchill was known to be one with proper booze as well. Also good company.
Jimmy Carter didn't drink and Obama drinks wussy college professor beer. Is there a connection?
but we've moved on, we're now discussing the efficacy of Aussie politicians getting kicked in the nards by kangaroos while being attacked from above by drop bears. I think we have to proffer the query at this point.
kuala drop bear or a drunken jackalope, which is the preferred method of taking out politicians?
I'm not as much of a Bush slammer as most personally, because i feel kinda bad for the guy, I have been watching the interviews with Bush and he doesnt seem that bad a guy to me, he is simply another Evangelical idiot.
I especially liked the story about his Mother carrying a foetus around in a jar. I mean, how does that even happen!? Im not trying to trivialise a very sad moment for a young woman, but feth me, what do you do? Come around after surgery and say "oh can you scoop whats leftover into a jar? I want to take it home with me!"
These Religious dudes seriously scare me.. when i listen to him talk i kinda get the impression that they just want the whole world to end. You know, like, a nuke or a WMD wouldnt be THAT big a deal because they honestly believe with every fibre of their being that the party only really starts when your dead. :S
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather not argue with an Aussie who's own lame ass politicians or country for that matter haven't done a damn thing ever about the merits of a US President when he makes sweeping statements without support. Come back to me when you, your politicans, or your country have done anything more than make a movie about a redneck who kills gators goes to the civilized world.
I love these threads that inevitably slam the US or US politicians/presidents, with full commentary from foreigners. How come we never debate Aussie polltiics? Oh yea, no one gives a gak.
Fraz.
Australia has committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in support of wars commenced by the United States under the administration of George W Bush, as have many nations including mine.
So, with respect...
You bet your ass we get to speak our opinions of this man and his time in office.
Whilst the sons and daughters of our nations fight your nation's war and die or are maimed by it, I suggest strongly to you we foreigners will maintain the right to pass our judgements on this man and the decisions he made.
We'll happily get our noses out of your business when your business isn't sweeping the rest of the world up in it.
Australia has committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in support of wars commenced by the United States under the administration of George W Bush, as have many nations including mine.
So what? We're talking about politicians and people from other countries taking pot shots at US presidents when they have don't gak.
You bet your ass we get to speak our opinions of this man and his time in office.
Why? You've stated nothing. Talk about your own politicians.
Whilst the sons and daughters of our nations fight your nation's war and die or are maimed by it,
Bull gak
1. You forget yourself. Several hundred Brits died in the World Trade Center destruction.
2. You're opbligated under NATO. The fact NATO countries haven't supported the alliance properly is apriori evidence NATO should be disbanded. Today.
Frazzled wrote:
Bull gak
1. You forget yourself. Several hundred Brits died in the World Trade Center destruction.
2. You're opbligated under NATO. The fact NATO countries haven't supported the alliance properly is apriori evidence NATO should be disbanded. Today.
Frazz, the problem is you polarize entire countries. Im British, i happily spent a few years in both Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the war etc etc
But its down to an individual opinion, ie MGS doesnt agree with war, but i do, its got nothing to do with the fact that several hundred Brits died in the WTC.
I dont think its quite right to make broad sweeping statements in the UK or Australia when there are people both for and against in both countries.
And you cant say that people arent allowed an opinion just because you dont like it.
For example i dont like Obama very much, i bet your happy me saying that right?
You're talking the war, I'm talking politicians. Its easy to make fun of US politicians when you yourself (not you Matty) have politicians that ain't gak. Again talk about your politicians. We'll talk about ours.
mattyrm wrote:Mate, i don't think you will find a man alive (with any bloody sense!) who will say a nice thing about a politician, even if they voted for the guy!
Well then you're ideally suited for the "Which is better to sic on a politician: dropbear of jackalope?" discussion.
Australia has committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in support of wars commenced by the United States under the administration of George W Bush, as have many nations including mine.
So what? We're talking about politicians and people from other countries taking pot shots at US presidents when they have don't gak.
Of course they are free to have an opinion. The fact you don't like it isn't their problem, it's yours. I am free to criticise Chávez and so are you, I don't see you holding back if we're talking about him, or Ammagetmadinnerjacket. You don't remain quiet on them due to not being Venezuelan or Iranian.
Frazzled wrote:
You bet your ass we get to speak our opinions of this man and his time in office.
Why? You've stated nothing. Talk about your own politicians.
I had not stated anything in this thread so far, I did feel it necessary to post when you basically told sebster he's not entitled to have an opinion or state one.
Frazzled wrote:
Whilst the sons and daughters of our nations fight your nation's war and die or are maimed by it,
Bull gak
1. You forget yourself. Several hundred Brits died in the World Trade Center destruction.
2. You're opbligated under NATO. The fact NATO countries haven't supported the alliance properly is apriori evidence NATO should be disbanded. Today.
1. Several hundred Brits have also been killed by the terrorism of the IRA. We did not invade the United States following that, despite the major funding being sent to the terrorists from that nation. Nor did we launch airstrikes against America when the leader of Sinn Fein enjoyed gala dinners in the White House while his terror cells bombed our shopping centres and other civilian targets.
2. We are also obligated under the United Nations to abide by international law regarding warfare. The invading war of Iraq remains illegal under that law and broke our agreement and pledge to the United Nations.
mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Bull gak
1. You forget yourself. Several hundred Brits died in the World Trade Center destruction.
2. You're opbligated under NATO. The fact NATO countries haven't supported the alliance properly is apriori evidence NATO should be disbanded. Today.
Frazz, the problem is you polarize entire countries. Im British, i happily spent a few years in both Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the war etc etc
But its down to an individual opinion, ie MGS doesnt agree with war, but i do, its got nothing to do with the fact that several hundred Brits died in the WTC.
I dont think its quite right to make broad sweeping statements in the UK or Australia when there are people both for and against in both countries.
And you cant say that people arent allowed an opinion just because you dont like it.
For example i dont like Obama very much, i bet your happy me saying that right?
Well put.
However I always supported the war in Afghanistan. I am simply stating that we 'foreigners' are very entitled to pass comment on a national leader, especially one like GWB who committed his country to 2 wars that our countries joined.
I did not support the war in Iraq, I am pleased that Saddam is dead but unconvinced by the excuses of WOMD and supporting Al Q given that Osama offered to assassinate Saddam for Bush senior... We have still found no evidence of any link to terror networks nor WOMD in Saddam's resume. That he was a monster who needed taking down was not at issue, but if we're knocking down bad guys, why the hell ain't Mugabe hiding under his desk as the A10s tear up his palace? How about the rest of the tinpots and bastards who need a proper kicking?
Australia has committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in support of wars commenced by the United States under the administration of George W Bush, as have many nations including mine.
So what? We're talking about politicians and people from other countries taking pot shots at US presidents when they have don't gak.
Of course they are free to have an opinion. The fact you don't like it isn't their problem, it's yours.
And my opinion is that his opinion is neither educated, nor warranted.
1. Several hundred Brits have also been killed by the terrorism of the IRA. We did not invade the United States following that, despite the major funding being sent to the terrorists from that nation. Nor did we launch airstrikes against America when the leader of Sinn Fein enjoyed gala dinners in the White House while his terror cells bombed our shopping centres and other civilian targets.
Thats a pity, we could have used 10 or so new states. However its not relevant.
2. We are also obligated under the United Nations to abide by international law regarding warfare. The invading war of Iraq remains illegal under that law and broke our agreement and pledge to the United Nations.
Mmmm no we were already in a state of war under a cease fire that was breached on a daily basis by continuing acts of war (lighting up or shooting at Coaltiion aircraft maintaining the no fly zone), plus they threw the inspectors out. We could have glassed them at any time under existing UN mandates.
I dont think its quite right to make broad sweeping statements in the UK or Australia when there are people both for and against in both countries.
Again thats great and all but it doesn't mean gak. Talk about your own politicians.
For example i dont like Obama very much, i bet your happy me saying that right?
No. He's my President. I can tell him to feth off because he's MY President. Anyone else can go to hell.
The same applies to Cameron (its Cameron right?) Brist can say what they want about him. Non Brits are suspect and generally should butt out.
Well that's certainly your opinion. It's not a view I share but since you believe that so strongly, we'll not see you making any more references to Chávez or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il as you are not from their countries...
As I don't share your view on this, I will continue to damn them all to hell as I see fit. Anyone else on this forum is also perfectly entitled to do so as the current rules permit.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Well that's certainly your opinion. It's not a view I share but since you believe that so strongly, we'll not see you making any more references to Chávez or Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il as you are not from their countries...
As I don't share your view on this, I will continue to damn them all to hell as I see fit. Anyone else on this forum is also perfectly entitled to do so as the current rules permit.
Unless they impact me I don't generally discuss other politicians. Its just always joyous when posters from other countries put forth their invariably negative opinions, when ignoring their own house.
Just another reason the OT shouldn't talk about politics.
Frazzled wrote:Unless they impact me I don't generally discuss other politicians. Its just always joyous when posters from other countries put forth their invariably negative opinions, when ignoring their own house.
Just another reason the OT shouldn't talk about politics.
I continue to believe the OT should ban politics and religious debate, neither are suited and both stir ill will.
But whilst they aren't banned, you say 'unless they impact me'. GWB's term of office and the wars started therein, along with the huge international debt accrued during that time certainly affect and influence across the world. He certainly has more impact in my life than Kim Jong-il has had in yours.
Kilkrazy wrote:The OT shouldn't talk about anything.
Except booze.
And cheese
And Weiner Dogs
And Aliens! I Done seen 'em!
We have the DCM for the other thing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But whilst they aren't banned, you say 'unless they impact me'. GWB's term of office and the wars started therein, along with the huge international debt accrued during that time certainly affect and influence across the world. He certainly has more impact in my life than Kim Jong-il has had in yours.
Wars started therein-you mean the war Al Qaeda started right?
Huge International debt? The US is only respsonsible for its debt. Don't blame us for your fiscal profligacy.
North korea is selling nuke tech to Syria and Iran. It may have far more of an impact on you than you realize.
Frazzled wrote:Unless they impact me I don't generally discuss other politicians. Its just always joyous when posters from other countries put forth their invariably negative opinions, when ignoring their own house.
Just another reason the OT shouldn't talk about politics.
I continue to believe the OT should ban politics and religious debate, neither are suited and both stir ill will.
But whilst they aren't banned, you say 'unless they impact me'. GWB's term of office and the wars started therein, along with the huge international debt accrued during that time certainly affect and influence across the world. He certainly has more impact in my life than Kim Jong-il has had in yours.
I disagree with all of you most strongly. We are all adults here, the argument that "this is a toy soldiers website!" holds no water at all. Were grown men, we like to paint, but we like to talk. When im playing my 40k with my mates and drinking cans, we shoot the gak and talk about whatever the hell we like.
I mix it up on every single "hot" topic that comes up on here because it is interesting!
Why on earth cant grown men (all three of you blokes are 30+) talk about anything they like? Im stunned that you actually get upset enough to want to close it down.
If you dont like talking about current affairs, dont log into the OT at all. If you really just want to look at "toy soldiers" then why the hell do you stick your heads in here anyway?!
Frazzled wrote: How come we never debate Aussie polltiics?
Because they're crazy over there. Seriously, they go at each other like nobody's business, and personal insults are not below the belt by any means. Hell, I'm surprised that they don't riot every time they're in session.
Frazzled wrote: How come we never debate Aussie polltiics?
Because they're crazy over there. Seriously, they go at each other like nobody's business, and personal insults are not below the belt by any means. Hell, I'm surprised that they don't riot every time they're in session.
Actually we discussed Aussie politics a few weeks ago.
We covered the replacement of Rudd by Gillard and the subsequent election which resulted in a minority government being formed with a Welshwoman as prime minister.
Frazzled wrote:
I'd rather not argue with an Aussie who's own lame ass politicians or country for that matter haven't done a damn thing ever about the merits of a US President when he makes sweeping statements without support. Come back to me when you, your politicans, or your country have done anything more than make a movie about a redneck who kills gators goes to the civilized world.
I love these threads that inevitably slam the US or US politicians/presidents, with full commentary from foreigners. How come we never debate Aussie polltiics? Oh yea, no one gives a gak.
This post can be summarized by one emoticon:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
2. You're opbligated under NATO. The fact NATO countries haven't supported the alliance properly is apriori evidence NATO should be disbanded. Today.
They aren't obligated to do anything. If you're going to start crying about "unqualified" people arguing about things they "qualified" to discuss, then you should really pay attention to what you speak about.
Article 5 of the NATO Charter wrote:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
The NATO Charter does not obligate member states to take military action when any member state is attacked. It obligates assistance to an extent that is determined by the assisting party.
But yeah he's no alcoholic. The guys from Beerfest are more 'alcoholic' than he was... I say you aren't a true alcoholic unless you can literally set your piss on fire!
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather not argue with an Aussie who's own lame ass politicians or country for that matter haven't done a damn thing ever about the merits of a US President when he makes sweeping statements without support. Come back to me when you, your politicans, or your country have done anything more than make a movie about a redneck who kills gators goes to the civilized world.
I love these threads that inevitably slam the US or US politicians/presidents, with full commentary from foreigners. How come we never debate Aussie polltiics? Oh yea, no one gives a gak.
I forgot all about this thread and only stumbled onto it now. Sorry for the late reply. Sorrier still to see your standard of debate here. It's a new low for you mate, and I think you probably need to seriously think about whether you should be posting in political threads.
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather not argue with an Aussie who's own lame ass politicians or country for that matter haven't done a damn thing ever about the merits of a US President when he makes sweeping statements without support. Come back to me when you, your politicans, or your country have done anything more than make a movie about a redneck who kills gators goes to the civilized world.
I love these threads that inevitably slam the US or US politicians/presidents, with full commentary from foreigners. How come we never debate Aussie polltiics? Oh yea, no one gives a gak.
I forgot all about this thread and only stumbled onto it now. Sorry for the late reply. Sorrier still to see your standard of debate here. It's a new low for you mate, and I think you probably need to seriously think about whether you should be posting in political threads.
I think Frazzled is in a whole 'nother league when it comes to debatin', Texas style.
To be honest, few can match you in debate sebster.
What, if he was fully inebrieated 24hrs a day, would people's opinions of him change? Probably not. He's a Progressive Republican, in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, not really a conservative regarding a lot of spending issues. His education spendings levels were record highs, passed the largest entitlement since 1965 (Medicare Part D), was and is still soft on the border, Bailed out Wall Street and the Auto Industry. He's a great example of a big government Republican. It's not a debate between the Dems or Repubs as to how the government should be run, but who can run it the best. They both want bigger government and more bureacracy.
Seb, I know you are smart fellow, but trying to compare Australia's economy to the US's is a really bad idea. When the US's economy is over a quarter of the entire globe's GDP, it's kind of hard to say that Australia (which is a respectable 13th, considering much of Australia is desert) should brag about low debt levels. Where do countries go when they have a problem (i.e. Natural Disaster, invasion... etc.)? It's to the US first most of the time. We have massive debt because of bad social policies and expensive wars. Our unfunded liability is out of control.
Stormrider wrote:Seb, I know you are smart fellow, but trying to compare Australia's economy to the US's is a really bad idea. When the US's economy is over a quarter of the entire globe's GDP, it's kind of hard to say that Australia (which is a respectable 13th, considering much of Australia is desert) should brag about low debt levels. Where do countries go when they have a problem (i.e. Natural Disaster, invasion... etc.)? It's to the US first most of the time. We have massive debt because of bad social policies and expensive wars. Our unfunded liability is out of control.
Umm, I wasn't trying to compare, Fraz was. I was pointing out that if he makes the comparison, it isn't flattering to the US. I don't know why he was trying to do that, maybe he read an article on Austria's debt and got confused or something.
Australia's low debt is the product of us having tremendous mineral resources, that generate substantial government revenue directly, and also drive up incomes across the board, providing for a larger tax base. Add in the efforts of our previous Liberal government to put in place a goods and services tax and bring spending down to controllable levels, and you have Australia's low debt explained.
The US has a much stickier problem, where the lack of party discipline makes hard budget decision much more difficult, and where you are so big that you can't rely on single industries to drive much of the economy. The conclusion is unavoidable though, you need a larger general tax base to cover the programs that simply can't be but, and you need to start cutting back on all the extra that you can't afford.
We're only the 13th biggest economy right now because the exchange rate is so whacky, because we're the only ones not printing piles of cash. If you look at PPP we're more like 19th.
Again, Sebster hasn't pointed to anything Australia has actually done. At least Japan tried to conquer half the world, A for effort. Australia, the world's strip mine.
EDIT: I should be nice when talking about Australia. They try they really do. Plus with drop bears and killer spiders, snakes and my distant cousins the crocodiles, they are like a home away from home.
But it doesn't take away from the essential popint that foreigners from a country that hasn't done much for the world except the horror of vegemite are commenting about a former US President. Look to your own house.
This is basically the same argument as "you can't sculpt a better model than this, so you aren't allowed to say bad things about it", isn't it? I reject that argument.
The Dreadnote wrote:This is basically the same argument as "you can't sculpt a better model than this, so you aren't allowed to say bad things about it", isn't it? I reject that argument.
No its the argument that your big claim to fame was high school drama class, so don't throw tomatoes at the Shakespearean actors playing at the Globe.
The Dreadnote wrote:This is basically the same argument as "you can't sculpt a better model than this, so you aren't allowed to say bad things about it", isn't it? I reject that argument.
No its the argument that your big claim to fame was high school drama class, so don't throw tomatoes at the Shakespearean actors playing at the Globe.
That's the same argument.
"It doesn't take a good actor to spot a bad one - Galaxy Quest
The Dreadnote wrote:This is basically the same argument as "you can't sculpt a better model than this, so you aren't allowed to say bad things about it", isn't it? I reject that argument.
No its the argument that your big claim to fame was high school drama class, so don't throw tomatoes at the Shakespearean actors playing at the Globe.
That's the same argument.
"It doesn't take a good actor to spot a bad one - Galaxy Quest
But it does take an actor, not some two bit rent a wreck from the Dumpwater Community Theater.
Frazzled wrote:Again, Sebster hasn't pointed to anything Australia has actually done. At least Japan tried to conquer half the world, A for effort. Australia, the world's strip mine.
EDIT: I should be nice when talking about Australia. They try they really do. Plus with drop bears and killer spiders, snakes and my distant cousins the crocodiles, they are like a home away from home.
But it doesn't take away from the essential popint that foreigners from a country that hasn't done much for the world except the horror of vegemite are commenting about a former US President. Look to your own house.
Fine. As long as you understand that you can't talk about Britain because the wall outside my house is older than your country. Britain has 'done more' than the US. Does that then make us immune from criticism - or even discussion?
No, it absolutely does not. Stop being stupid and childish. Unless people are breaking the rules by talking about George Bush, you should probably just keep your mouth shut, as you have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion.
Thats a trolling attack Alby. But I'll let it slide.
Other than advocating the use of black powder and Cromwell I don't discuss Brit politics.
I have lots to add, that people in other countries should shut the feth up and deal with their own politicians. Frankly if you don't like ours kiss my ass, which is essentually all you're saying to me. You can't vote for them so NA NA NA!!!
Here I'll spice it up. UK politicians- scum sucking garbage collectors who couldn't think on their own to save their ass. The Queen, a parasite sucking off the population and her name.
Frazzled wrote:Other than advocating the use of black powder and Cromwell I don't discuss Brit politics.
I have lots to add, that people in other countries should shut the feth up and deal with their own politicians. Frankly if you don't like ours kiss my ass, which is essentually all you're saying to me. You can't vote for them so NA NA NA!!!
And then also perhaps by extention not ever speak about former leaders of countries like Germany, Russia, China, Iran, Iraq... Do we see a pattern?
Frazzled wrote:
Here I'll spice it up. UK politicians- scum sucking garbage collectors who couldn't think on their own to save their ass. The Queen, a parasite sucking off the population and her name.
Ok, elaborate and explain your reasoning behind those statements (as you're perfectly capable of doing when you put your mind to it) and we can start a mature discussion. Because we don't have a problem with you voicing your opinions about our leaders or heads of state, you are the one who has this rule for himself.
Thats a trolling attack Alby. But I'll let it slide.
Other than advocating the use of black powder and Cromwell I don't discuss Brit politics.
I have lots to add, that people in other countries should shut the feth up and deal with their own politicians. Frankly if you don't like ours kiss my ass, which is essentually all you're saying to me. You can't vote for them so NA NA NA!!!
Here I'll spice it up. UK politicians- scum sucking garbage collectors who couldn't think on their own to save their ass. The Queen, a parasite sucking off the population and her name.
You're literally incoherent at this point. What are you talking about? Why do you love George W. Bush so much?
You're getting so emotional about this subject that you're flinging broadbrush insults about other people's countries around. It's kind of funny - until I remember that you are a grown man, and then it just becomes a little sad, really.
Albatross wrote:You're literally incoherent at this point. What are you talking about? Why do you love George W. Bush so much?
You're getting so emotional about this subject that you're flinging broadbrush insults about other people's countries around. It's kind of funny - until I remember that you are a grown man and a moderator, and then it just becomes a little sad, really.
Albatross wrote:You're literally incoherent at this point. What are you talking about? Why do you love George W. Bush so much?
You're getting so emotional about this subject that you're flinging broadbrush insults about other people's countries around. It's kind of funny - until I remember that you are a grown man and a moderator, and then it just becomes a little sad, really.
Fixed.
Don't forget poet and saint among men. You people keep forgetting that. Must the beatings be re-instituted?
I don't think bashing Bush was cool even when he was in office. Frankly, I doubt a Democratic president would have done all THAT much different when it comes to the major decisions (Such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example) given what we know about what they knew back then. And that's with me having more sympathy for the dems than the reps (mostly because I live ina very heavily republican area, and I get exposed to lots of rep idiocy instead of dem idiocy).
I don't think bashing Bush was cool even when he was in office. Frankly, I doubt a Democratic president would have done all THAT much different when it comes to the major decisions (Such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example) given what we know about what they knew back then. And that's with me having more sympathy for the dems than the reps (mostly because I live ina very heavily republican area, and I get exposed to lots of rep idiocy instead of dem idiocy).
That's also because there are less idiotic Democrats than there are Republicans, and their 'bad eggs' tend to be much worse than ours are. One reason is because one of the tenets of Conservativism is a lack of faith in the average man, or in other words a negative view of humanity as a whole. This is why they tend not to support anything that actually helps people, like welfare. (That's not to say that there aren't deadweights who abuse those systems, but there are a looooooot of people who actually need the help.) So the Republican party tends to attract a good portion of the idiots and malcontents this country produces. Need evidence? Tea Party. Michele Bachmann. Sarah Palin.
I don't think bashing Bush was cool even when he was in office. Frankly, I doubt a Democratic president would have done all THAT much different when it comes to the major decisions (Such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example) given what we know about what they knew back then. And that's with me having more sympathy for the dems than the reps (mostly because I live ina very heavily republican area, and I get exposed to lots of rep idiocy instead of dem idiocy).
That's also because there are less idiotic Democrats than there are Republicans, and their 'bad eggs' tend to be much worse than ours are. One reason is because one of the tenets of Conservativism is a lack of faith in the average man, or in other words a negative view of humanity as a whole. This is why they tend not to support anything that actually helps people, like welfare. (That's not to say that there aren't deadweights who abuse those systems, but there are a looooooot of people who actually need the help.) So the Republican party tends to attract a good portion of the idiots and malcontents this country produces. Need evidence? Tea Party. Michele Bachmann. Sarah Palin.
...Bush. (couldn't resist! )
Have you ever heard of a concept of "false conciousness"? Those same Tea party people are the "common man" that class warfare cannard throwing individllas like yourself love to stand up for, but then excoriate them for disagreeing. Make up your mind who you claim to care so much about.
Stormrider wrote:Those same Tea party people are the "common man"
Not really. They're just a vocal minority even locally. Most of them are pretty nutty too, with hideous misconceptions about government in general and Obama in specific. Hell there's a lot of "tea party" douches that still think Obama's not a legal citizen.
Fateweaver wrote:The Dems have Obama. That throws your logic out the window MasterDRD.
Your post has blatant troll. That throws your logic out the window Fateweaver.
Melissia wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Those same Tea party people are the "common man"
Not really. They're just a vocal minority even locally. Most of them are pretty nutty too, with hideous misconceptions about government in general and Obama in specific. Hell there's a lot of "tea party" douches that still think Obama's not a legal citizen.
Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. And to build upon my original assertions, part of the Conservative lack of faith in the common man is fed by the fact that a good bit of the 'common men' in their end of the political spectrum ARE as stupid and deluded as they think they are. It creates a sort of vicious circle. (I'm not saying ALL politically right are morons, but... Palin. Bachmann. Tea Party.)
Frazzled wrote:Again, Sebster hasn't pointed to anything Australia has actually done. At least Japan tried to conquer half the world, A for effort. Australia, the world's strip mine.
Wow. You used to at least try to debate. This is pathetic.
I am not actually my country, just as you are not yours. The national policy and capabilities of my country are a reflection of it's population base and it's wealth, just as yours is. You can observe this in the fact that just because the US as a whole spends like a drunken sailor, that does not mean you are necessarily any better with your credit than a citizen of Australia.
But it's alright, you made a guess about my country to try and deflect a comment I made, and your guess was wrong, wrong enough to make you look a little silly. So now you're trying to hide that with this very strange insistance that people living in small countries are incapable of assessing the successes and failings of big countries. Perhaps instead you should just let this go?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dreadnote wrote:This is basically the same argument as "you can't sculpt a better model than this, so you aren't allowed to say bad things about it", isn't it? I reject that argument.
It's much, much dumber than that. It's 'you come from a country that doesn't sculpt models, therefore you can't point out facts about any miniature ever, even when those facts are accepted within the nation that produced the miniature.'
Which actually wouldn't be too bad, if Fraz. It'd keep him out of Israel threads, out of Iraq & Afghanistan threads. Unfortunately I think this new standard of Fraz might not last past this thread. In fact, he's currently posting all kinds of silliness in the monarchy thread...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No its the argument that your big claim to fame was high school drama class, so don't throw tomatoes at the Shakespearean actors playing at the Globe.
Umm, you're not the US, just as I'm not Australia. You do get that, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I don't think bashing Bush was cool even when he was in office. Frankly, I doubt a Democratic president would have done all THAT much different when it comes to the major decisions (Such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example) given what we know about what they knew back then. And that's with me having more sympathy for the dems than the reps (mostly because I live ina very heavily republican area, and I get exposed to lots of rep idiocy instead of dem idiocy).
Afghanistan almost certainly would have been invaded.
There is almost no chance a Democrat would have invaded Iraq. The briefest reading on the Bush administration's build up to Iraq will show you they wanted that from the moment they won office, and then spent as much time and influence as possible building a case for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Have you ever heard of a concept of "false conciousness"? Those same Tea party people are the "common man" that class warfare cannard throwing individllas like yourself love to stand up for, but then excoriate them for disagreeing. Make up your mind who you claim to care so much about.
Umm, "false consciousness" is a Marxist term, and refers to the common man being decieved into supporting political factions against his own welfare. I don't particularly like the term, as it ultimately feels like a lazy way addressing unpopularity by assuming people just don't know what's good for them, instead of really thinking about why communism doesn't appeal.
None of which has anything to do with the issue that the wingnuts in the Tea Party actually have a clue as to how government works on the most basic level, and even less of a clue as to how to solve it's problems.
Frazzled wrote:No its the argument that your big claim to fame was high school drama class, so don't throw tomatoes at the Shakespearean actors playing at the Globe.
Umm, you're not the US, just as I'm not Australia. You do get that, right?
This is not the first time today he's been brought up on this. As he put it earlier..
Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.
Frazzled why don't you just change your name to the united states. That way whenever someone makes a negative observation about your country it can be like they are attacking you...oh no wait that's already what you do right? Sorry.
Exactly. I am a Texan (the other states just folllow along). Someone has to, and the quarter said "heads."
sebster wrote:There is almost no chance a Democrat would have invaded Iraq. The briefest reading on the Bush administration's build up to Iraq will show you they wanted that from the moment they won office, and then spent as much time and influence as possible building a case for it.
We knew they were attempting to obtain some form of NBC weapon. We learned in hindsight that they had failed to do so, but hindsight is 20/20.
The world was a different place shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and our mindset was extremely different than it is now.
Melissia wrote:We knew they were attempting to obtain some form of NBC weapon. We learned in hindsight that they had failed to do so, but hindsight is 20/20.
The world was a different place shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and our mindset was extremely different than it is now.
While the on-going efforts of Saddam’s government was a concern for intelligence services and the international community, there were absolutely no independent experts arguing for the need to invade.
The Bush admin directly leaned on analysts, requiring re-submission of any work that didn't favour the need to invade, because they wanted the analysis to fit their already decided policy to invade. When analysts gave findings that didn’t fit the administration’s drive to invade, they were penalised – such as with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Melissia wrote:We knew they were attempting to obtain some form of NBC weapon. We learned in hindsight that they had failed to do so, but hindsight is 20/20.
The world was a different place shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and our mindset was extremely different than it is now.
Oh no! Another drone fallen to the bourgeiose propaganda!
"False conciousness", as I interperet it, is a case of someone so conviced that their belief system is right that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow uneducated or went to the wrong school or is just too stupid to grasp the argument. It couldn't be that maybe that person disagrees with them diametrically and finds their belief system to be anathema to what the US was founded upon. That's my definition, and it's group think that is rampant among the American Left to consider anyone opposed to them as rubes.
Which is funny since their message is, "less taxes and less spending". Not really all that complicated but very vital as our country is on the precipice of a debt bomb of epic proportions.
As for the citizenship issue, even if he isn't a citizen (which he is, regrettably) it is irrelevant as he is the president, but it causes people to be suspicious when he isn't forthright with anything from his past.
As for the WMD issue, that wasn't the only reason to get involved in Iraq, it's made out to be, but it wasn't the only reason.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf - Here's one, Iraq's dealing with para-military and lesser Terrorist organizations that hated America as much as Saddam did. Sure, not burn down the world worthy, but these extremists only have to get lucky, we have to be right all of the time.
"False conciousness", as I interperet it, is a case of someone so conviced that their belief system is right that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow uneducated or went to the wrong school or is just too stupid to grasp the argument. It couldn't be that maybe that person disagrees with them diametrically and finds their belief system to be anathema to what the US was founded upon. That's my definition, and it's group think that is rampant among the American Left to consider anyone opposed to them as rubes.
Which is funny since their message is, "less taxes and less spending". Not really all that complicated but very vital as our country is on the precipice of a debt bomb of epic proportions.
As for the citizenship issue, even if he isn't a citizen (which he is, regrettably) it is irrelevant as he is the president, but it causes people to be suspicious when he isn't forthright with anything from his past.
As for the WMD issue, that wasn't the only reason to get involved in Iraq, it's made out to be, but it wasn't the only reason.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf - Here's one, Iraq's dealing with para-military and lesser Terrorist organizations that hated America as much as Saddam did. Sure, not burn down the world worthy, but these extremists only have to get lucky, we have to be right all of the time.
Rather than respond to your hit on Liberals and Obama, I think we can all agree that the REAL reason we invaded Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs.
Not really, you just used a term in an interesting way.
"False conciousness", as I interperet it, is a case of someone so conviced that their belief system is right that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow uneducated or went to the wrong school or is just too stupid to grasp the argument.
Which is probably not a bad interpretation of the term, albeit it’d be a fair move from the original, and kind of funny considering it’s origins. Personally, I kind of like the idea if only because it kind of makes of fun of all those lefties who scream false consciousness when they should be thinking about why people really don’t like their ideas.
So it’s a funny use of the term, but it doesn’t actually mean that.
Which is funny since their message is, "less taxes and less spending". Not really all that complicated but very vital as our country is on the precipice of a debt bomb of epic proportions.
Yes, and it’s a good thing that the deficit has become important enough to knock all the trivial stuff off the national debate. But the message of lower taxes and lower spending is just a slogan, and a particularly lazy one at that. There’s no substance to any of the follow up debates, no-one has given an actual tax rate that they believe would be enough to sustain the minimum level of government spending (in part because these people are celebrities more than legislators, and in part because at the absolute minimum level of government spending taxes would have to be at their current levels at best).
As for the citizenship issue, even if he isn't a citizen (which he is, regrettably) it is irrelevant as he is the president, but it causes people to be suspicious when he isn't forthright with anything from his past.
But he is a citizen. It is obvious to anyone with any interest at all in determining if he was a citizen that he was. As such, it can be deduced that the people who believe he wasn’t a citizen are people who are choosing what they want to believe over what is factual.
These people should, and need to be, mocked mercilessly until they’re out of the debate.
As for the WMD issue, that wasn't the only reason to get involved in Iraq, it's made out to be, but it wasn't the only reason.
It was the reason they used to sell the war to the general population. To the admin, it was a minor issue at best – they wanted the freeing of Iraq to be the first step in wave of democratisation that would sweep across the Middle East and turn the region into a US loving wonderland.
As for the citizenship issue, even if he isn't a citizen (which he is, regrettably) it is irrelevant as he is the president, but it causes people to be suspicious when he isn't forthright with anything from his past.
But he is a citizen. It is obvious to anyone with any interest at all in determining if he was a citizen that he was. As such, it can be deduced that the people who believe he wasn’t a citizen are people who are choosing what they want to believe over what is factual. These people should, and need to be, mocked mercilessly until they’re out of the debate.
In other words, they are exhibiting a perfect example of 'Truthiness'.
Melissia wrote:We knew they were attempting to obtain some form of NBC weapon. We learned in hindsight that they had failed to do so, but hindsight is 20/20.
The world was a different place shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and our mindset was extremely different than it is now.
While the on-going efforts of Saddam’s government was a concern for intelligence services and the international community, there were absolutely no independent experts arguing for the need to invade.
It was the policy of the US government under Clinton for regime change in Iraq.
Frazzled wrote:
But it does take an actor, not some two bit rent a wreck from the Dumpwater Community Theater.
Wouldn't that person be an actor?
You contradicted yourself.
Moreover, having the ability to do X is not having the ability to do Y.
Person 1 can have the ability to discern good acting from bad, and person 2 can have the ability to act well. There is no reason to assume that person 1 must have the abilities of person 2, or vice versa.
If there were, then any professional athlete would be, by default, a better coach than any coach that was never a professional athlete. And that's plainly not the case.
Frazzled wrote:
It was the policy of the US government under Clinton for regime change in Iraq.
By external support and economic sanctions, with a little bit of fairly insignificant bombing. Not quite the same thing as invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote: Those same Tea party people are the "common man" that class warfare cannard throwing individllas like yourself love to stand up for, but then excoriate them for disagreeing. Make up your mind who you claim to care so much about.
You can care about someone and find their opinions foolish. Supporting a group of people does not entail listening to that group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
"False conciousness", as I interperet it, is a case of someone so conviced that their belief system is right that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow uneducated or went to the wrong school or is just too stupid to grasp the argument. It couldn't be that maybe that person disagrees with them diametrically and finds their belief system to be anathema to what the US was founded upon.
That doesn't eliminate the first point. If you vehemently believe that you're right, then anyone who disagrees does so because they're stupid. In other words there is no such thing as "simply disagreeing" once you become emotionally committed to your own position.
Which, honestly, tends to be the way of political discourse in America. People buy the myth, and then proceed from there.
Stormrider wrote:
Which is funny since their message is, "less taxes and less spending". Not really all that complicated but very vital as our country is on the precipice of a debt bomb of epic proportions.
Doesn't it then seem odd that you would want to decrease taxes? I mean, I know the Laffer Curve is a part of the Conservative myth, but its really just an economic joke.
Stormrider wrote:
...but it causes people to be suspicious when he isn't forthright with anything from his past.
How has he not been forthright about his past? He provided a birth certificate, and often talks about his childhood abroad. Well, at least as most Presidents have mentioned their childhoods.
There really isn't any rational reason (used as a reference to common reason) to be suspicious of him. Not unless we should also have been suspicious of GWB due to booze soaked past, which he rarely if ever mentioned.
Stormrider wrote:
As for the WMD issue, that wasn't the only reason to get involved in Iraq, it's made out to be, but it wasn't the only reason.
It pretty much was, at least rhetorically. That's how the Bush administration packaged the invasion.
Stormrider wrote:
Here's one, Iraq's dealing with para-military and lesser Terrorist organizations that hated America as much as Saddam did. Sure, not burn down the world worthy, but these extremists only have to get lucky, we have to be right all of the time.
Why? We have 300 million people, and some of them are going to die; that's simply the way the world is. That doesn't mean spending billions of dollars on the invasion of a country we had long ago neutered was at all necessary.
That was particularly great - 'Britain gave them refuge now all they want to do is repay us with death.'
No, me neither.
