The Bush Faithful

[Ironside]

Bush will always have his faithful. There are some that just refuse to see, acknowledge or learn the truth. This Administration blamed Clinton for the economy. They blame the Navy for the “Mission Accomplished” banner. They blame the secretive leaker (pssst….Karl Rove) for CIA leaks. And they blame the British for bad Intelligence used as part of the reasoning for invading Iraq. They EXPLOITED 9/11 to go to war with Iraq.

Bush said during the Republican Convention...

“My father was the last president of a great generation. A generation of Americans who stormed beaches, liberated concentration camps and delivered us from evil.”
Now we know, what he was eluding to then.

He said, “Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.”
Then with an unavoidable “war on terror” in Afghanistan, Bush decides to attack Iraq, too? Why?

He went on to say, “The world needs America's strength and leadership, and America's armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay.”
Does he believe after two years in office our military suddenly became prepared for more than one war at a time?

And then he said, ”A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.”
Well, doesn’t this take the cake? Lessons learned? Victory must be overwhelming? Maybe this is why he was so fast to announce ‘Mission Accomplished” shortly after “Shock-n-Awe?”<br>
Here’s more of what he had to say, during that Convention!

“Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend. But they've got it backwards. The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.”

What Surplus?

[MO]

Was this worthy of a new thread? It's the same, tired crap we have been talking about on the others!

[Walter]

I'm with MO. The somehat less than accurate (I'm being nice, it's Thanksgiving) statements in the starter post are a bit more fallacious than normal for the Left...and every one of them has been discussed, and refuted, in this and many other forums.

Yes, there were those who hated Clinton regardless of whatever good he may have done. There are those who hate Bush regardless of whatever good he may have done or will do.

Let's not be blinded by that hatred and engage in honest and factual dialogue on this forum.

Thanks.

[Ironside]

Well, clearly you don't need to discuss it if you don't want. I can wait until somebody that does want to comes along.

This isn't this only board I post on.
sheesh, LOL:)

REALLY! I understand. It must suck having to defend George Bush all the time. He sure gives us a lot of ammo! ;D

I wonder what he'll screw up next?

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

I'm with MO. The somehat less than accurate (I'm being nice, it's Thanksgiving) statements in the starter post are a bit more fallacious than normal for the Left...and every one of them has been discussed, and refuted, in this and many other forums.

Yes, there were those who hated Clinton regardless of whatever good he may have done. There are those who hate Bush regardless of whatever good he may have done or will do.

Let's not be blinded by that hatred and engage in honest and factual dialogue on this forum.

Thanks.

I disagree with what you said in your first paragraph, in which you implied that liberals lie very often, without recognizing that conservatives lie very often as well.

However, what you said in your following paragraphs were truly wise words. It is good to see an interest in facts and fairness.

Truly, both Clinton and Bush have done some good. Neither are bad men. Though I disagree with some of Bush's policies, I am wise enough to let history judge the man, not me. Right now, I would prefer not to have a strong opinion of him. But several decades from now, one will be able to see things more clearly in retrospect.

[Walter]

Ogilvy:

I disagree with what you said in your first paragraph, in which you implied that liberals lie very often, without recognizing that conservatives lie very often as well.

Boy, talk about defensiveness. The post was a whole bunch of repetetive disproven crap uttered by a person whose political persuasion is clearly to the left, and I'm supposed to say it's OK because the right lies too?

Talk about moral relativism!

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

Ogilvy:
Boy, talk about defensiveness. The post was a whole bunch of repetetive disproven crap uttered by a person whose political persuasion is clearly to the left, and I'm supposed to say it's OK because the right lies too?

Talk about moral relativism!

You seem to misunderstand what I said. In no way do I think that the original post is okay, merely that to assume that the liberals are all liars and that all conservatives are so Jesus-like and holy that they would never utter a lie in their life is quite wrong in my opinion. It's just as bad to me as liberals saying that the right are nothing but liars and that liberals are the only reasonable, thinking men. I just get so sick of it. I'm sure you can understand that. It's not that I am defending him; truly, as you said, what he says is the same old, tired argument that frankly I just don't care to listen to anymore. Rather, I was attacking you for calling everybody on the left a liar. Perhaps he is, but how can you speak for every one of them?

It's just ridiculous. As a moderate, I sometimes feel that both sides hate me. Liberals would call me a jerk for my conservative beliefs. Conservatives would call me an idiot for my liberal beliefs. It's very tough. As a moderate, as a person who wants to piece together ALL the facts before forming an opinion, I've chosen the tough road. Liberals and conservatives are lucky. They have forums where they can talk about their views with each other civilly. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any true moderate forums. They're all either secretly liberal or conservative, from what I have observed.

I even did a search on the Internet for "Moderate Forum" and I couldn't find anything that didn't boldly claim to be liberal or conservative. It's just mind-boggling. The other stuff is all irrelevent. "Moderate Online Technology Forum." "Want to Moderate This Forum?-Ezboard" "Moderate Hamstring Pain" and "Somaliland Forum Press Releases."

I do a search for "Center Forum" and I get "Internet Cartoons Forum" "The Geneaology Forum" and so much other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

But the second I do a search for "Liberal Forum" I am bombarded with websites. The same with "Conservative Forum."

Moderates are so alone in this world. There are perhaps....two, three people I know who are also moderates. The rest are distinctly completely liberal or conservative.

I get tired of hearing my conservatives saying, "It is in the best interests of West Virginians to kick the Democrats out," and hearing my liberal friends say, "The best thing for anybody to do is not vote for the conservatives."

Instead, I want someone to say to me, "There just aren't any more facts in this world anymore."

I get tired of people telling me to watch Fox News or watch Bowling for Columbine or whatever liberal or conservative icon that they worship religiously.

If you put yourself in my shoes, then I hope you can see why I have developed this phobia of one-sidedness, and why I protest so readily anything that I perceive to be generalizations about either the left or the right.

As for the original poster, man, I couldn't care less. He's just another zealot ranting about his completely liberal views. Seems shallow, if you ask me. His words are few and they mean nothing. As I believe you called it before, it's nothing but taking pot-shots. There's no substance. It's one-dimensional. The reverence paid to facts is lethargic at best. Oh, wow, he quoted him, gee, hey, looks like that's all the facts you need nowadays and then you can start bashing someone.

So ******* sad.

[Walter]

Click here to check out what happens if you can't establish a firm personal philosophy. Check out: A Typical Middle of the Roader.

That said, in response to your plaint:

If you put yourself in my shoes, then I hope you can see why I have developed this phobia of one-sidedness, and why I protest so readily anything that I perceive to be generalizations about either the left or the right.

Being a veteran (in relative terms) of political discourse in various forms from being involved in local politics in a small town in New Jersey to blowing off hyperbole and attitudes on message boards, and being one with conservative values in an ultra-left wing city (Los Angeles), I frequently feel that there are three conservatives and one whose sympathies are with the conservatives in LA. There are:

Me
My dog Shadow (a salt and pepper mini Schnauzer)
My dog Pinot Noir (a black mini Schnauser)

And my wife who is tolerant of my political position.

Our ring of friends are all varying degrees of Liberal, as are my sister and two of my brothers. A third brother, wisely, never discusses politics. My brother in law is a super hard flat against the wall right winger who helps me better understand a lot of the left's point of view when the left deals with the hard right.

All I ever get out of these folks are generalizations. When I get specific, or ask for specifics the response is the usual generalized "whell, I really don't know much about that" or "I'm sure that's not the case."

On message boards that tend to the right, I see recitations of facts presented after a lot of research and effort dismissed by the left by deflection and denial.

Yes there are rhetorical excesses on both sides, but the issue here is that someone started a thread based solely on BS, and I responded.

You didn't like my response, then you say you don't care what the thread starter says.

I'm with you on rhetorical excess, but I stop agreeing with you when you use it yourself.

[Ogilvy]

You know, I had a good reply to this, but I realized that I wasn't logged on. So I went to my inbox to find my password-curse those registrations that won't let you choose your own password! (though I should've written it down, admittedly)-but first I copied and pasted my message so that I would not lose it. Well, I copied and pasted my password to log on, but then when I tried to copy and paste my message, I found that it had been erased.

I have several well-written paragraphs. I can't express how stupid I feel now. Bah. I should've posted as a guest.

Anyways, the basics of what I said was that my definition of moderatism was not that of shying away from extreme views, but rather like a scale. A moderate to me is a person who equally balances their conservative and liberal sentiments. Therefore, a person can have some extreme opinions, as long the sum of all of his opinions is balanced. Think of it this way. A conservative sentiment is a positive one and a liberal sentiment is a negative one. Please don't infer anything from this except for it's most literal meaning. Anyways, moving along. For every positive, or conservative sentiment, there must be a negative, or liberal sentiment to balance it out and make it a 0. A moderate is a person the sum of whose beliefs equals 0, give or take a few numbers.

So let's say that a person is "Pro-Life"

We have a

1=1.

Then he is for gay rights.

1 + (-1)=0

Then he thinks that prisons are too easy on the criminals.

1+(-1)+1=1

Then he supports the legalization of pornography.

1+(-1)+1+(-1)=0.

Supposing that his beliefs persisted in this pattern and ended with a liberal sentiment, this man is what I consider to be a moderate.

Of course it does not have to end with a liberal sentiment. If I had begun with a liberal sentiment, then it would have to end with a conservative sentiment. And yes, I only used the parentheses to illustrate the "canceling out" of the numbers better. Of course they are quite unnecessary to the equation.

Whether or not he is extreme in his sentiments do not enter the equation. My political theory allows him to scream out his beliefs, to rant like a madman, even, and still be moderate based on the mathematical equation that is behind his beliefs.

In conclusion, as a moderate I am still capable of having a "firm philosophy" as you put it.

[Walter]

Why is a label needed?

The board should be a discussion of ideas, not ideologies.

I happen to be pro life, pro gay rights, anti death penalty, anti-drug laws, pro longer sentences for violent crimes, pro tougher prisons, anti prison for drug offenses, anti "hate" crime legislation, yet you refer to me as a conservative because I disagreed with you on a liberal's nonfactual rant. Unless I agree with you I can't be "moderate." Right?

I am opposed to Bush's free spending, his lack of candor with the American people on many matters, but appreciate his reintroduction of professionalism and dignity to the White ouse after an eight year absence, and totally agree with his war on terror, tax cuts and his effective approach to finally bringing racial and cultural diversity to the highest ranks of the Federal Government; not lip service, real diversity.

I guess you feel that, because I like Bush, I can't be "moderate."

[Ogilvy]

Walter said:

Why is a label needed?

The board should be a discussion of ideas, not ideologies.

I happen to be pro life, pro gay rights, anti death penalty, anti-drug laws, pro longer sentences for violent crimes, pro tougher prisons, anti prison for drug offenses, anti "hate" crime legislation, yet you refer to me as a conservative because I disagreed with you on a liberal's nonfactual rant. Unless I agree with you I can't be "moderate." Right?

I am opposed to Bush's free spending, his lack of candor with the American people on many matters, but appreciate his reintroduction of professionalism and dignity to the White ouse after an eight year absence, and totally agree with his war on terror, tax cuts and his effective approach to finally bringing racial and cultural diversity to the highest ranks of the Federal Government; not lip service, real diversity.

I guess you feel that, because I like Bush, I can't be "moderate."

Oh, God no not at all! His rant had nothing to do with it. It was merely your comment about "facts being inconvenient to liberals." This has nothing to do with you disagreeing with him. I disagree with him. There is no meat to what he says. He makes the terrible mistake of asking "Why?" and then proceeding to not answer that question or present any solid argument to the table. His attempt to create a valid thread and nurture a reasonable discussion was terribly executed. Actually, now that I think of it, he probably didn't attempt to do that! There is just no redeeming quality to his post whatsoever.

In fact, I agreed with everything that you said except for that one little comment, "are a bit more fallacious than normal for the Left." Just those ten words. Otherwise, I think everything that you have said in this thread is very reasonable and in fact I respect you as being a reasonable man.

I don't feel that you can't be a moderate because you like Bush. I don't feel that at all. I can understand why you like him, and I feel that you have some very good opinions.

[Patriot]

Ironside:


Bush has his faithful as does every President. And you should be among them. Your duty, soldier, like my duty, and the duty of every other military or ex-military person, is to adhere unquestionably to our national leadership. The flag stays the same, Republican or Democrat. You fight for your country, not for a surplus.

[Crash]

Patriot said:

Ironside:


Bush has his faithful as does every President. And you should be among them. Your duty, soldier, like my duty, and the duty of every other military or ex-military person, is to adhere unquestionably to our national leadership. The flag stays the same, Republican or Democrat. You fight for your country, not for a surplus.

UNQUESTIONABLY OBEY!!!!?
Zieg Heil!!!!

[Crash]

Patriot said:

In our younger years, we didn't volunteer to be cannon fodder just to bitch about which cannon to stand in front of.

Oh, and the term is, "sieg", not "zieg".

You may 'unquestionly' obey an order to be cannon fodder so a multi-national corporation can improve its profit shares, but my sons and I will never fight to make the rich richer, or to expand an empire, or fight in a crusade. We will never take orders from a proven liar and thief. If you want to believe that laying down your life for the good of the corporation is a good thing then go ahead. We'll fight for the defense of this country and democracy but not for someone who lied us into a war for profit. And who continues to lie just so his political donors will make huge profits.
bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm

I don't care if its an 's' or a 'z' the idea is the same. Go ahead, march lockstep into battle and win profits for your masters.

[Patriot]

Crash:

You wouldn't know the first thing about "fighting for democracy" so drop the BS. You wouldn't fight for anything, any day, and you know it. You're a liberal numbnut sitting behind a computer screen who doesn't have the first goddamn clue about esprit de corps or why orders are meant to be followed. Do you think the military's a club for soldiers of fortune who pick and choose their wars? Once the oaths are taken loyalty is expected no matter what branch you sign on to. Yes we live in a democracy but it's the military's responsibility to support the President and the US Constitution. That holds true for ex-mil and active mil.