It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brits mock Bush Inauguration Pledge... (from ATSNN)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Further simpified anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments, nothing more, nothing less, courtesy of the foreign press.



Simplifying anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments?

They are not complicated.

War is bad... and bush is a warmonger.

Not much to simplify is there?




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I think the Daily Show said it best...

Bush: "do solemnly swear..."

Stewart: "as 49% of Americans also solemnly sweared"



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Read them again but without Drudge trying to influence you !

"BUSH: I SWEAR IT'S IRAN NEXT, George Bush pledged all-out global war on terrorists and tyrants," headlines the STAR.

The views of the cheapest and worst selling tabloid newspaper in the UK

"POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE, The band played Hail to the Chief. A 21-gun salute sounded. Then, protected by a bullet-proof shield, President George Bush repeated his message to the enemies of democracy," screams the INDEPENDENT.

What is wrong with that ?? If it wasn't for Drudge adding that the paper SCREAMED ?

The TELEGRAPH slapped: "DEFIANT BUSH DOESN'T MENTION THE WAR, President George W Bush began his second term in unapologetic style yesterday, pledging to maintain his muscular foreign policy and spread freedom "to the darkest corners of the world."

The most Pro- American, right wing newspaper in the UK. This paper wants the UK to leave the EU and apply to join NAFTA. Has it "Slapped"??

The TIMES rips: "HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH, Four years ago he was the Accidental President, scion of a ruling family propelled into the highest office more by genetics and duty than by political zeal and ideological mission."

As mentioned above by Nerdling, owned by Newscorp.( I like this one best because it's a rip off of Star Trek. "His Seven Year Mission To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before".And has the Times really "ripped"? Hardly

The GUARDIAN: "SMILES FOR THE FAMILY, A FIERY WARNING FOR THE WORLD."

This is a genuinely liberal broadsheet newspaper like the Independent above but the comment is hardly unfair.

I'm afraid drugde has just made a story out of nothing by subtle hyperbole.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I listened. The man didnt use the words "I swear"..but he said all the rest



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Stereotypical

As par, the rhetoric always points to and points out that only those that oppose Bush have any type common sense or independent abilities to think, as compared to those who support Bush, and them simply having no common sense, no independent ability to critically think, and amounting to simple followers and devotees.



Stereotypical? No, dead on accurate. Even you can't suppose to proffer that unequivocal support of Bush is based on analysis of cost/benefit on decisions or choices, assessing that unwavering fidelity to dogma regardless of the failures and disasters is a "smart staying of the course", or that America is now lead with "moral clarity"?

Please. Ignorant , hubris filled decisions that are "in your face" fashion are and have been the norm - where does endorsing that denote an "independent ability to critically think"!?!?!



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Really, dgtempe?
Here you go:
Full text of Bush's inaugural address

Care to point out were he said such?




seekerof



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I dont know what part of the speech you're refering to. What im talking about is the fact that he said, (and im paraphrasing) that we're going to bring Democracy to the world...start wars and force democracy down your throats so to speak.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Stereotypical? No, dead on accurate. Even you can't suppose to proffer that unequivocal support of Bush is based on analysis of cost/benefit on decisions or choices, assessing that unwavering fidelity to dogma regardless of the failures and disasters is a "smart staying of the course", or that America is now lead with "moral clarity"?

Please. Ignorant , hubris filled decisions that are "in your face" fashion are and have been the norm - where does endorsing that denote an "independent ability to critically think"!?!?!



So Bout Time, your true colors are revealed, as well, huh? Further enlighten and humor me.
You also prescribe to the belief that all Bush backers are deaf, dumb, and blind, mere blinded followers, belligerent, unable to critically think, and having no common sense, just only those that are anti-bush? This stereotypical comment cannot be sayed for some on the liberal left, neither, I bet.....

Got'cha....okie dokie.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
So Bout Time, your true colors are revealed, as well, huh? Further enlighten and humor me.
You also prescribe to the belief that all Bush backers are deaf, dumb, and blind, mere blinded followers, belligerent, unable to critically think, and having no common sense, just only those that are anti-bush? This stereotypical comment cannot be sayed for some on the liberal left, neither, I bet.....


No, I don't lump all Bush Supporters like that. There are otherwise smart people who do support Bush - they're intellectual hypocrits. They know better, but choose to be single issue driven. So, and Idiot Savant is still an idiot!

For more clarity: Substitue "Bush" for "Cigarette habit". Each cig is a nail in the smokers coffin. Am I to believe a two pack a day smoker is a wise person!?!



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Again, you are only addressing one side: those who support Bush. You are evading the other side of the coin. But then again, that would require critical thinking and looking in the mirror.

"Hypocritical,"in this applied case, is when you, as others, apply a stereotype to one side and fail to mention that the side dishing the stereotype, has the same problem or falls within that very same stereotyping. Has nothing to do with cigarettes and savants, merely being a objective critical thinker, willing to admit faults and practices that you otherwise, assert and claims is only attributed to one side. Hence the cliche' that ignorance is bliss.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
You're coming from a false genesis point in your argument: That the Bush Administration has been vetted as a valid choice. There has been no critical analysis that has come to that conclusion, in either assessing where we've come from via that leadership, or where we are going.
So, if we are to debate Democrat or Republican undistilled ideology, we have great reasons to go either way. There's no such luxury with Bush.

As usual, you want me to argue both sides of the argument; call out the foillables of the anti-Bush crowd.

Where I see their faults & hypocrisy? Blanket dismissal of all things Bush without due dilligence of research. For example, "No Child Left Behind" = very sound policy, smartly thought out & Bush was smart to adopt it. Where Bush clusterf***ed it is that he underfunded it so severly in comparison to what it was budgeted for, that it could not possibly be applied as intended. Slam Bush for that reason; I've seen diatribes on NCLB as if it was a policy mistake.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Still Dancing that Dance...

Nothing surprising, but what is, is how you refut my claim of steroetyping, and then proceed to continue to dance that dance around the proverbial 'bush', when countered. You stated that the asserted stereotyping that I was addressing, and that you quoted initially in your first post, was:


No, dead on accurate.

As such, in my next posting, I confronted you with the same question that I have been asserting since, that you have still yet to address, because of your proverbial dancing the dance around the 'bush', and that was basically, are you saying that only all Bush backers are deaf, blind, and dumb, having no common snese, ,etc. You then counter with talk of cigarettes and savants, all the while still asserting that not all but that most Bush supporters are and not only that, they are also "intellectual hypocrits".

Again, I questioned your line of thinking on that, and have yet heard you openly admit that the side that is doing the dishing also has the very same problem, and thus, would also fall into that initial stereotypical assertion.
Now you continue with the obfuscation by talking of blanket dismissal's, when it is you that is obviously and actively taking part in "blanket dismissals". The question was simple, and yet, with your last two postings, I see that I was mistaken, and that the question was harder to admit and answer than first imagined.




seekerof

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Seek, I know you have a penchants for not hearing anything I say, that's cool, I always enjoy the "Cleopatro, King of DENILE" swarm you cover me with!


Is the Left guilty of Sterotyping? Yes

Is supporting Bush , for any reason, a sign of intelligence? No The Kerry option was far and away a better choice in anyone's mind who honestly compared in 2004; it could have been excused if it was 2000, and 4 years of Bush were not there for disection.

Are the Brits accurate? Yes, they've been spot on in their condemnation of the Bush Cabal all along. As stated in another thread, I crap Apple pie & fart the Yankee Doodle Dandy, I love America & swore to defend her with my life once, but I know horrible leadership when I see it, and won't confuse another's observation with dictating how my country's internal affairs are run.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
People in England dont like the fact that a fundamentalist Chrisitian seems to have total control over English foreign policy, leading to the deaths of English service men and women.

Not really that hard to understand.


Joe that is hard to understand,Im not even English Im a Scot.But what r u on about.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Yes the majority of brits hate bush.

Hey I might be generalising.. but all the conversations that i've had with my fellow brits, I'm yet to find one who supports him!

Heck, just this morning on Sky News they had a poll - 4 more years of bush, 4 years of peace or fear???

Fear was winning by about 80%. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Ok, let's just break it down. The politics, media, internet troller, Bush, Kerry, and all the little people who still believe that two parties can cover the beliefs of a nation are bull#, straight up and down.

There is no deviation from this.

Slamming Bush for anything outside of policy is grounds for dismissal from the world of cognative thought and understanding. If you could honestly look into a man's heart, you would rule this world rather than sitting on a computer acting out all your anti-authority wet dreams.

By the way, demonizing Christians as slow, sheep-like, totalitarian intellectual midgets is insulting and really does nothing to foster learning. Cut the # please.

Slamming Libs gains the same pass. If you call libs crybabies, then you fail to qualify as a serious person worthy of respect. Liberal (although the term is as tired as conservative) covers a spectrum of people from Christians to Wiccans to people who just don't care about anything besides recycling (only to make themselves feel good about "helping to do your part for the environment").

By the way, demonizing Liberals as slow, sheep-like, totalitarian intellectual midgets is insulting and really does nothing to foster learning. Cut the # please.

Give it up. You fool only yourself with the bickering and solve nothing but "How to get more bull# into politics and embrace ignorance?"

PLEASE!

[edit on 21-1-2005 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

So Bout Time, your true colors are revealed, as well, huh? Further enlighten and humor me.
You also prescribe to the belief that all Bush backers are deaf, dumb, and blind, mere blinded followers, belligerent, unable to critically think, and having no common sense, just only those that are anti-bush? This stereotypical comment cannot be sayed for some on the liberal left, neither, I bet...


IMHO Bush backers are either deaf, dumb and blind....or the more scary scenario, totally aware of what he is and what he intends to do and merely don't give a sh*t.

This is coming from a Canadian who acknowledges that for business purposes, Bush is probably more of an asset to Canada than Kerry would have been. Butcha know, some things are more important than money....oops, did I say that?


Bush goes on and on about bringing democracy to the "darkest corners of the world," but he forgets about Saudi Arabia (among others)...one of the darkest corners of the world...where there are a few handfuls of billionaires and the rest of the people are poor, illiterate and repressed...where women have no rights at all....

Can you say H Y P O C R I T E ?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The British have every right to say such things. Their country has been through far more than the US, is hundreds of years older, and more experienced.

Bring democracy to every corner of the world? Aren't y'all in bed with Musharaff of Pakistan, the military dictator?

Yep.

Aren't you TOTALLY involved with the Saudis, more than any other country in the world? Didn't they just executed 6 guys for political crimes last week in Saudi Arabia?

Your country is the paragon of freedom even though you have the largest percentage of your own people in jail, more than any other country in the world?

I just think that the Brits are far more keen to notice when politicians are spouting laughable rhetoric.

And if you think that Bush's speech was anything but rhetoric, you have no concept of politics or inaugural addresses.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Let them mock. They mocked Reagan as well


Needless to say, Bush and his administration will end up the same place as Reagan ... Here



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Needless to say, Bush and his administration will end up the same place as Reagan ... Here


Pisky...you are priceless. Love it!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join