Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   
The "God told me to strike at Al Qaeda" quote may only be second-hand - second-hand from a very reliable source, mind you - but Dubya hasn't hesitated to invoke the name of the almighty.

Anyone remember this:

"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.


Balanced and rational.


Though I don't agree with all of Skadi's points on Bush, I think you were unfair in some of your criticism, CazMedia.



He is recalling retirted and IRR personell to fill the ranks of his stupid wars.
(They knew this could occur when they VOLUNTEERED for millitary service)

I'm pretty sure that these fine men and women joined the armed forces to defend their country, not act as pawns in Bush's Hollywood War Hero fantasy.


He is stupid as a lump of cow turds.
(opinion)

Yes, it's opinion, and yes, it's somewhat indelicately phrased, but c'mon, CazMedia - surely no-one is even trying to defend Bush's stupidity anymore, are they? The guy is a C-grade student, plain and simple - and, coincidentally, he's also plain and simple. That's convenient, huh?



He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a about the rest of us poor people.
(OPINION)

Yes, But opinion supported by a whole barrel-load of evidence.



He continually antagonizes potentially deadly enemies.
(So are there enemies that arent antagonistic? Are there Enemies that arent potentially deadly? If one has a potentially deadly enemy, you will devote constant vigilance to defence from them. Or do you think there is a time where one can "rest" from this vigilance and let your guard down?)

There were a lot of people who weren't enemies until Good Ol' Junior got into the White House - let's start with the French, shall we?



Hes really not the prez, Cheney is. Cheney pulls his strings.
(opinion, Fact is he is the actual President.)

No, he's not really the prez, Gore is. It's pretty simple mathematics. The fact that you guys haven't gone after him with pitchforks and flaming torches just proves how good the Bush junta is at lying to the American people.



He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.
(opoinion, untrue according to the law, opinion)

Opinion but obvious to everyone, untrue according to the law but true according to any decent person's judgement, utterly unarguable.


How informed is this voter to vote on such a pile of speculation, opinion and untruth....does anyone vote on the issues?

If you took off your Republican hat and actually looked at what this moron has done since he cheated his way through Inaugeration Day, I'm sure you'd share a lot of Skadi's opinions. I simply cannot believe that otherwise intelligent people are so blinded by partisanship that they'll try and re-elect Bush. You can't really be ignorant of what he is, I know you can't; and I also know that you can't say it out loud on this board, because Bush's GOP Henchmen will come to your house and break your kneecaps...

So how about this, CazMedia. Listen to your inner voice. When you stand in front of the ballot box in November, no-one will know if you vote for Kerry. That way, you can still wear you GOP badge, you can still protest about a Democratic President for the next four years, but at least you won't have placed your nation in the hands a of stupid, dangeours liar.

C'mon this bunch of Democracts are practically Republican in every important way, so it's not like you'd be betraying your right-wing values. It's perfect!



Editted for clarity and layout.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by StrangeLands]




posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Strangeland says,
"quote may only be second-hand - second-hand from a very reliable source,"
source relaibility is not in question per say...Second hand information is called HEARSAY and has no standing in a legal sense....LETS VOT ON HEARSAY!

Strangland questions my critique of,
quote:
He is recalling retirted and IRR personell to fill the ranks of his stupid wars.
(They knew this could occur when they VOLUNTEERED for millitary service)

"I'm pretty sure that these fine men and women joined the armed forces to defend their country, not act as pawns for Bush's Hollywood War Hero fantasy."

Blame Bush for what here?
Anyone that joins the millitary joins to serve in whatever capasity they are needed, according to whomever the leader is in office. Recruits are told of the fine print rules when they sign up. This "clause" in their contract if you will, existed long before Bush.

Strangelands commenting on the OPINION that bush is stupid.
"surely no-one is even trying to defend Bush's stupidity anymore, are they? The guy is a C-grade student, plain and simple - and, coincidentally, he's also plain and simple. "

If one is a C student, then that means that youve preformed your educational requirements in a way that is "average"....this is a relative way to score"intelligence" as it doesnt totally measure how smart you are, it also measures how well you met graduation criteria.

Are you trying to DEMEAN the majority of those of us that score C's thruought college and say that this would make us not qualified to become President? There have many plain simple people with low educational credentials, that have become great contributors to this nation...ABE LINCON RING A BELL? Again this is a USELESS way to try and legitimise a vote for President.

Strangelands attempts to justify another OPINIONabout Bush's lack of caring,
"Yes, But opinion supported by a whole barrel-load of evidence."
Evidence thast was not presented, and im sure most of which would be questionable as lack of caring is a floating point depending on who you ask what an appropriate level of care is. (again OPINION)

Strangelands struggles to attack Bush on negative atitudes twords the USA, "There were a lot of people who weren't enemies until Good Ol' Junior got into the White House - let's start with the French, shall we?"

While France certantly han not been very cordial twords US interests for some time now, i hadnt heard they had declaired the USA an enemy...in fact i thought we were still allies!? I consider France and Germany and Russia just as culpable for the Iraq mess (FOOD FOR OIL SCANDLE/erronious or false WMD information) for perpetuating the situation as the USA is for taking actions there. Dont think that becouse those other nations didn't "pull the trigger" in Iraq, that they werent up to their NECKS in what was going on there.

Strangelands discusses weather Bush is the President of the USA,
"No, he's not really the prez, Gore is. It's pretty simple mathematics.

Check REALITY dude!! Bush IS the President of the USA weather you like it or not......the #'s in the popular vote are MEANINGLESS in a society using a representative method to elect the President...Can you say electoral college? Hate Bush because you want to fantasize that he's not the President....Again how do some of you people cast your votes?

Strangeland, still trying to make OPINION into fact,
"
quote:
He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.
(opoinion, untrue according to the law, opinion)
Opinion but obvious to everyone, untrue according to the law but true according to any decent person's judgement, utterly unarguable.

I think "OPINION BUT," pretty much confirms that this reason to hate bush is based on OPINION, however lets pound this one home...
UNTRUE according to the law means that printing statements that are FALSE under the law, is SLANDER under the law....
Hate bush because of our Slanderous and Libel statements??? Please...
Just say"Vote based upon our lies" instead...LOL!

Strangeland states before i intterupt him,
"I'm sure you'd share a lot of Skadi's opinions. I simply cannot believe that otherwise intelligent people are so blinded by partisanship that they'll try and " LET ME HELP YOU HERE.
They'll try and oppose the Presidents reelection based on OPINION, SPECULATION, and LIES!!! Why dont you just throw darts at your ballot to make this decision? Id rather trust random chance than the reasons being given here by you and Skadi for not voting for Bush.

Strangeland tries to whip up some FEAR as a reason,
"I also know that you can't say it out loud on this board, because Bush's GOP Henchmen will come to your house and break your kneecaps... "
OOOhhh Im sooo scared...booga booga....LMAO!
Ill say what I please reguardless of what someone likes or doesnt. COME AND GET ME!

Strangelands urges me to vote by "Listen to your inner voice"
If I did that, there would be NO WAY IN HELL i would not vote for Bush based on any of the "criteria" we've just discussed....almost all of which is OPINION, SPECULATION, OR UNTRUTHS/MISSREPRESENTATION OF FACTS.
ALL of which are used to support an EMOTIONAL basis for justification of this position.

None of this INFORMS about the candidates stated positions, where they differ, where theyre similar....Nothing here actually talks about anything that the President has/has not done in TANGIBLE SPECIFICS, only over-hyped hearsay. THIS IS THE INFORMED, M.MOORE LOVING, BELIEVE ANY FANTASY THAT FITS OUR ADGENDA VOTERS TALKING HERE.....Believe anything, just dont vote BUSH!!

You said I was unfair in my critique, I hope I was twice as unfair with this one, as ive pretty much had to say everything twice since youve only restated the OPINION, SPECULATION, AND UNTRUTHS, from Skadi's post.

DENY OPINION, SPECULATION, AND UNTRUTHS! Oh yeah i meant DENY IGNORANCE!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Hm.

You might want to settle down there, CazMedia. I'd hate for you to burst something, and all those capital letters aren't very easy on the eye.

I have stated, time and again, evidence which shows Dubya is stupid. I didn't want to clutter up this thread by posting a selection of links again, but if you really insist, then I'm happy to. I do think it's amusing, however, that you deny Bush is stupid - and then try and explain why a stupid person would make a fine president. Isn't that interesting?

I'm glad that you think that Bush pursuing a personal vendetta and trying to establish some fictional War Hero credentials are appropriate uses of American military forces. Others - y'know, those who were more interested in the spirit of the law, rather than the abused letter - might disagree. But then, that would be no fun, would it? If you looked to the spirit of the law, Bush would never have been handed the Presidency anyway! It's another example, ladies and gentlemen, of the fine tradition of small-minded, miserly, embittered selfishness that has made the Republican party what it is today!

And lastly, I have no problem with C-grade students. I'm sure they're all good people who pay their taxes and live good, happy lives. Do I think that a C-grade student is smart enough to the President? Not in a million years! Look back through this thread to the conversation I had with jsobecky, CazMedia - and then tell me you really think that Dubya is qualified to run your country.

You can write it all off as lies and speculation if that's really what makes you comfortable, that's your right. After all, the only person you have to satisfy is yourself. I just hope that, when the anger wears off and you see more reports of American soldiers dying in Iraq, and you see your ignorant, dopey president being (rightly) ridiculed wherever you look, that you'll still be happy with your decision.

Long live America.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Strangelands please se my post "so you think Bush is dumb"



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I read the new thread of the subject of Bush's intelligence, mwm1331, and I can't say it made me change my opinion.

Bush is stupid. The weight of overwhelming evidence - not to mention public opinion - is against you on this one.

I wonder, though - do you really believe he's not as dumb as he looks, or are you just stuck in a partisan rut? It's okay if you are, because I can name half-a-dozen Democrats who weren't willing to admit to Clinton's infidelity despite the fathomless oceans of evidence against him.

So, objectively - do you really think this guy is smart enough to be trusted with your country?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Actually strangelands I didnt direct you to the thread in an attempt to change your mind but rather in hopes that you would post your "evdence" there. In response to your question no I do not believe he is stupid. I believe that those who are opposed to his actions, policies, and politics advance that position because it sounds good and is easier than opposing or debating his policies. It seems to me that the entire argument for his stupdity is based on his verbal difficulties. While this can be indicative of a lack of intelligence in some instances I don't believe it is proof of such. It seems to me that in modern American politics the debate of a politicians positions and thier validity has been for the most part replaced with personal attacks and insults. It happened with Clinton, Bush sr, and Reagan, and is not limited to either party. I started the thread in hopes that people who believe he is stupid would attempt to prove thier point by discussing his policies and actions but thus far all I have seen are quotes of stupid things he has said. In my life I have seen some of the smartest people I have ever met say some of the dumbest thngs I have ever heard and while I have marveled at the inanity of thier comments it has not lessened my respect for ther intellect. It is easy to call someone stupid because it cannot be either proved or disproved, However in my opinion what is difficult is to debate the persons policies as this requires a deep understanding of the issues which influence those policies.

Case in point My wife has masters degree in biophysics and is earning her PHD. She is one of the smartest people I have ever known (vastly more so than myself) On one of our first dates she said that her town had a golf course with "all 9 holes" while I still kid her about it to this day it has not lessened my respect for her one iota.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I don't base my judgement of Bush's intelligence purely on his capacity to mangle the most straightforward of sentences, or his staggering lack of tact, and now isn't the time for more Dumb-Bush quotes.

On second thoughts, why not?


"Do you have blacks too?"
- Dubya voicing real Republican concern to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso



"It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"
- Junior showing he should have spent more time watching The West Wing and less time watching Baywatch



"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."
- Dubya saying... something, though I've no idea what, on June 4, 2001



"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
- Junior explaining where Mommy and Daddy went wrong on February 21, 2001



"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address - State of the Budget Address, whatever you call it."
- Bush The Lesser, Washington Post. It's okay, it's not like it's important or anything


Now you see why his White House handlers won't let him go near reporters without a script. And it's not just that he displays grammatical and syntactical inexactitude at every turn - he's just plain dumb, too!

  • In February 2002, Dubya lectured the Japanese government that Japan and the US had been allies for "a century and a half", conveniently forgetting that little fracas in the 40s.
  • During the same visit, Dubya confused the words "devaluation" and "deflation" when referring to the yen, causing panic until everyone realised that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
  • During the 2000 campaign, Junior was unable to name the President of Pakistan - even though that country had just undergone a military coup and it was on the front page of every paper for a week.
  • Or the Prime Minister of India.
  • When replying to a journalist from Slovakia, George said "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." The problem, unfortunately, was the Dubya had met the Prime Minister of Slovenia, Janez Drnovsek, not the Foreign Minister of Slovakia. But hey, all those teeny countries sound the same, right?
  • In 1994, on the touchy subject of religion, Dubya gave us all a thrilling theological insight. "The Episcopal Church is very ritualistic and it has a kind of repetition to the service. It's the same service, basically, over and over again. Different sermon, of course. The Methodist Church is lower key. We don't have the kneeling. And I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference as well, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you."
  • Bush laid out his plans for the middle east is plain, simple terms. "No one envisioned Saddam, at least at that point in history, no one envisioned him still standing. It's time to finish the task." Unfortunately, he said that in 1999, during an interview with the BBC. Isn't it weird how "evidence" which gave him cause to invade Iraq popped up just a couple of years later? What a coincidence!
  • And lastly - in 2003, when Bush Jr. gave only his third press conference in three years, he was asked if he had made any mistakes. His full, uneditted reply was:

    "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I can plan for it. Uh... You know, I just, uh... I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet. I, uh... I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and - maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
    No, George. You're not quick at all, are you?

If that isn't enough - and God knows it should be - this is man who cannot understand the simplest contradiction in his policies:

  • He cuts taxes, but wants to reduce the deficit.
  • He calls for a foreign policy based on diplomacy and alliance, then unilaterally asserts American power.
  • He supports in-vitro fertilisation (which destroys embryos) but condemns embryonic stem cell research (because it destroys embryos).

Now this isn't the place for debating the relative merits of these policies - but the fact that Bush can believe all of them offers an interesting insight into the complexity of his thought.

So there you have it, mwm1331 - Bush shows himself to be stupid in every thought, word and deed. He is ignorant, uneducated, witless - phrase it however you like. After all the guy is a convicted drunk driver - how stupid do you have to be to think that driving a car while you're tanked up on al-key-hol is a good idea?

As I said before, after all this time it's no longer the job of Bush's opponents to prove he's stupid. I'm happy to debate the subject at any time. But surely the pressure must now shift to his supporters? Isn't it time that someone - anyone - found a single piece of evidence of Bush's intelligence?

I suspect it's an impossible task.

So there you are, mwm1331 - dumb, whichever way you look at it. And for all those who voted for Bush in 2000 believing he would be good for the country you love, there's an old adage you would do well to remember.


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me

Or, as your illustrious "Leader" would have it:


"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
strange lands that was an excellent post. I will admit that I am not familiar with bush's Pre-presidential carreer. You have given me some excellent questions to ask and some interesting incidents to look into, and for that I thank you. It will take me some time to research and evaluate my opinion so do not intepret my silence as being in the spirit of ill will.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Strangelands, I am glad that you continue to contribute to this thread. You have time and time again brought it back from the brink of turning into unintelligent flame fest.

Allthough I don't necessarily agree with you that BWG is stupid, per se, some of those quotes are downright hilarious


mwm, thank you too for keeping this thread an intelligent one. Do you guys notice that this is one of the only Bush threads that has stayed that way? Now if we can only convince everyone else to keep their heads on straight.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Skadi that self proclaimed evil elf takes the following posisitions against President Bush...lets examine them to see what motivates this voter.


He is recalling retirted and IRR personell to fill the ranks of his stupid wars.
(They knew this could occur when they VOLUNTEERED for millitary service) Thats not the point. The point is he is using this power to recall for dubious means.

He is getting us involved in entirely too many wars and international problems. (Who determines the proper # of international problems to be involved with for a Nation if not its Leader? Is there a # that has been agreed upon?) This is a country BY the PEOPLE For the PEOPLE. The people, the measure of our resources, and common sense tell us how many conflicts we should be engaged in, not some half with college frat boy who cant spell the countries he wants to bomb.

He is stupid as a lump of cow turds.
(opinion) And a very valid one. He cant chew his food without choking, a phase I passed when I was 1 1/2 years old.

he is Skull and Bones.
(The relavence that can be proven is what? Speculative) Relevant enough, this paticular clan of wierdos from Yale seem to be in a pretty tight knit crime family, eh?

He knew about 9/11 and let it happen.
(speculative and NOT proven) Proven by simply rehashing just the media and his own reports of that day on 9/11, add to that his own behavior.

He is planning on permanently establishing us in Iraq.
(this has never been stated policy and Iraq's step twords independance with soverinty shows otherwise)Um pay attention. They are in the process of building 14 permanent bases in Iraq. And Dubya himself said we might be there even until 2010. And the transfer of "soverignty is a joke. The US still controls alot of the policy, see thread under War on Terrorism about the myths of the Iraqi power transfer.

He is gonna reinstitute the draft.
(speculative, millitary may request this from either candidate, and both have indicated they would approve more troops.)Speculation with alot to back it up. See 28 million given to SS board.

His whole cabinet are the worst bunch of crooks in high office since the Nazis. (OPINION....Where are the court cases, charges, anything ACTIONABLE as evidence, and why arent they proceeding NOW if this evidence exists?)Where were the court cases and trials in Nazi Germany for the Nazis? they didnt have them because they simply were above the law and could do whatever they wanted. Bush's Enron Connections, Cheney and Haliburton, the Liar Condi Rice, the Fascist Ashcroft who was defeated in an election by a dead man, lets not start on the trigger happy war monger Rumsfeld.

He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a about the rest of us poor people.
(OPINION)No, not an opinion. He has supported illegal immigration so his fat cat buddies can pay slave laborers from Mexico to mow thier lawns and work for scraps. His tax cuts did me no good, seeing how I never made enough money to pay much in taxes anyway, and he has supported outsourcing.

He is cutting fat deals behind the scenes with scam, shady govornments.
(Speculative at best...can you cite some of these deals? What criteria do you use to judge a government "shady"?)The Saudis. the real terrorists. He blacked out pages of information concerning the Saudis and 9/11. Pakistan. A military dictator, he cuts aid deals for his assitance in the war in Afghanistan. He bribes our allies into supporting the war with Iraq.

he has done nothing to increase security at our borders.
(Based on what comparrison? Today for example, the US Coast Guard will begin to inspect EVERY cargo ship approaching US ports as part of new homeland security steps. It only takes this one exmple to sink a "done nothing" argument.)Yes, and what about the Mexican border, hmmmmm? Theres a REAL problem. Since Mexico really doesnt to much about screening people who come in, it would be nothing for a terrorist to walk across the border like millions of illegals do every year.

He continually antagonizes potentially deadly enemies.
(So are there enemies that arent antagonistic? Are there Enemies that arent potentially deadly? If one has a potentially deadly enemy, you will devote constant vigilance to defence from them. Or do you think there is a time where one can "rest" from this vigilance and let your guard down?)There are enemies that can be dealt with in less bloody ways, more covertly, and through pressure on other entities. If you antagonize the wrong enemy, his allies will gather around and destroy you. See North Korea. Attack them, and you think China is gonna ignore it? Playing with big military exercises near China while we got a war going on in the middle east is not smart. Ask Hitler about the two front war.
he continues free trade with China.

His is a crazy religious fanatic who hears voice from god. Alot like Bin Laden. (opinion, I have yet to see where the "god told me" quote has been DIRECTUALLY attributal to Bush and not quoted second hand) I have. God told him to run for Office. God told him America has a duty to the world to "fight evil". Right after the 9/11 attacks.

Hes really not the prez, Cheney is. Cheney pulls his strings.
(opinion, Fact is he is the actual President.) He is the president in name. Cheney is the president in reality. Bush is his happy puppet.

He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.
(opoinion, untrue according to the law, opinion)According to his twisted version? Just like, according to the definition, Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Semantics. In reality, he took off. AWOL. Argue the letter of the law all you like, the actual reality of it, he took off and was pretty absent. Incompetant leader? That shows by his actions alone. And the miserable state of the union right now.

His mouth keeps writing America checks our cant cash.
(False, CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS OF AMERICA)You obviously dont get the meaning of that phrase. "Dont let your mouth write checks your ass cant cash." A term meaning dont start # you aint gonna be able to take the beating for. hes running around the world starting conflicts and animosities we cant afford to get involved in. He is making the world a deadly place for us.

I hope he burns in hell forever
(Spiteful)Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!

To sum this up...skadi's vote appears to break down to 5 innacurate statements, 7 statements of opinion, and 4 speculations...plus one Hateful remark relfecting hostility. There was nothing inaccurate in my posting. Some was opinion, some was fact, and my opinions can be based on facts that arent spun and sugared up by media.

How informed is this voter to vote on such a pile of speculation, opinion and untruth....does anyone vote on the issues?
Obviously, Im alot more informed and more willing to look deeper into things than you are. Im informed enough to know that voting Democrat and republican is the same thing, and will continue to vote for third party leaders, because, unlike you, I am informed enough to know this two party system is gonna bury America. And I know this current president we have is gonna start a war that is going to hurt us BAD.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Hmm, how to begin to keep this consise?

examination of Skadi's retort,

Issue of: recalling millitary to active duty.
SKADI: "The point is he is using this power to recall for dubious means."
Notice the word dubious thrown in there, this makes this a SPECULATIVE/OPINION statement, instead of a statement of fact.

ISSUE OF: # of wars and international problems.
SKADI: "This is a country BY the PEOPLE For the PEOPLE. The people, the measure of our resources, and common sense tell us how many conflicts we should be engaged in, not some half with college frat boy who cant spell the countries he wants to bomb. "
First of all, the popular vote means nothing. we have a representative democracy here in the USA, so the people dont get to rule, the LEADERS ELECTED do.
ALSO, the phrase "not some half with college frat boy who cant spell the countries he wants to bomb." is soo filled with opinion, that if you had an earlier point, its lost once you hit pure speculations.

ISSUE OF: He is as studid as a lump of cow turds
I said this was a statement of opinion, Skadi agrees..."And a very valid one" Skadi you agreed that this was opinion and not fact, then you try and justify this with choking on a piece of food?
1) Why would you try to back up something you just agreed was opinion not fact? what point can you prove?
2) How can you hate a person for choking on a piece of food?

ISSUE: skull and bones members
Skadi: Relevant enough, this paticular clan of wierdos from Yale seem to be in a pretty tight knit crime family, eh?
You provide nothing to show relavency here, then you again lapse into allegations that are SPECULATIVE at best. Where is evidence of skull and bones being related to any crimes?

ISSUE: pre knowledge of 9-11 and compliance with the event.
Again you offer only tenuous information that NOONE in the WORLD main stream media has EVER said had ANY valididty.
This remains speculative.

ISSUE: permanently establishing us in Iraq.
BIG DEAL, like the USA doesnt have bases all over the world, and multiples of them in some places? I say the red menace is dead, lets close ALL bases in Germany now that their not needed...so what....
How long do you think the USA has had dealings inside of Iraq?
a heck of a lot longer than we've been warring..

ISSUE: reissuing the draft
SKADI again agreeing with my speculation assesment..."Speculation with alot to back it up. See 28 million given to SS board. "
Defense of speculation is not a strong argument to say the least....
registering for selective service has been the law for a long time.. how does the fact that we have a selective service aparatus in place mean that it WILL be used again? It COULD, but there have been NOstatements from the WhitHouse that they would or will do this.
(Again agreed speculation)

ISSUE: His whole cabinet are the worst bunch of crooks in high office since the Nazis. (OPINION....Where are the court cases, charges, anything ACTIONABLE as evidence, and why arent they proceeding NOW if this evidence exists?)Where were the court cases and trials in Nazi Germany for the Nazis? they didnt have them because they simply were above the law and could do whatever they wanted. Bush's Enron Connections, Cheney and Haliburton, the Liar Condi Rice, the Fascist Ashcroft who was defeated in an election by a dead man, lets not start on the trigger happy war monger Rumsfeld.

This misdirection of the argument was supposed to throw me off the trail?
trying to show a linkage between the Bush administration and NAZI's is speculative and playing to fear. you then list a bunch of names, i guess to imply that these people are above the law.
Again, you are trying to contrast 2 unrelated things (BUSH/Nazi's) to draw a SPECULATIVE conclusion.

ISSUE: "He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a about the rest of us poor people.
(OPINION)No, not an opinion. He has supported illegal immigration so his fat cat buddies can pay slave laborers from Mexico to mow thier lawns and work for scraps. His tax cuts did me no good, seeing how I never made enough money to pay much in taxes anyway, and he has supported outsourcing. "
Id like to see any of these allegations proved. specifically support of illegal imigration workers
Also when did he support outsourcing?
The basic statement "He is clueless and doesnt seem to give a about the rest of us poor people. " is almost PURE OPINION. How do you know if he is clueless or not? Where is a directly attributal quote where the President states he supports outsourcing?

ISSUE: cutting deals with shady governments.
Youd like to say the saudis were cut a shady deal, yet you can only cite blacked out pages that WE DONT KNOW what they say? Talk about complete SPECULATION. you never listed any criteria for how one determines weather or not a government is shady....and you alledge bribery to our allies for their support....one way or the other, our allies are responsible for supporting us based upon their OWN assesment of the situation. No one but them decides on what they are going to do. even if we ask/bribe/threaten them...they ultimatley have the authority and responsibillity to decide their own actions...

ISSUE: done nothing about border secutrity.
So i gave you an example about something being done. this makes your statement FALSE, yet you then try to skip over than by MISDIRECTING the argument to bring up another related point....STICK TO THE POINT, which was at least on this one, youvebeen shown to have made a false statment and then try retracting it.

ISSUE: antagonising enemies.
SKADI: There are enemies that can be dealt with in less bloody ways, more covertly, and through pressure on other entities. If you antagonize the wrong enemy, his allies will gather around and destroy you. See North Korea. Attack them, and you think China is gonna ignore it?

At what point do you stop enemy states from messing with you...also how?
Yes there are non violent ways to deal with enimies, but the ultimate expression of DIPLOMACY is WAR.....without the threat of war, what keeps nations from screwing one another over? What makes a treaty enforcable....THE USE OF FORCE that backs up words with ACTIONS.
You mentioned N Korea..."Attack them, and you think China is gonna ignore it? "
Well YES actually.
It is in China's best intrest to keep making millions off of trade with the USA way more so than it is to constantly have to PAY N Korea relief. China knows that N Korea is a cold war relic and i think while they wouldnt ignore a US/NK onflict...they wouldnt jump in front of the USA to stop it either...actually i think the USA would let China take out NK, both to let China show world leadership in their region as well as to keep the USA from having to do anything. but this diverges off topic.
Your defense of this issue was FEAR based...ooh no,someone might fight
ooh noo....hiding never saved anyone or accomplished anything.

ISSUE: Bush religious fanaticism.
There is a whole thread going on where this "QUOTE" about bush saying "god told him so" has 3 pages, and you know what? NOONE there has yet to get closer than 3 steps to actually attributing this to Bush.
second hand hearsay is all iveseen here. remains opinion.

ISSUE: Bush not the President.
Skadi: He is the president in name. Cheney is the president in reality. Bush is his happy puppet.
SO you again admit that your first post was innaccurate (a lie)
THEN you go back to using OPINION that cant be substantiated. (Cheny really President, Bush happy puppet) CAN YOU NOT SEE why im asking questions about these points? look at all the factless OPINION.

ISSUE: incompetancy, desertion, intellect level
Trying to avoid the fact that youve stated OPINION when you say Bush deserted...by throwing the legal realitiy out the window by saying thats just semantics is rediculous. There was no legal dessertion found, Like it or not. You may cntinue to slander all you want,but thats all it is too...slander.
Incompancy is interpretational as "That shows by his actions alone. And the miserable state of the union right now. " are certantly debatable.
I feel his actions are acceptable, you do not....i dont feel things in the union are bad, you do. What criteria do you use to make this judgment?
intellect level....are you sure yours is up to this?

ISSUE: Putting the USA into situations that might be unmanagable.
(not being able to back up the talk with action)
Skadi: "hes running around the world starting conflicts and animosities we cant afford to get involved in. He is making the world a deadly place for us."
What criteria have you used to determine what can/cant be affordable to the USA. When for the past 25 years have you seen Americans not getting threatened and blown up in our embassies, barracks ect..? I think the world has been plenty deadly for Americans for a while, and we cant rubber pad our country to make it "all safe"...you think we can do that for the world?
This remains entirely speculation.

SKADI SAYS: " Obviously, Im alot more informed and more willing to look deeper into things than you are. "

Pretty arrogant statement considering ive pointed out at least 2 times where you "bent the truth" in this one...so much for being soo informed that you had to lie twice.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I'm not good with the quote function so lets hope this comes out right



Originally posted by StrangeLands
I don't base my judgement of Bush's intelligence purely on his capacity to mangle the most straightforward of sentences, or his staggering lack of tact, and now isn't the time for more Dumb-Bush quotes.

On second thoughts, why not?


"Do you have blacks too?"
- Dubya voicing real Republican concern to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso



"It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"
- Junior showing he should have spent more time watching The West Wing and less time watching Baywatch



"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."
- Dubya saying... something, though I've no idea what, on June 4, 2001



"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
- Junior explaining where Mommy and Daddy went wrong on February 21, 2001



"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address - State of the Budget Address, whatever you call it."
- Bush The Lesser, Washington Post. It's okay, it's not like it's important or anything



I have already explained that I feel quotes are not proof of a lack of intelligence so lets move on to the next part.


Now you see why his White House handlers won't let him go near reporters without a script. And it's not just that he displays grammatical and syntactical inexactitude at every turn - he's just plain dumb, too!

  • In February 2002, Dubya lectured the Japanese government that Japan and the US had been allies for "a century and a half", conveniently forgetting that little fracas in the 40s.


I think this may be a matter of misinterpertation. the U.S and japan were allies both before and after WW2. I dont think that this statement shows a lack of knowledge of WW2. Rather I think it was a way of impressing on the japanese peple that except for the regrettable period during WW2 The U.S. and japan have very longstanding ties both economically and politically after all it was an merican admiral wh forced Japan to break out of its isolationism.


During the same visit, Dubya confused the words "devaluation" and "deflation" when referring to the yen, causing panic until everyone realised that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.


Again I think this relates more to his language difficulty than his understanding of economics, except for switching words was the speech accurate? devaluation and deflation while different concepts do sound alike and if it was only a word transposition than this s not proof of a lack of intelligence. Also I have never disagreed that in many ways he exhibits symtoms of dyslexia, while I do not knoe whether the president is dyslexic or not even if he were it would still not be proof of stupidity.


During the 2000 campaign, Junior was unable to name the President of Pakistan - even though that country had just undergone a military coup and it was on the front page of every paper for a week.
Or the Prime Minister of India.


While I agree that a lack of familiarity of the leaders of two countries wth nuclear capabillities is troubling we do not know if it because he is not smart enough to retain information or if it is was a matter of focusing his education in foriegn affairs towards the middle east instead. While I agree that bush did not have a great understanding of foreign affairs prior to his campaign ( which in truth is no indictment as that information would have had lttle relevance to his duties as govenor of texas) A lack of knowledge is not indicative of itelligence only of the focus of ones education and interests.


When replying to a journalist from Slovakia, George said "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." The problem, unfortunately, was the Dubya had met the Prime Minister of Slovenia, Janez Drnovsek, not the Foreign Minister of Slovakia. But hey, all those teeny countries sound the same, right?


Again we face the subject of word transposition which I assume we will have to agree to disagree upon


In 1994, on the touchy subject of religion, Dubya gave us all a thrilling theological insight. "The Episcopal Church is very ritualistic and it has a kind of repetition to the service. It's the same service, basically, over and over again. Different sermon, of course. The Methodist Church is lower key. We don't have the kneeling. And I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference as well, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you."


While I agree that lack of knowledge of the doctrinal differences between two churces is indictive of a lack of theological knowledge it neither supports or refutes either of our positions. I believe the last line was meant to be taken in the theologicl context only.


Bush laid out his plans for the middle east is plain, simple terms. "No one envisioned Saddam, at least at that point in history, no one envisioned him still standing. It's time to finish the task." Unfortunately, he said that in 1999, during an interview with the BBC. Isn't it weird how "evidence" which gave him cause to invade Iraq popped up just a couple of years later? What a coincidence!


I have never refuted that Bush intended to move against Iraq at the earliest opportunity I disagree that he manufactured that opportunity. Though I will fully admit that Bush was predisposed to viewing the available data in a way which would support his conclusions I have yet to see any evidence that he manipulated or manufactured that data. We are all after all products of our perception.


And lastly - in 2003, when Bush Jr. gave only his third press conference in three years, he was asked if he had made any mistakes. His full, uneditted reply was:

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I can plan for it. Uh... You know, I just, uh... I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet. I, uh... I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and - maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
No, George. You're not quick at all, are you?


I agree fully that Bush is not quick on his feet when it comes to formulating verbal respionse but agin I cannot objectivly view that alone as proof of mental febleness


If that isn't enough - and God knows it should be - this is man who cannot understand the simplest contradiction in his policies:

  • He cuts taxes, but wants to reduce the deficit.


I dont see this in and of itself as a contradiction. If government spending is reduced by more than the tax burden then both goals are obtainable. While I agree tht it is highly ambitious I can not fault a president for his ambition.


He calls for a foreign policy based on diplomacy and alliance, then unilaterally asserts American power.


I disagree tht he unilaterally asserted power in Iraq or Afghanistn which is what I took this comment to be in relation to ( if I am mistaken please explain which actions you were referring to) In the case of afghanistan I remember no countries protesting our involvement there and in the case of Iraq ther was a resolution authorising the use of force. While france and germany wanted to wait before enforcing that resolution the fact remains that the U.S. did have U.N. authority to invade.


He supports in-vitro fertilisation (which destroys embryos) but condemns embryonic stem cell research (because it destroys embryos).

I think this difference can be explained by the fact that I.V fertilistion is done in pursuit of creating a new life. I.E. some embryos are destroyed but It is done to create a new life. whereas in stem cell research ther is no intent to create life. Although I disagree with this policy I do not see an inherant contridiction

Now this isn't the place for debating the relative merits of these policies - but the fact that Bush can believe all of them offers an interesting insight into the complexity of his thought.

But that is my point strangelands while I can understand a cursory examination of these policies would seem to create inconsistancies on deeper examination I do not believe they are
So there you have it, mwm1331 - Bush shows himself to be stupid in every thought, word and deed. He is ignorant, uneducated, witless - phrase it however you like. After all the guy is a convicted drunk driver - how stupid do you have to be to think that driving a car while you're tanked up on al-key-hol is a good idea?

Though I cannot under any cirmucstances condone drunk driving I myself when younger have been guilty of it. While I am still ashamed of it to this day, Its more about carelessness in my opinion than stupidity. While your post did give me food for thought in the end I cannot accept it as proof for the reasons gven above.


As I said before, after all this time it's no longer the job of Bush's opponents to prove he's stupid. I'm happy to debate the subject at any time. But surely the pressure must now shift to his supporters? Isn't it time that someone - anyone - found a single piece of evidence of Bush's intelligence?


I disagree I believ it is up to those who advance claims to prove them as the burden of proof must ALWAYS fll upon the accuser.


I look forward to your reply.

P.S sorry for the wierd structure but I have no clue how to use the quote function



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply, mwm1331. I don't see that either of us will gain anything by another point-by-point analysis, so I'll try and keep this concise. I must, however, object to your analysis to three particular points: firstly, Bush's "devaluation" and "deflation" mix-up betrays at the very least a significant ignorance both of economics and of his audience. The same, I believe, could be said for the "Slovenia" and "Slovakia" mistake - surely that goes beyond simple error and enters the realm of embarrasing diplomatic gaffe?

And thirdly, I didn't mean to suggest that people who have formerly been convicted of drunk driving are all stupid. The difference, I would suggest, is that Bush has never shown any remorse or contrition for his crime - nor has he publically admitted it.

Specifics aside: while your reply was interesting and well-researched, I think you're labouring under two important misapprehensions.

Firstly, it's unlikely we'll ever see one single, incontrovertible piece of evidence for Bush's stupidity - by which, I mean the results of an IQ test, or a general knowledge quiz, or a detailed examination of his high school or college grades. However, I believe the cumulative effect of all this evidence is clearly persuasive. If you look at every quote, at every malapropism and verbal stumble, at every incorrect fact and bizarre assertion, how can you not come to the conclusion that this man is, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually deficient?

That, to me, is the main point. Each individual piece of evidence may be refuted to a greater or lesser degree. This is because "stupidity" is a relative thing. But the overall, cumulative effect of all this evidence cannot be denied.

Secondly, you've conceded, both in this most recent post and in the past, that Bush is verbally clumsy, poorly educated, gauche and tactless, and ignorant of a great many important details of politics, diplomacy, history, economics, science, current affairs and so on. What, may I ask, is the difference between someone who is that uneducated and ignorant - and shows no desire to improve themselves - and someone who is just fundamentally stupid? I would suggest that, to the average voter or observer, there is no discernable difference.

Junior's advisors, on the other hand, are not stupid. They must be aware that their President is regarded throughout the world as a moron and an imbecile. You would expect, wouldn't you, that they would take great pains to show him in an intellectual light, that they would somehow attempt to spin his image - not to Clinton or Gore standards of intellectualism, but at least to make it look like he's not the dimmest bulb in the White House?

And yet, all we've seen is obfuscation and denial - the CazMedia Approach, to coin a phrase. Even the upper echelons of the GOP don't bother denying his toe-curling ignorance any longer. Why do you suppose that is? The time when Bush's "simplicity" and "straightforwardness" were beneficial to his campaign has long passed. Even staunch right-wingers are turning against this man - and studies show that the two main reasons the GOP is losing ground are the lies over Iraq, and Duya's personal stupidity. While I agree, in principle, with your assertion that the burden of proof must be on the accuser, there comes a time when there must be some evidence presented by the defence. Have you seen any? Has anyone?

I understand that the "Is Bush Stupid?" question is inflammatory and possibly counterproductive. Let me, then, place a different, clarified series of questions before you:

  • Is Bush intellectually capable of fulfilling his duties as president?
  • Is Bush as intellectually capable of fulfilling his duties as president as former holders of that office?
  • Is Bush as intellectually capable of fulfilling his duties as president as his senior advisors?
  • Is Bush as intellectually capable of fulfilling his duties as president as the average person in the street?
  • And the important one - is Bush as intellectually capable of fulfilling his duties as president as his opponents in November's election?

As far as I can see, the answer to each question is, sadly, "no".

And, lest we forget, this is just one small factor in the ever-more prevalent "hatred" of Bush and what he stands for. As I've said before, it's pointless to hate him for his blatant Republicanism - that's what he is - but there are other, perfectly legitimate reasons to fear for the future of the United States if this man is re-elected.

Thank you, once again, for your reasonable and intelligent post.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Strangelands, while i can concede that we have no other choice than to agree to disagree there are a few points you made I would like to address.
In my response to your comment on his verbal gaffe in japan, I was advancing the view that he mixed up devaluation and deflation due ONLY to the similrities in the way the words sound not the similrities of the concept. I m a Venture Capalist by profession and do understand the difference between the two concepts.
Secondly the point I was trying to make is that almost all of the verbal mistakes I have seen pointed out seem to be of the same nature I.E. misspeaking slovenia when he means slovakia, deflation when he means devaluation, it seems to me that almost all of his verbal misques are of ths nature which leads me to believe he has dyslexia or some other related learning disabillity.
third while I agree that there will never be any conclusive proof that he is either stupid or intelligent what worries me is that 90% of the belief in his stupidity seems to stem from his apparent verbal disorder.
Also I must point out that while I have readily admitted to his verbal diffuculty I cant recall a time I have stated that I believe him to be uneducated or tactless.
Finally I dont believe it is the President job to be an expert in the details of history or current affairs and the like. In many ways it is similar to my own position, while I am familar and conversant with the economies of many countries I do not need to be an expert in the econmy of any one, I have a staff for that. The situation is the same for taxes, law and currencies. My job as the head of my department is to hve enough of a basic understanding of each subject to be able to direct my staff who are the experts in each field. The truth is I care more about a president goals and vision for the country than whether or not he is a Nobel prize laureate in economics. (can anyone say bartlett for america?:duh

It reminds me of a story about Andrew Carnegie, A newspaper editor ( I forget for which paper) once called Carnegie ignorant, offended he sued for libel. The newspapers lawer in an attempt to show that the comment was truthful as opposed to libelous began to ask Mr. carnegie varius questions in an attempt to prove this. Hs response was (not a direct quote) "Young man why would I clutter my mind with all of this knowledge when upon my desk I have a row of electric push buttons, which ,when pushed, can summon to my aid an expert in any one of the subjects you have just mentioned, who has devoted his life to that particular area of study?" Shortly thereafter the judge ruled in Mr. Carnegie's favor correctly stating that by showing his understanding of the purchase of informatin Mr. Carnegie had shown himself not to be ignorant.
I dont believe George W Bush to be a genius but neither do I believe him to be a simpleton. I believe he is a man of average intelligence who has employed advisors who are smarter and more knowledgable in some areas than himself. (which by the way is what a president is supposed to do)
However I also agree with agreat many (though not all ) of his policies, which may and probably does, influence my opinion of the man just as I suspect that your disaproval of hs policies and party influence your perceptions of him.
What this boils down to I think is that when compared to Clinton (whose policies I usually disagreed with but whos comfort and presence on camera and verbal skills no one could deny) Bush is indeed a verbal disaster but I have known too amny people in my life who spoke like idiots despite a fierce inteligence (or in some cases because of) to assume that these mistakes show the measure of his mind.
Finally to awnser your questions I think the awnser to the first 4 is yes. While I dont believe Bush is the smartest president we have ever had I also dont think he is the dumbest. As for the last question I really dont know whos smarter but to me the most important thing is whos vision of America would I rather see come true and the fact is I dont like what little I have seen of Kerry's vision.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for me the reach of a president is more important that his grasp (to paraphrase an old saying)



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I apologise if I misconstrued what I what took to be tacit agreement to my points regarding Bush's lack of education and tact in your earlier posts.

It seems that there are two arguments here:

One
We assume that Bush Minor doesn't suffer from any verbal, cognitive or educational disability.

I do understand your point about his innopportune substitution of words. My point is this: when you're addressing a foreign government, when your speech is autocued up in front of you, would you make a mistake and say "devaluation" instead of "deflation"? Do you know anyone who would? Just saying that it's a verbal slip and not an economic one does not excuse the mistake. What about "Solvakia" and "Slovenia"? You don't think that it's part of his job to at least pay attention to who he's talking to?

If you're correct about him being "an average guy", you have to ask the question: is an average guy qualified to run the last remaining superpower? Bush has shown one many diverse occasions that he isn't as knowledgeable or as eloquent as the average member of ATS!

As I indicated before - you may be able to forgive him one slip, but after the first five hundred you have to start wondering if this guy is capable of doing the job.

Two
We assume that Dubya is indeed labouring under some unspecified mental difficulty.

Firstly, why hasn't he admitted to such an impediment? Secondly, how has it escaped the attention of the press for so long? Thirdly, what the hell is he doing sitting in the most important seat in the world if he can't understand what's going on around him? The Presidency isn't just important for America, it's important on a global scale! I'm all in favour of antidiscriminatory policies for hiring those who are less well-equipped than we are, but I draw the line at any job which gives a person access to nuclear weapons!


Either way, we're talking about a person who is described, even by his most ardent supporters, as being of "average" intelligence. Even if this is true (and I think it's charitable), my question is quite simple - is "average" good enough?

Okay, the post doesn't necessarily call for a Nobel winning economist, but surely it calls for someone with wit, vision and passion - and the intelligence to understand how to change things. I don't believe the choice is really between a smart Democrat and a hick Republican, and I don't believe for a moment that all Republicans are stupid - which just makes it all the more remarkable that the GOP thought Bush was the best person for the job...

I sense we're approaching the end of this discussion, mwm1331, but I want to thank you for your courteous and interesting posts. And, as a nod to your Browning quote, I'll offer this:


"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."


The speaker? None other than George Washington. I wonder what he'd make of the current occupant of the White House?



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
First of all, let me clarify the issue i see.
Strangelands, dont take this the wrong way but,

Here we have a foriegn national (strangeland), telling US citizens to hate their President, using reasons that are primarily non factual.
And you think this is ok? I think this sounds like subversion.
Fortunatly I get a vote here and you dont.

Strange talks about "the CazMedia Approach"
While Im honored to have a debate tactic named after me,
can you clarify for everyone what this tactic IS?
Do you have a problem with classification of statements made by someone being examined as to determine what kind of sentance they just uttered?
Why is this basic use of a language skill innapropriate to decipher the meaning of someones statements?

Hmm, so out of several initial points Skadi brought up, which i disputed...here's how youve scored

3 admissions of using opinion to imply fact.
from my previous post - a vote for no reason

1) Strangeland says,
"quote may only be second-hand..."
so your saying that second hand hearsay is a valid source or equals fact??

2)Strangelands attempts to justify another OPINION about Bush's lack of caring,
"Yes, But opinion supported by a whole barrel-load of evidence."
You mean a barrel load of opinionated strung together quotes that are out of context. Do you think that out of context quotes count as fact because they have been selectivly chosen and edited together to support
your assertion?

3)Strangeland, still trying to make OPINION into fact,
"He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron."
(opoinion, untrue according to the law, opinion)
Opinion but obvious to everyone, untrue according to the law but true according to any decent person's judgement, utterly unarguable.
So again you admit to using opinion as well as use of slander/misstatments to justify your position?

Now on to some other dubious methods of attacking the President.

Strangelands discusses weather Bush is the President of the USA,
"No, he's not really the prez, Gore is. It's pretty simple mathematics.
So its ok to misdirect/misstate actual facts to support your case?

again with the dessertion allegation....you admit that legally he is not a deserter...yet you try to misdirect attention to a false statement about the masses PERCIEVED guilt of desertion. Thats just like saying OJ Simpson killed Nichole...legally he is not a murderer, yet so many will say he did it....I predict the same in the Mike Jackson case...he'll be found guilty, yet his blind legions will not want to accept the legal jurisdiction and believe otherwise...that belief wont get him out of prison will it....certantly one can choose to not believe in a legal situation, but that doesnt change the FACTS of its status.

so far this is 3 statements of opinion and 2 misstatements/redirections of fact...

Then you throw in a little emotional ploys...fear mongering with statements like "Bush's GOP Henchmen will come to your house and break your kneecaps... " or even talk about former friends that have turned into enemies with ""There were a lot of people who weren't enemies until Good Ol' Junior got into the White House - let's start with the French, shall we?"

We are now up to 3x opinions, 2x mis-statements, and 2x fear mongering statements...

Lets add the incidents of speculation from you...

Strange on recall of vets to service,
""I'm pretty sure that these fine men and women joined the armed forces to defend their country, not act as pawns for Bush's Hollywood War Hero fantasy."
Youve just speculated as to the motive Bush had for war, and this had never been a stated reason he's ever given. This is also inflamitory.

You also speculate that a C student is NOT fit to be President. Thanks for insulting the majority of Americans that are "average" and scored the bulk of the C grades.

LETS RECAP:
My fellow citizens, this foriegn national that does not get to vote here, wants to influence our election by advocating you to vote his way.
His position comes from the use of; 3x opinions, 2x mis-statements, 2x fear mongering statements(emotional ploys), and at least 2x speculations....this comming from his own words.

If youd like to support him, then by all means cast your vote based on OPINION, SPECULATION, MIS-INFORMATION and EMOTIONAL PLOYS..instead of voting on the real issues such as the war, economy, education, the deficit ect ect.

This argument presented by Strangelands is a smokescreen issue to divert your attentions from the real issues....he uses smoke and mirrors to mis-direct your attentions to fluff points and away from serious issues.

I dont care about the fact that he or anyone hates the President...I DO care that as MWM1331 says "I believe that those who are opposed to his actions, policies, and politics advance that position because it sounds good and is easier than opposing or debating his policies. "

MWM 1331 says, "It seems to me that in modern American politics the debate of a politicians positions and thier validity has been for the most part replaced with personal attacks and insults."
With that said...
I am especially concerned that the average American will actually believe these OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS are presented as FACTS, when indeed they are not. They are essentialy personal attacks and insults.

I urge anyone that is a voter and trying to DENY IGNORANCE to not fall prey to petty arguments such as the one presented by Strangelands.
vote on the real issues and use facts.

Strangeland continues tho,
"While I agree, in principle, with your assertion that the burden of proof must be on the accuser, there comes a time when there must be some evidence presented by the defence."

If he agrees where the burden of proof lies, then why have I asked repeatedly for many pages now that he shows where his statements are not OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS, yet he avoids this prefering instead to CHANGE THE TOPIC!!

Strangeland switches gears,
"I understand that the "Is Bush Stupid?" question is inflammatory and possibly counterproductive. Let me, then, place a different, clarified series of questions before you: " This has been the basis of his argument for 5 pages on this thread as well as the majority of his position in the 5 pages of "you think bush is stupid" paralell thread flocked to by people that abandoned this one, yet still wanted to spew OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS against the President.

While he poses fine statements of question....ones that i will address later...
Why switch gears at all? Why not defend your allegations instead?
I think the answer is that there is NO defense for OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS.

Again people, i have not in either thread attempted to defend Bush from his detractors, what I have done is to shine a light onto their tactics so that all can see there is no logical basis for OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS! If you as a voter want to waste your vote by being as uninformed as you can, then you'll love his ideas.
If however, you want to vote on real substanitive issues, then consider what ive said about the anti-Bush camps tactics. Its not their ends im questioning, its their means used to get there that i find disturbing.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The real question is, why do so many people love bush?



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Before Strangelands blows a gasket, lets say a few positive things.

I dont think he is a wacko, he has shown some intelligence, determination, and tenaciousness in his position.

I can agree with his assertion that a person should be judged upon his actions as well as his words.
Thus,
I can understand where in a BROAD sense, he is looking at a series of out of context quotes and attempting to draw a conclusion based upon a GENERALLY percieved pattern of behaivior.
However,
In order for any validity to be put upon this broad perception, there needs to be a basis in FACTS, not OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS.

Please note that this is a talk about PERCEPTIONS not factual items.
While voters will of course bring their perceptions along with their facts to the polls...we all need to focus on real tangible policy issues and leave the like/dislike thing aside...

I may not like something, but that doesnt mean its not what is nessisary.....(like doing chores for example, i dont like doing dishes/laundry, but what happens if i dont do them?)

This goes the same for any election....I may not like the candidate's character, his manner of speaking, his style of dress, or whatever...but i should not let these perceptual things block my rational look at the real issues and how that candidate proposes to deal with them.

Judge a book by its cover lately?
Sure seems like it on 10 pages split between 2 Bush bashing threads.
all fluff and no substance.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Here we have a foriegn national (strangeland), telling US citizens to hate their President, using reasons that are primarily non factual.
And you think this is ok? I think this sounds like subversion.


Why? I've never claimed to be an American citizen, I made it clear from the beginning that my stance is that of "concerned bystander". I'm not telling US citizens to hate their President, I'm making it clear why I hate him - that, after, all, is the point of this thread. I have said time and time again that the way in which people vote is between them and the ballot box.

I am amused to discover, however, that your position is so fragile that any foreign criticism is dismissed as "subversion". Or is that just easier than denying my arguments one by one?

Ask yourself this question: since I am a foreigner, how will I benefit from Bush being drop-kicked out of the White House? Why on Earth would I spend all this time and effort proving his stupidity if I didn't think it was genuine and important? I have no vested interest in the US, it makes no difference to me who is in charge. I contribute to these threads because I believe I have a modest degree of insight to share.

So, CazMedia, which one of us is engaging in political subversion? Me, the detached foreigner, or you, the guy who's currently enjoying Bush's latest tax cut?


Strange talks about "the CazMedia Approach"
While Im honored to have a debate tactic named after me,
can you clarify for everyone what this tactic IS?


The CazMedia Approach (TM) is a debating tactic where, instead of engaging in the argument, you blindly deny any evidence or arguments your opponents submit.



Do you have a problem with classification of statements made by someone being examined as to determine what kind of sentance they just uttered?
Why is this basic use of a language skill innapropriate to decipher the meaning of someones statements?


I've no idea what this paragraph means. It looks like English, but...



1) Strangeland says,
"quote may only be second-hand..."
so your saying that second hand hearsay is a valid source or equals fact??


It does not equal fact, but second-hand information is a valid source, particularly when it comes from a respected reporter. Is your own pro-Bush position based entirely on words that the man himself has mumbled? If not, then you're relying on second-hand information to make your decision too.



2)Strangelands attempts to justify another OPINION about Bush's lack of caring...


And now we see why the CazMedia Approach was well-named. Show me how any quotes I have used have been "decontextualised" in a manner which makes them appear more damaging to Dubya than they were to begin with.



3)Strangeland, still trying to make OPINION into fact,
... So again you admit to using opinion as well as use of slander/misstatments to justify your position?


You know, don't you, that TYPING IN CAPITALS doesn't make your argument any more convincing? And I'm curious: my opinion is my judgement based on the evidence I have seen, filtered by my intellect and informed by my sense of morality. Why, exactly, shouldn't I employ my opinion in a debate?

Oh, and for something to be slander, it has to be untrue.



Strangelands discusses weather Bush is the President of the USA,
"No, he's not really the prez, Gore is. It's pretty simple mathematics.
So its ok to misdirect/misstate actual facts to support your case?


Yawn. If you're at all interested in fairness, democracy, the voice of the people or the finer points of electoral law, Bush lost the election. It's really very clear, but it requires a certain distance and clarity to understand.



again with the dessertion allegation.... ...certantly one can choose to not believe in a legal situation, but that doesnt change the FACTS of its status.


Bush's desertion is well documented. That it hasn't been blown up into a national scandal is nothing more than evidence of Daddy's cheque book and Bush Minor's political "favours".



Then you throw in a little emotional ploys...fear mongering with statements like "Bush's GOP Henchmen will come to your house and break your kneecaps... " or even talk about former friends that have turned into enemies with ""There were a lot of people who weren't enemies until Good Ol' Junior got into the White House - let's start with the French, shall we?"


The statement about France is equally well-supported by the documentary evidence and is plain to see for anyone who's reading material extends beyond GOP proganda and the Bush '04 manifesto. The point about GOP henchmen was - and read this carefully - a joke. Do you really think I was suggesting that Dubya indulges in such direct and violent measures to ensure the loyalty of his followers?

Of course not. Why would he, when he has the Supreme Court and FOX in his pocket?



Strange on recall of vets to service,
""I'm pretty sure that these fine men and women joined the armed forces to defend their country, not act as pawns for Bush's Hollywood War Hero fantasy."
Youve just speculated as to the motive Bush had for war, and this had never been a stated reason he's ever given. This is also inflamitory.


You're damn right it's inflammatory. What else should it be, when your pseudo-President ordered American men and women into battle based on a lie? Of course it's never been a "stated reason he's given"! He's too busy making up crap about WMDs and links with Al Qaeda!



You also speculate that a C student is NOT fit to be President. Thanks for insulting the majority of Americans that are "average" and scored the bulk of the C grades.


I would hope that the American electorate would appoint someone exceptional to the White House, not average. Is the Presidency an "average" job? Certainly not! Why, then, would an "average" person be suitable?



My fellow citizens, this foriegn national that does not get to vote here, wants to influence our election by advocating you to vote his way.


Yes, fear the foreigner. They're all out to get you, you know. Only Junior and his Glorious Right-Wing Crusade can save Ol' Glory.




This argument presented by Strangelands is a smokescreen issue to divert your attentions from the real issues....he uses smoke and mirrors to mis-direct your attentions to fluff points and away from serious issues.


Unlike your own factually-based arguments and long posts stuffed full of evidence, right?


I urge anyone that is a voter and trying to DENY IGNORANCE to not fall prey to petty arguments such as the one presented by Strangelands.
vote on the real issues and use facts.


And again! You are going to share some of these "facts" with us at some point, aren't you?



Strangeland continues tho,
"While I agree, in principle, with your assertion that the burden of proof must be on the accuser, there comes a time when there must be some evidence presented by the defence."


You're right, I did say that! And yet, you're still here bitching, rather than posting your extensive collection of facts and evidence. Why should that be, I wonder...




If he agrees where the burden of proof lies, then why have I asked repeatedly for many pages now that he shows where his statements are not OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS, MIS-INFORMATIONS and EMOTIONAL PLOYS, yet he avoids this prefering instead to CHANGE THE TOPIC!!


Everyone else has seen the evidence, everyone else has considered it and come to their own judgement. You are the only person who claims it doesn't exist. Hence "CazMedia Approach".



I dont think he is a wacko, he has shown some intelligence, determination, and tenaciousness in his position.


Gosh, thanks. Not bad for a subversive foreigner, huh?

I feel I have shown sufficient evidence to convince most people that Bush isn't "Good for America". It's not just the staggering stupidity, though I think that any reasonably unbiased person will come to agree with that judgment on their own. It's the lies, and the selfish agenda, and under-the-counter dealings, the shady past, and the fact he didn't win the damn election in the first place and has never been held accountable for it!

Two threads and ten pages, and CazMedia hasn't shown a single fact to support his case. Two threads and ten pages, and CazMedia hasn't acknowledged or directly challenged the evidence I've presented - or even seen it, apparently.

Two threads and ten pages, and he's the only one defending Dubya.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   
In reference to bush intentionally Lying about WMDs here is an article from a source I KNOW has nothing to gain by spreading Bush propaganda

www.aljazeera.com...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join