Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Proof of Bush's intelligence.
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Strangelands,
I asked that you not take my observations personally....they were not meant as an attack to label you, mearly one that asks readers to question the source....You ARE a foriegn national (compared to Americans reading your posts). You ARE advocating a position that takes a hostile, derrogatory and according to the threads title in which you post, hate the President of the USA. You have provided a lot of "evidence" as you say, but none of this is FACT..as my breakdown of your statements have repeatedly shown...they are OPINIONs, to which you are certantly entitled to.

Strange,


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.


It is not my position to SPECULATE on your motives or weather or not you may/may not have any vested interest in the outcome of our election. You said you feel this issue is "genuine and important" (it is) so this IMPLIES that you could have alterior motives and vested interestes. This is speculation by me, but hey, since thats what most of this thread has been based on, why shouldnt I use this tactic as well?

Strange,


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?

I have been hammering on individual items in this thread..posted by others, to attempt to get clarification as to if these points are FACTS or OPINIONS. No one has bothered to answer my challenge to the validity of their statements. You even agreed several times that you were using OPINION as a basis for some of your allegations.
My speculative question about your statements potentially being subversive only questions YOUR remarks, Id like to see other times ive called a foriegn source out, in the same fashon.

Strange,


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?


Hmm lets look up subversion on dictionary.com
Main Entry: sub·ver·sion
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&r-zh&n
Function: noun
: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within; also : the crime of committing acts in furtherance of such an attempt —sub·ver·sion·ary /-zh&-"ner-E/ adjective —sub·ver·sive /-'v&r-siv/ adj or noun —sub·ver·sive·ly adverb —sub·ver·sive·ness noun

Based upon that definition, id say YOU are indeed at least boarderline subversive in your statements. What does the fact that I or any of the Bush bashing citizens that all enjoy the same tax cuts have to do with saying potentially subversive statements?

Strange,


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.

I have not denied that you have brought forth evidence to support your allegations....I have questioned its validity and facts.
I have done the same by attacking your argument over its points....trying to show where your overall argument is flawed not by what your saying, but by the fact that your basis starts with opinion, being sold as fact.

Strange,


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


Lets try this again,
In studying the english language and developing reading comprehension skills, taking any sentance and classifying it as a statement of; fact, opinion, question, speculative, emotional, false, ect is tought to kids so that they can interpret what someone is saying.
This is all ive done with your printed statements. It is a very effective way to cut thru the clutter and determine the point at hand.
Id prefer to say the "CazMedia Approach" is using ones own words against them in order to either back them into a corner they paint for themselves, or to force a retraction or submission of the point.

Strange talks about the Bush/god quote,


It does not equal fact, but second-hand information is a valid source, particularly when it comes from a respected reporter.

LMMFAO!!!!
Look at the washington post cite another papers report, look at that report citing a translated document..this is actually 3 steps from bush's mouth!!! What dont you see about that being total hearsay and non fact?

As a broadcast journalist for over 10 yrs, now in a top 5 market in the USA with a major network,
There are NO respected reporters that use second hand information! Reporters that do use this type of info work for the National Enquirer, not one of the mainstream news organizations. The ones that are cought doing this in the mainstream media are FIRED! The same would go true for use of out of context quotes....they are not considered valid sources of information. ANY sentance youve taken out of the paragraph is decontextualized! These types of statements have the potential to be interpreted in a manner in which it was NOT uttered. weather or not this makes the quote seem more/less dammaging to the speaker is irrelavent to the fact that removing the phrase form the context of its use, automatically puts into question that statements validity. DUH!!!

This is exactly why you dont see these ideas being talked about on mainstream media....There is only speculation and opinion with NO fact.
This drivel might fly on an opinion section in the newspaper, but could not fly as a news story because there is too much slander potential by trying to pass off your statements as factual. Oh yeah, Mike Moore could make a movie for entertainment purposes with this kind of crap info to draw whatever speculation his selective choice of quotes and images strung together desires to show, but this would never count as anything more than entertainment.

Now try and place your arguments into a courtroom situation...
your whole case is circumstantial! Hearsay is not admissable as evidence.
This is why i dont understand how you can logically defend such an emotional and opinion ladden position on a board devoted to DENYING IGNORANCE. Yes i understand this is your OPINION, then stop trying to play it off as FACT!

Strange,


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


here are 2 of your untruths and some evidence to back it up, even tho youve acknowledged that the burden of proof is on the accuser (YOU in this case) as we are innocent until proven guilty here, i will oblige your request.
Strange lies,


He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.

Welcome to the slanders club Strange....
en.wikipedia.org...
From the article,


On September 5, 1973, Bush requested his discharge from service, to be effective on October 1. He wrote, "I am moving to Boston, Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School as a full time student." Jerry Killian recommended approval of the discharge the following day. He had completed 5 years, 4 months and 5 days toward his 6-year service obligation, and was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard on October 1, 1973. He was immediately transferred to the inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado, and then discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974.


So officially Bush recieved an Honorable Discharge for his service.
Disserters do not recieve honorable discgarge.
Yet you will stand up in front of us all and tell a bold face slanderous lie that he deserted!! Sell me a bridge next?

Strange SPECULATES,


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".

The fact that this hasnt become a scandal is because no broadcasters want to go near this lie as none of them want to be sued for slander and or tarnish their news reputations by broadcasting/printing this obvious lie.

Strange tells lie #2,


the fact he didn't win the damn election in the first place and has never been held accountable for it!

and the winner is.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Also see,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again i see that it is ok to use lies to support your allegations eh?
If i as a journalist attempted to use info in the manner that you do...i'd have been terminated long ago.

Strange,


I feel I have shown sufficient evidence to convince most people that Bush isn't "Good for America".


This is why I became a broadcaster long ago, because I realized that most citizens were soo uninformed and ignorant of the REAL issues that they would blindly accept as fact just about anything they hear, factual or not, if it fits their view on the world.

This is the reason that I have stood firm against you. Because i realize that most lazy, party line following, non-investigative, emotionally biased people with the average mentallity of an 8th grader (TV news is written to this level to attract the most viewers), WILL take all of the opinions, speculations and misstatments as youve presented them as TRUTH!

This entire argument youve posed is understandable in a general, base, emotional sense, but upon serious scrutiny it holds no merit. It would hold no merit to be broadcast, or in a court of law. Why should this position NOT be exposed for the lack of facts as well as for the type of over-hyped emotional argument that it really is?

I feel sorry for anyone that holds such an uninformed opinion as this, that they cling to as fact. 4 times in the last thread responce to me you asked for me to de-bunk your allegations, even tho youve already accepted the burden of proof lies with the accusor. I NEVER made statements to back Bush, only ones to blow holes into your case...i didnt come here to defend him, i came in to defend against the use of false and slanderous statements used by anyone to attack any siting President here.
The ball is back into your court to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I'm a little short of time today, so I'll keep this brief.


Originally posted by CazMedia
Hmm lets look up subversion on dictionary.com
Main Entry: sub·ver·sion
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&r-zh&n
Function: noun
: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within; also : the crime of committing acts in furtherance of such an attempt —sub·ver·sion·ary /-zh&-"ner-E/ adjective —sub·ver·sive /-'v&r-siv/ adj or noun —sub·ver·sive·ly adverb —sub·ver·sive·ness noun


Wait a minute., what was that?


...overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within...


Hm. Kind of shot yourself in the foot there, huh CazMedia? As you labour to point out, I'm not "within". That'll teach you to quote from dictionary sites, won't it? It's a repellant habit anyway, you'll be better off without it.



In studying the english language and developing reading comprehension skills, taking any sentance and classifying it as a statement of; fact, opinion, question, speculative, emotional, false, ect is tought to kids so that they can interpret what someone is saying.
This is all ive done with your printed statements. It is a very effective way to cut thru the clutter and determine the point at hand.


I see. I understand your point, and it does have some academic merit. I don't disagree that some of my points have been opinion, speculation or based on emotion. My question is: why should those points be dismissed from the argument? We're not indulging in a technical logical debate, we're discussing why people hate Bush. Why shouldn't people make that judgement based on what they think, what they infer from the documented facts, or what they feel in their gut? Can you, in all honesty, say that you are approaching the next election from a absolutely factual perspective?

I doubt it. I doubt anyone is. We have to make our judgements based on the information available to us - and, as soon as you do that, you're guilty of "speculation" or "opinion". In fact, every time you try and refute one of my points by interpreting the documentary evidence differently, you too are indulging in speculation and opinion.

The difference between us, CazMedia, is that I don't immediately dismiss your point of view just because I doesn't match my own.


Look at the washington post cite another papers report, look at that report citing a translated document..this is actually 3 steps from bush's mouth!!! What dont you see about that being total hearsay and non fact?


I'm unsure which document you're referring to here, but I'll just say this - if it's a choice between a journalist who gets paid whatever he writes, and a politician who needs your support, which one are you more likely to trust?

The quote I linked to earlier (“I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president”) was in fact first hand testimony, reported the respected writer Aaron Latham.


quote:
"He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron."

Welcome to the slanders club Strange....


Actually, that was from Skadi's post, but don't let trifling details deter you.

On the matter of slander, however, I will state flatly and clearly that George W. Bush is both a deserter and an idiot, but not the duly elected President of the United States. If he wants to drag me to court, I'll be only too happy to oblige.

Let's just say, CazMedia, that we interpret the evidence differently - although I'll remind you that I'm the one who doesn't have a vested interest...



This is the reason that I have stood firm against you. Because i realize that most lazy, party line following, non-investigative, emotionally biased people with the average mentallity of an 8th grader (TV news is written to this level to attract the most viewers), WILL take all of the opinions, speculations and misstatments as youve presented them as TRUTH!


Well, as much as I'm sure all the American members of ATS appreciate your role as self-appointed Arbiter of Justice, I'd prefer them to make up their own mind. I encourage all readers of this thread, and any other I contribute to, to study the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusion.

I have presented my view, and I have done so, I believe, with courtesy and clarity. Your repeated denunciations of my posts as "speculation" are unfair and unfounded, unless you are willing to admit that your differing interpretation is also speculation. If that is the case, I am more than willing to debate our relative positions on these issues - but this continued attempt to take the academic high ground and beat me into silence with denials and obfuscation is wearing awfully thin.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Strangeland says,


Let's just say, CazMedia, that we interpret the evidence differently


Id agree with you on that, but wonder how/why you seem to think that using criteria other than lets say, the gennerally accepted standards set by broadcasters or the court system with regard to verifying fact from fiction is useful. Im trying to understand what criteria your using to asses the "evidence". What makes this criteria valid as compared to recognised ways of veriification and use of information.

Case in point
you say,


I will state flatly and clearly that George W. Bush is both a deserter and an idiot, but not the duly elected President of the United States.

you said this after i provided the evidence i was citing (which youve asked and asked for)
How can you look at the US Commission on Human Rights report about the florida election and then deny this informtion?
The same question for Bush's service record...how can you look and see there has never been any formal charges of dessertion filed, and the fact that he can show records of his service combined with the fact that he recieved an honorable discharge, and then turn around and say he was awol? What motivates you to skip over reality and promote the fantasy idea that he is a desserter?

MY OOOPS.
As far as your alledged subversion, I was extrapolating this because your posts are being read WITHIN the USA. I wont split hairs on this one.

I appoligize for mis-quoting a Skadi line to you. There are 2 very similar threads running now, ("bush is stupid" and "why people hate bush") and many of the same people including the both of us have been going back and forth on very similar points in both threads. As i probably had 6-8 different ATS windows open at once to cross referance items, i am not suprised that i made an attribution error. My point about use of facts and not opinion to deny ignorance is the same on both threads.

Also, the document i was refering to was cited by MrMulder in the "Bush going crazy" thread...(yet a third non issue bush bash)...www.hindustantimes.com... I didnt bother to link this as this page has been PULLED at the source...GEE i wonder why...because it was 3rd hand hearsay and not credible responsible journalism? Ive seen variations of this same article cited in various other sources, but they all are one source citing another media source, citing a translated copy of meeting minutes. This is so far from Bush's lips its unreal how anyone could not say this was not a reliable source.

I would like to see your link to


The quote I linked to earlier (“I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president”) was in fact first hand testimony, reported the respected writer Aaron Latham.

I reviewed this entire thread and have not seen this link.

I also noticed that on page 4 you seem to have been censured by the MudPit thought police (eerr uuhh... I mean the restricted debate forum Moderators) and have edited a statement. Can you U2U me with what they asked you to change? I support you freedoms to speak and abhore censureship of your views, however un-factual they are (joke) to be heard by all.

about this "god told bush" quote ive mentioned
you ask,


I'm unsure which document you're referring to here, but I'll just say this - if it's a choice between a journalist who gets paid whatever he writes, and a politician who needs your support, which one are you more likely to trust?

My answer would be the journalist. The politician already has a ton of $$$ with which he has used to become elected with...there are also few quick/easy means to oust him from office, whereas the journalist usually needs his job and can be fired way quicker than the politician...the journalist job is more "at risk" than the politicians is.

Lets get to some meat here,
Youve acknowledged and better understand the point about "statement comprehension" that I was making. You also agree that you have used opinion and speculation in your positions...you then ask,


My question is: why should those points be dismissed from the argument? We're not indulging in a technical logical debate, we're discussing why people hate Bush. Why shouldn't people make that judgement based on what they think, what they infer from the documented facts, or what they feel in their gut?


This plays to my whole arguments basis. The idea that some of these topics are really personal attacks against a candidate, and not based in something factual. (ill give you they are extrapolationally interpretational) They are really unimportant ideas to waste time with before this election as compared to the war, education, budget, ect.

We SHOULD be having a logical debate instead of an emotional one.
We should be talking about tangibles instead of feelings or interpretations of broad "patterns" if you will. Especially on a website devoted to denial of ignorance.

The main reason that ive hammered away at your argument isnt because I dont like YOUR views per-say, id have hammered anyone that had stuck in a long as you have. The reason is that I hear the same non-rational, emotion ladden, non issue oriented opinions about Bush just walking down the street, and I truely wonder 1)Dont citizens care about the real issues?
2)How so many can just accept these type of arguments and opinions as FACT? WITHOUT question?

It worrys and boggles my mind that this important election could boil down to "I think Bush is an idiot" instead of "Im voting for/against candidate X because of policy a, policy b and policy c, plus im not pleased with (ignorant remarks, pushy religious beliefs, hair style..eye color ect..ect)

For me, to not step in and point out "people your arguing about crap thats 90% opinion" is allowing this ignorant, uninformed idea to spread to those that can barely understand the ramifications of the real issues to start with.

While i really enjoy reading consipracy ideas here on ATS...im constantly amazed that some people are so ready to buy into un researched, un verified, un logical opinion as if god himself had said it.

P.T. barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
This guy was a total flim flam huckster that made a fortune perpetuating hype and myth...with just enough tangibillity to make it all seem possible.
Ahh the magic of the show. PULL BACK THE CURTAIN DORTHY!!!

Of course people will/can not seperate their feelings totally from the issues, but could we at least TRY to? This is too important to just let slide on non issues. If this is these are the reasons that people are going to vote on, I worry for our nation and am thankful for the Electoral Collage.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   
In terms of the quote "i've heard the call I beleve god wants me to run for president" in the ongoing argument to determine the validity of the quote we have lost sght of the larger issue. What is wrong with that statement?
Had he said God told me to run for office I would be worried but what he said was "i BELIEVE god wants me ......
He stated a belief, based on his understanding of God, that he should run or was wanted to run for president. Whats wrong with that?
If a man opens a homeless shelter because he believes god wants him too we applaud him.
Why is it wrong for a man to choose to run for president based on a personal belief that his God wants him to?
Are you so scared of the idea of a higher power that any mention of God by an elected offcial ( or one runnng for election) threatens the seperation of church and state?
Again I ask wht is wrong with George W. Bush BELIEVING that god wanted him to run?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
...wonder how/why you seem to think that using criteria other than lets say, the gennerally accepted standards set by broadcasters or the court system with regard to verifying fact from fiction is useful.

The difference is based on one fundamental truth - sometimes we are lied to. Should I accept primary documentary evidence when I am unsure of the author's veracity? Of course not. Should I accept second- or third-hand information when I have previous evidence of the witness' integrity? Absolutely, I should! Unlike a court of law, I do not have the legal authority to summon any person for questioning, and I do not have the legal authority to punish them if they lie - therefore, I have to rely on my intellect and my judgement.


How can you look at the US Commission on Human Rights report about the florida election and then deny this informtion?

I do not believe that the US Commission on Human Rights report was unbiased, and I do not believe it addressed the most important issues. This post from earlier in the thread sets out my case for Bush's illegitimacy. How else can I put this? Fewer people voted for Bush than voted for Gore! Now you can complain about Electoral Colleges as much as you like, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Bush does not have a mandate from the people.

So, to sum up, Dubya didn't win according to the letter of the law, and didn't win according to the spirit of the law. I repeat my astonishment that this staggering injustice seems to have been accepted and paved over.

As far as his desertion is concerned:

  • This link gives a broad overview, including Dubya's mysterious absence from April 16 to October 28 1972, and an explanation on the political motivations behind his "honourable discharge".
  • This link gives an analysis of the documents (finally) released by the White House, which also show his absence from April 16 to October 28, 1972.
  • This link tells how Bush's fellow servicemen in Alabama never set eyes on him.
  • Here is a technical description of the meaning of the term AWOL as understood by the US Military, and here is a technical description of Desertion.
  • And finally, the whole sordid story is laid out, in exhaustive detail, here.

Additional information is readily available, and is far too plentiful to be linked to here, but I would like to include a quote:


"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

Who wrote that? Why, none other than Mr. Colin Powell, in his autobiography My American Journey. Perhaps he should have a word with his boss...

And finally, his idiocy is well documented and I don't believe it would serve any purpose to rehash the evidence yet again.



Also, the document i was refering to was cited by MrMulder in the "Bush going crazy" thread...(yet a third non issue bush bash)...

I have not read or contributed to the thread you refer to, and I don't believe I ever supported, intentionally or unintentionally, the article in question.



I reviewed this entire thread and have not seen this link.

The link I referred to is contained in the first post of page five on this thread. It pointed here, an article which refers to Bush's statement in the September 2000 issue of George Magazine. I have been unable to trace an copy of the article in question, but the article, and the "God told me to run" quote in particular, is referred to constantly by commentators on both side of the political fence, which I am prepared to accept as confirmation.


I also noticed that on page 4 you seem to have been censured by the MudPit thought police

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're referring to this post, I'm afraid it wasn't censorship, it was just a stab at humour on my part.



My answer would be the journalist. The politician already has a ton of $$$ with which he has used to become elected with...there are also few quick/easy means to oust him from office, whereas the journalist usually needs his job and can be fired way quicker than the politician...the journalist job is more "at risk" than the politicians is.

Exactly my point. So I'm more likely to believe a second-hand story from a journalist about a politician, than I am to accept a first-hand denial from the politician. Therefore, it's sound deduction to say that a "second-hand" story can be more accurate and less biased than the same story reported by one of the participants. This harks back to my point earlier about different standards of fact.



This plays to my whole arguments basis. The idea that some of these topics are really personal attacks against a candidate, and not based in something factual. (ill give you they are extrapolationally interpretational) They are really unimportant ideas to waste time with before this election as compared to the war, education, budget, ect.

I would contend that Bush's intelligence and competance - or lack thereof - go right to the heart of the election. You're not, after all, voting for a political party or a suite of policies, you're electing a single man to the most important office in the world today. Isn't the suitability of the candidates of prime importance - far more, it could be argued, than obscure points about the nation's finances or the candidate's education policies?



We SHOULD be having a logical debate instead of an emotional one.
We should be talking about tangibles instead of feelings or interpretations of broad "patterns" if you will. Especially on a website devoted to denial of ignorance.

With respect, I'm perfectly prepared to have a logical debate with you, or anyone else, on the minutiae of Bush's presidency and record. This thread, however, is not that debate. The title made it clear that we were discussing emotional judgements - emotional judgements based in facts and figures, but informed by our deductive processes, intellect and instinct. I would also disagree with your implied assertion that "emotional truth" is worthless - it is our intuition, emotion and reason that make us human.



The main reason that ive hammered away at your argument isnt because I dont like YOUR views per-say, id have hammered anyone that had stuck in a long as you have.

I suspect most people aren't as stubborn as we are.

Thankfully.




1)Dont citizens care about the real issues?

I think, generally, that they do. The reason that Bush's personality - or Kerry's, or Clinton's, or Reagen's - is so important is that the President is not an absolute monarch, he's just the Head of State. He doesn't have the single-handidly execute policy decisions, for good or ill. But the President is a leader, the most important ambassador your country has, and a political figure of international importance. I disagree with Bush's policies, but I dislike him because of what he is, what he represents, and what he has done to that once-illustrious office.

In short, policies are for Congress or the Senate. Presidents are about personal achievements, personal records, and personal merits - not to mention, I'm sorry to say, entrenched left vs. right auto-voting.



2)How so many can just accept these type of arguments and opinions as FACT? WITHOUT question?

In all honesty, CazMedia, I think you're getting caught up on facts and ignoring the evidence. Not all documents tell the truth; not all undocumented sources are wrong. There is nothing I can point to and say "there, that proves scientifically and absolutely that Bush is as stupid as a barrel of spam". Instead, I have to look at the things he says and the things he does, and judge his intelligence based on that. Quite candidly, I cannot believe that anyone who judges Dubya objectively can think he's of even average intelligence - and remember, I'm the foreigner here who doesn't benefit either way!

It's also worth remembering that it's not a one-way problem. For every pseudo-Democrat who calls Bush stupid without investigating the evidence for himself, there's a Republican who supports Dubya with an equal lack of analysis.



Of course people will/can not seperate their feelings totally from the issues, but could we at least TRY to? This is too important to just let slide on non issues. If this is these are the reasons that people are going to vote on, I worry for our nation and am thankful for the Electoral Collage.

While I disagree with your point about the Electoral College (is that a tacit admission that Bush wasn't elected by the people?
), I agree that policies deserve more airtime than personalities. The problem, I suspect, is that the "Bush is Stupid" or "Gore is too Smart" or "Dean is a Nutter" message is easier for the media to propogate and for the public to swallow.

In conclusion, CazMedia, I appreciate your point of view. I haven't changed my opinion of Bush - but, since I oppose his policies first and his personality second, I don't think you can object to my deductive process. I also disagree that decisions coloured by opinion are somehow lesser than strictly logical and rational conclusions. And lastly, I disagree with your requirement that single-instance documentary facts be the only things which are taken into consideration when making a judgement.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
It's gotten awfully quiet around here... can I take this silence as proof that I've won the debate?


I've collected together a selection of links which provide further insight into Bush's "character" - the desertion, the booze, the stupidity, the lies, the whole sordid smorgasbord of disappointment. Check them out, and find enlightenment!

  • A brief precis of Bush's tendency to wander off when he's supposed to be serving his country.
  • An interesting biography of Dubya, focusing on his pre-President days, including an interesting piece of evidence regarding Bush's buddy Ken Lay.
  • This article suggests that Dubya's erratic behaviour may well be due to his latent alcoholism.
  • Dan F Umanoff MD sees certain hypocracies in Bush's selection by the GOP in the first place.
  • Ever tried entering the term "miserable failure" into Google? Try it, or just click here and notice who's official White House biography is top of the list...
  • And, if you feel like you need a bit of light relief (and God knows I do, after spending all day googling Bush Minor) then Anita Roddik's website has a list of amusing Bush haikus. See? Hating Dubya can be fun and educational!



D

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's not so much Bush, but his administration. He doesn't seem to be running things and he doesn't seem to have much control over his administration as well.

Also, the fact that Bush and his admin are sticking their noses into Australian politics. Bush, Rumsfeld and Armitage just keep on interfering with our domestic politics.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
While President Bush has said lot of stupid sounding things some qoutes attributed to him are just plain inaccurate.
www.snopes.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Now putting all that "Skull and bones" and all that junk aside which doesen't relate to the issues regarding the citizens.....

I despise any president who intentionally disregards the wellbeing of it's citizens. This is exactly what Bush is doing about lying about the truth of 9-11... lying about WMD and then blaming it on some "intel failure" which it seems half of the USA believes.

The evidence regarding the lies and deception is so clear I cannot understand how anyone does not see it by now.

The main job of a president is to ensure the welfare of the country's citizens and to ensure good diplomatic relations with other countries. Which of course Bush has destroyed nearly completely with his cowboy world police antics in the middle east.

But this is what happens when you vote for someone with major corporate connections. He must be rid of quickly.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It's usually the arrogant winner that alot of people despise or hate. However it was Al Gore that I didn't really like. I don't know if it's a sense of evil or what about him. Anyway since he didn't get into office, you don't hear about why does everyone hate Al Gore so much? Maybe in an alternate universe Al Gore is president and so is Sadam Hussein. I'm just glad I'm not there. Speaking about Bush though, it seems like he has done something to irritate almost every group around. Some people aren't happy with tax cuts when they only get a few dollars while the rich get thousands extra. It wouldn't matter if the budget was balanced but when you have half a trillion dollar deficit, you know the average man will end up paying the bill sooner or later.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   
RedOct says,


I despise any president who intentionally disregards the wellbeing of it's citizens. This is exactly what Bush is doing about lying about the truth of 9-11... lying about WMD and then blaming it on some "intel failure" which it seems half of the USA believes.


What is the truth of 911, especially now that the commission report is out.
How is Bush lying here? The commission found no such deceptions.

"INTEL FAILURE" oh yeah, you mean the one that had the whole WORLD snowballed? Even France and Germany in the last UN resolution were all in agreement on the WMD proliferation issue in Iraq, they just didnt agree on the method for resolving this question that was on everyones minds.

you should go back and re read this thread, as most of these generalized and factless statements of emotion have been discussed.
Back your blind allegations up with something tangible or stay quiet in your little bubble world and leave reality to us.

Orion says,


It's usually the arrogant winner that alot of people despise or hate.


Ohh, you mean like Strangelands assumptivly claims here,


can I take this silence as proof that I've won the debate?

Motivated by the lust for victory or the desire to do right?

See how easily motivations can be assumed and then transmitted?
The same actions could be interpreted in 2 ways, either for selfish gain, or the desire to do what is best even if it is hard or unpleasent.
Unless motives have been stated, then we should stay away from speculative reasoning that actions were/were not taken.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I apologise sincerely if I prematurely claimed victory, CazMedia, but I figured that you had been silent for so long that either I had persuaded you, or you had got bored and wandered off.

Regarding WMDs, you might want to conduct some research in the Butler Report here in the UK, which found that the claims of a "real and imminent" danger form Iraq were not an accurate reflection of the intelligence. The debate on the existence of these mythical WMDs is not as clear-cut as you would like to believe it is - and it is most certainly not restricted to anyone's "little bubble world".

After pages of chastising people for holding "irrational" opinions, can you really be so blind to the complexities of these issues that you're willing to pretend everything is rosy, while ignoring the host of legitimate and unanswered questions about the Bush junta? Sounds pretty irrational to me, buddy.

I know, I know, you're not supporting Dubya, you're indulging in a one-person crusade against inference and informed opinion - a perfectly legitimate position, since we live in a world where the media is singularly unbiased and always presents a detailed, accurate and non-partisan representation of world events, right?

If you'd like to continue this debate, perhaps you'd like to tackle the points I raised in my post of the 9th of July - that's the conspicuously unanswered one further up the page.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
O.K. strangelamds lets rehash this again.
As to your assertion that Bush deserted, I disagree with you and apparently so do the facts.
www.washingtonpost.com...
In fact the person who originated the entire AWOL story is most likely lying.
www.boston.com...
The fact is in any bureacracy some records will inevitably be misplaced or misfiled however absense of proof does not show proof of absense.

As for the "dry drunk" theroy, It reads like a lame attempt make the presdents decision not to imbibe a judgement clouding intoxicant a bad thing. The symptoms listed there as being indicative of a "dry drunk" are not objective symptoms and therefore whether or not the president displays those symptoms is subjective.

Dan umanoff is a pissed off addict who has an axe to grind with New yorks medical board because they took away hs medical liscense.

The term miserable filure was delbertly linked to Bush's biography by bloggers who dislike bush. If I convince bloogers to link the term Mass Murderer to clintons biography does that make him a mass murderer?

The reason I stopped replying was due to your constant denial of fact and lack of abillity to differentiate subjective from objective. The entire "Bush is stupid" argument is based solely on his misuse of language. Neither you nor any other Bush detractor has been able to show anything other than verbal mistakes to support your argument. Which is one of the things that makes you assumption of victoy so humerous. Again I challenge anyone to show any support for Bush's supposed stupidity that does not involve his verbal missteps. While I do believe that an argument can be made that President Bush is or may be dyslexic or suffering from some other speech impediment, even proof of such can not be construed as proof of intelligence or lack thereof.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Okay, I'm short of time (and increasingly short of patience), so I'll keep this brief.

  • Mwm1331, no-one has ever claimed that Dubya is dyslexic, until you decided that it would be a convenient mechanism by which you can ignore the witless nonsense which dribbles from between his thin, miserly lips. If he were dyslexic, it would have been diagnosed by now and the entire world would know about it. Moreover, it does not excuse his verbal incontinence, since dyslexia, as you may or may not be aware, is linked with the written word. If Bush Minor was dyslexic, would his advisors insist that he be faced with an autocue every time he has to address anyone? Of course not - they would brief him and let him wing it.

    They give him an autocue because he can't be trusted to say the simplest of sentences without getting it badly wrong.

  • Bush deserted - what else do you call it when a member of the armed forces goes out one morning and doesn't come back for eighteen months? Think on this: the question of Bush's military service has plagued him now for the better part of a year. If the White House could have proved he was there, if they could have supplied documentary evidence which showed he did not abandon his duty to his country, they would have done it. If they could have fabricated the evidence. they would have done it. But no, all they can do is desperately try and undermine the reputations and integrity of servicemen who actualy performed their duty. It's pitiful.

    Bush abandoned his post, he betrayed his country, and he continues to lie about it.

  • Lastly, I didn't present Dan Umanoff's blog as a definitive description of Dubya's woeful symptoms. It is, however, an interesting read, and expains a great many of your faux-President's actions.

    It is interesting, though, that you'll dismiss one recovering alcoholic as a "pissed-off addict", but vote for another recovering alcoholic in November. I would be tempted to call it hypocrisy - but then again, Dan Umanoff will never have the power to give you a tax cut, will he?


So that gives us one groundless denial of overwhelming evidence, one diversionary tactic involving a hatchet-job on a former US Serviceman, and one unfair attack on the professional opinion of a well-educated US citizen. Great way to fight your corner, mwm1331.

Keep denying that ignorance, won't you?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I can't believe how many threads I see on this board bashing Bush. I am a registered Republican and I don't always agree with some of the things Bush has done, but come on.

Most of the bashing is unsubstantiated and out of line. Look at some of the things that went on during Reagan's tenure, Iran Contra scandal and so forth. But when he died, he was hailed as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Are there that many Dems on this board, or do people really hate the guy? BTW, I put this in the pit because I imagine it will turn into a flaming match, but I am really curious.

Did ATS exist when Clinton was in office? Is it just the norm to focus on the President who is currently in office? Serious responses please, not like "cuz Bush is insane". That is not a worthy response.


Bush Co.:

Puts the country into the red by the order of 7.2 trillion.
Gets us into unilateral invasion of foreign countries without valid reason.
Kills off veterans' benefits at the same time they're going to war.
Never takes account for anything. "The buck stops here? Hell, what's a buck?"
Was AWOL from the National Guard after daddy gets him a spot to avoid Vietnam.

Yeeeaaah, he's a great president alright.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Strangelands I'm a venture capatlist not a doctor I do know however tht there are diseases which cause a person to substitute similar sounding words, with different meanings. Based on the fact that virtually all of the presidents

witless nonsense which dribbles from between his thin, miserly lips
as you call it falls into this catagory, I find t logical to assume that he suffers from such a condition rather than assume him to be an idiot who attained an advanced degree.
As for the charges of desertion I have already addressed that point , and I did not

desperately try and undermine the reputations and integrity of servicemen who actualy performed their duty
as you put it, one of his own friends and a man he named as a witness did.

finally the fact that President Bush chooses not to drink does not make him an alcoholic.



The bottom Line is strangelands, You don't like the president or the republican party and so you look for information to support your beliefs. As a result you are incapable of seeing that your analysis of information is flawed, and that your sources are less than credible. The fact is during the time you claim the President deserted he was where he was supposed to be based on the report of a man who spent time with him at the base at that time. You continually make the mistake of thinking verbal sklls is the sole measure of inteeligence and that one with a speech impediment or diffuculty s automatically stupid, and you rely on dubious sources to prove your opinions, as proven by your lame effort at using an intentional slander campaign to prove a point. You have misqouted the Presdent on several occasions, cited highly dubious sources, and stated outright falsehoods (I.E he "stole" the election) Fanatics dont change thier minds and I don't expect they ever will so I feel no need to try and convince you, However I will say that in reviewing the links you have provided and investigating the claims you have made, I kept an open mind and been more than willing to re-evaluate my opinions, however you have failed spectacularly at giving me reason to do so.



[edit on 29-7-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scat
IM ocming into the conversation abit late, but ill add my 14 cents. Bush is bad at pronouncing certain words, he cannot articulate the word "nuclear" and yes, has a thick accent to anyone who isnt from Texas, and contradicts himself often.

But hes got balls.

He got out in front of a nation who hated him and told them what they already knew about 911, and alot of stuff they never wanted to hear. He got out in front a nation who hated him and told him they were going to war. He got out in front a nation who hated him and told them that we're still in Iraq...and their children are still dying.

Michael Moore criticised him for going on "vacation" after 911. Sheesh, Im surprised the man didnt have a mental breakdown.


I disagree. If he had balls he would have done something when Andrew Card whispered in his ear "The second tower's been hit. America is under attack."

What did he do? He sat there reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes until an aide dragged him away.

He couldn't handle the job of Commander In Chief when America was under attack. He sat there, immobilized, until he was dragged away.

Who dragged him away? That person is probably really running the show.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Personally the fact that he didn't jump up and run, that he stayed and spent a little more time with those kids shows an undeniable humanity in the face of overwhelming pain. He knew we were under attack, and that he was in a known location and thus vunerable but he took a couple extra minutes to try and spend a litlle time with our nations future. Maybe he was just trying to remind himself what he was fighting for.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Truth is, My frustration is with the corporate corruption of all Washington DC and the apathy of many Americans and the ignorance of many others. Bush just is an iconic symbol of all those problems I see. Bush and his staff do seem to take the corporate corruption theme to all new levels. It has gotten to a point it is almost like one upsmanship. How much rot can be written into the next bill? How far can we twist and nullify the constitution? How much can they get away with before people get excited enough to object? America is either overworked or brain-dead. Does the American public have a pulse?

I think part of it might be the whole obesity thing. In general people who are in good shape have more active minds. Flip side is, Lard B*tt, Lard Brain.

Bush is an easy target, because he really isn't very bright. He is probably pretty easy for Cheney to manipulate. GW Bush is a bit like a boy who never really grew up. He has the opinions of those around him. I don't think he has ever had to work for anything. He has never had to EARN anything in his life, and yet has been lucky enough to be elected president. And whether or not you believe it I not only think he was AWOL in Alabama, he was a deserter. That says it all to me, when the chips are down he will run off.

GW Bush is probably a PR guys dream. There is nothing there to start with, and he's not real bright, so you can get him to believe anything. The PR guys give him his scripts and opinions and he, like a good performing monkey does his routine.

If the consequences weren't so high, I would feel sorry for him. But there are real issues involved, Im not sure though that it may not be too late already.
.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join