It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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?
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've no idea what this paragraph means. It looks like English, but...
It does not equal fact, but second-hand information is a valid source, particularly when it comes from a respected reporter.
Oh, and for something to be slander, it has to be untrue.
He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron.
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.
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 he didn't win the damn election in the first place and has never been held accountable for it!
I feel I have shown sufficient evidence to convince most people that Bush isn't "Good for America".
Originally posted by CazMedia
Hmm lets look up subversion on dictionary.com
Main Entry: subˇverˇsion
: 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 subˇverˇsionˇary /-zh&-"ner-E/ adjective subˇverˇsive /-'v&r-siv/ adj or noun subˇverˇsiveˇly adverb subˇverˇsiveˇness noun
...overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within...
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.
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?
"He is an incompetant leader, a deserter, and a total moron."
Welcome to the slanders club Strange....
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!
Let's just say, CazMedia, that we interpret the evidence differently
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.
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'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 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?
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.
How can you look at the US Commission on Human Rights report about the florida election and then deny this informtion?
"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."
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 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's usually the arrogant winner that alot of people despise or hate.
can I take this silence as proof that I've won the debate?
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.
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.
witless nonsense which dribbles from between his thin, miserly lips
as you put it, one of his own friends and a man he named as a witness did.
desperately try and undermine the reputations and integrity of servicemen who actualy performed their duty
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.