Barack Obama tells the truth to the activists

[Ballsack]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Though I find single-issue voting un-American and grossly irresponsible, I congratulate you on your honesty. The bad news is I think you've been duped. For all their rhetoric and campaign promises, I don't see the Republican party ever making a sincere effort to outlaw abortion. Once they do, they lose millions of votes. They'll keep making noise, but they will never deliver.

Melinda Henneberger of Newsweek agrees with you, Bowfinger.

Whither Roe v. Wade?

Oct. 3, 2005 - Well, now we know: Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned any time soon.

It's no accident that White House counsel Harriet Miers, the president's choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, has no judicial experience. That way, Bush can feign surprise when, to the chagrin of all the voters he won over on the abortion issue alone, social conservatives are ignored once again. Who knew?

Miers, of course, is the president's former personal attorney. Before Bush brought her to Washington from Dallas, she was a hard-working corporate lawyer, known for her discretion. She?s considered a staunch Bush loyalist, but not an ideologue. Her views on abortion are obscure. (And do those with a strong pro-life stand ever keep it to themselves? No.)

Among pro-lifers, I have long held the minority view that Bush never had the slightest intention of packing the Supreme Court with justices who would seek to overturn the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Karl Rove would throw himself in front of a train before he let that happen.

So where did I get my inside intel on this?

There have been several not-so-subtle signals from Bush himself. When asked, during his first campaign, whether he thought the decision should be overturned, he said the country was not ready.

At a news conference in Iowa in 2000, he was asked whether he would counsel a friend or relative who had been raped to have an abortion. He answered, "It would be up to her.''

That same year, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary at the time, said this to clarify his views on the issue: "There are several actions he thinks we can take and we should take and he will seek to take that can help make abortion more rare in America.'' Oh.

Then there are the statements from the women in his life. The president?s mother and former First Lady, Barbara Bush, said this on banning abortion on ABC?s "This Week" in 1999: "I don't think it should be a national platform. There's nothing a president can do about it, anyway.''

First Lady Laura Bush went even further. When asked on NBC's "Today" show in 2001 whether she thought Roe should be overturned, she said, "No, I don't think it should be overturned.'' Could she have been any clearer?

All the president's talk about a "culture of life'' might even have been sincere up to a point, of course; doesn't everybody think they're for a culture of life?

And it certainly did the trick for him. Many people I know?most of them pro-life Catholics who oppose the war and much of the rest of Bush's domestic agenda?felt obligated to vote for the president on this one issue.

So will social conservatives now admit they've been had? Probably not.

And will Democrats ever get wise to the way Republicans, instead of imposing self-defeating litmus tests, manage to have it both ways on this issue? Even less likely.

When I think of the whole abortion debate as played out on Capitol Hill, I flash back to a moment several years ago when I was covering a vote on the ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. There were dueling press conferences, of course, both of them featuring babies who looked terribly uncomfortable as props. At one point, I thought two Democratic women lawmakers were going to come to blows over who got to push one of these poor children around in a carriage for the benefit of the TV cameras. (In the end, they both did the pushing, in footage that looked appropriately ridiculous.)

The whole spectacle was so off-putting that I probably should have called child services. And it was so revealing, too, of course?of the fact that actual children have been lost in the interminable fight over theoretical ones.

Good could still come of recognizing the reality that Roe is not going to be overturned?if both sides would only channel all the energy they have so long poured into fighting each other into actually preventing unwanted pregnancies and caring for unwanted children. Plan B, anyone?

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

BALLSACK

 

[Polish3d]

Great article.


I can't stand Hillary, most of the democratic party, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore

Barack makes a very much needed point to the left, whose idiocy and partisan anti-Bush insanity makes them appear sh
|t-nuts to most of us who are more neutral.

I would strongly consider voting for Obama, and think, with what I know of him now, that he would probably make a fine President, I hope he gets the chance to run

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Barack Obama is in the wrong party. The Democrat party he espouses only exists in campaign literature and is far far different from that which actually exists today. A relative up North who is in politics is seriously considering switching parties simply because his party label isn't who he is or who he represents. He probably won't switch because he fails to agree with the other side on certain issues. Becoming indenpendant won't work either as their is no real support for those types of candidates.

Regardless, reading Barack's article does make it clear that he sees very little good in the current Republican party and wants Democrats to be excused from whatever voting stance they take just as long as they are Democrats. Party loyalty all the way, a cleverly crafted article that villifies Republicans along standard Democrat talking points without appearing openly hostile. Apparently a few of your here bought hook, line, and sinker.

Don't get me wrong, he is a brilliant politician, but in the end that is what is wrong with him. We do not need more politicians like we don't need more lawyers. They will talk something up they know wrong just to score points.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Barack Obama is in the wrong party. The Democrat party he espouses only exists in campaign literature and is far far different from that which actually exists today. A relative up North who is in politics is seriously considering switching parties simply because his party label isn't who he is or who he represents. He probably won't switch because he fails to agree with the other side on certain issues. Becoming indenpendant won't work either as their is no real support for those types of candidates.

Regardless, reading Barack's article does make it clear that he sees very little good in the current Republican party and wants Democrats to be excused from whatever voting stance they take just as long as they are Democrats. Party loyalty all the way, a cleverly crafted article that villifies Republicans along standard Democrat talking points without appearing openly hostile. Apparently a few of your here bought hook, line, and sinker.

Don't get me wrong, he is a brilliant politician, but in the end that is what is wrong with him. We do not need more politicians like we don't need more lawyers. They will talk something up they know wrong just to score points.

I disagree...I think it's pretty clear he doesn't like the Republicans and what they stand for, and thinks the Dems need a good kick in the ass to get to actually fighting the Republicans instead of whatever the hell it is they are doing now. Just because he does a little Republican bashing doesn't mean he doesn't think the Dems need to change too. In any case, he is a real Democrat...the good kind, the kind that can win elections.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum.

I don't think I've ever seen you criticize Bush himself (though you did offer to sacrifice Brownie, for example).

When I do criticise Bush it probably just gets lost in the noise. But, iirc, one of the times that I did criticise Bush, and it was a while back, I got a thumbsup from you.

But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon.

That's roughly what I said ... for some people here. Care to acknowledge the reverse is true as well?

I don't see the revrse happening at nearly the same intensity. There are thoughtful posters in here who are obviously no fans of Bush who don't get slammed as Bush bashers. Yet when I see people slamming guys like cKG or GenX as Bush apologists, any thoughts of equivalnece in the matter kind of fade away.

Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv.

That must be where you and I part company. I'm not here for my ego. For me, posting isn't a game. I'm here because I think Bush and his minions are causing serious, perhaps irreparable damage to America. I'm concerned for my children and the America BushCo wants for them.

[/quote]
It's not a game for me either. But you have to remember that I don't support Bush and I surely didn't support Kerry, though if I absolutely had to pick between the two on threat of death I'd have voted for Bush. I'm not beholden to any party and I don't drink their kool-aid, nor do I think Bush is the devil incarnate.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I like Obama, I think he is a very smart and very astute guy...and I also think he also is very good at portraying the message of the Democrats as something other than the "looney liberal" stereotype some people seem to have. I especially like how he seems to realize, and want to work with, the complexity surrounding almost every modern issue. One of the things I hate about both sides in politics is how everything is dumbed down into this bumper sticker ideology. It might be useful at manipulating voters, but in the end we end up with stupid policies because, honestly, if your idea fits on a bumper sticker, it's probably pretty stupid.

Here is the interesting part (to me at least)...Obama seems to have some good ideas on how the Dems can start fighting back agains the Republicans. And from the looks of things, I suspect the Democrats might even pay attention to him and others who think the same way. This contrasts very sharply with the general attitude of the Republicans, which is that they feel secure in their position and if anything, seem to be slipping even farther towards their base. It's true they have certainly done well for themselves, but now would be a poor time for them to take a nap. Should be interesting, at any rate.

:thumbsup:

Hopefully Obama and the Democrats will start fighting back by improving the Democrats, not trying to dump on the Republicans. They can't win the mudslinging game as the Reps are too good at that.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

See sig.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Democrats don't have to go very far. Abortion is the one issue that those who support it will never compromise on. Bush could invade Scotland unprovoked and I'd still vote for him because he believes abortion shouldn't be legal.

You take the one singular issue out of contention and I'd probably vote Democrat half the time.
[...]

Though I find single-issue voting un-American and grossly irresponsible, I congratulate you on your honesty. The bad news is I think you've been duped. For all their rhetoric and campaign promises, I don't see the Republican party ever making a sincere effort to outlaw abortion. Once they do, they lose millions of votes. They'll keep making noise, but they will never deliver.

You are correct. We're in no danger of abortion being outlawed under Bush's admin, same as we were never in danger of seeing a "same-sex marriage" amendment. These are nothing but toothless wedge issues used to garner support from the narrow-minded, single-track voters, with no real backing or support from their so-called "proponents."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum.

I don't think I've ever seen you criticize Bush himself (though you did offer to sacrifice Brownie, for example).

When I do criticise Bush it probably just gets lost in the noise. But, iirc, one of the times that I did criticise Bush, and it was a while back, I got a thumbsup from you.

But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon.

That's roughly what I said ... for some people here. Care to acknowledge the reverse is true as well?

I don't see the revrse happening at nearly the same intensity. There are thoughtful posters in here who are obviously no fans of Bush who don't get slammed as Bush bashers. Yet when I see people slamming guys like cKG or GenX as Bush apologists, any thoughts of equivalnece in the matter kind of fade away.

Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv.

That must be where you and I part company. I'm not here for my ego. For me, posting isn't a game. I'm here because I think Bush and his minions are causing serious, perhaps irreparable damage to America. I'm concerned for my children and the America BushCo wants for them.

It's not a game for me either. But you have to remember that I don't support Bush and I surely didn't support Kerry, though if I absolutely had to pick between the two on threat of death I'd have voted for Bush. I'm not beholden to any party and I don't drink their kool-aid, nor do I think Bush is the devil incarnate.[/quote]

Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

 

[Deudalus]

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

QFT

This hits the nail on the head perfectly. Unfortunately I think the platform of "Vote for me cus I hate Bush" will once again be the Democrat platform of 2006 and 2008.

I think maybe by then they will figure it out.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

Only from the point of view of some of the most blatantly anti-Bush partisans in here. I've seen people in here who have no like of Bush whatsoever make a single favorable comment about Bush and watched the anti-Bush crew accuse them of being a Bush apologist, a Bush fluffer, blah, blah, blah...the usual accusations. You are so blindly partisan you can't see otherwise, which is your problem and skewed pov, not mine. Until you actually figure that out you will continue to be lost and adrift.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

Only from the point of view of some of the most blatantly anti-Bush partisans in here. I've seen people in here who have no like of Bush whatsoever make a single favorable comment about Bush and watched the anti-Bush crew accuse them of being a Bush apologist, a Bush fluffer, blah, blah, blah...the usual accusations. You are so blindly partisan you can't see otherwise, which is your problem and skewed pov, not mine. Until you actually figure that out you will continue to be lost and adrift.

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

Only from the point of view of some of the most blatantly anti-Bush partisans in here. I've seen people in here who have no like of Bush whatsoever make a single favorable comment about Bush and watched the anti-Bush crew accuse them of being a Bush apologist, a Bush fluffer, blah, blah, blah...the usual accusations. You are so blindly partisan you can't see otherwise, which is your problem and skewed pov, not mine. Until you actually figure that out you will continue to be lost and adrift.

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

Where's the challenge in that? Wouldn't it be much more a challenge to point out that you are a loon because they have not been ruled unconstitutional and you are going all crazy with doom and gloom? Why don't you just stop blurting out this stuff and make the case that you prejudge and presume. How is the Patriot Act unconstitutional?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

Only from the point of view of some of the most blatantly anti-Bush partisans in here. I've seen people in here who have no like of Bush whatsoever make a single favorable comment about Bush and watched the anti-Bush crew accuse them of being a Bush apologist, a Bush fluffer, blah, blah, blah...the usual accusations. You are so blindly partisan you can't see otherwise, which is your problem and skewed pov, not mine. Until you actually figure that out you will continue to be lost and adrift.

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

The skew that I'm addressing is the pov of the opposition and it's highly obvious in this forum.

There have been times in this forum when posters who are not known to support Bush have made comments favorable to him and certain people, usually the most vehement of the anti-Bush crew, start with their Bush apologist/fluffer/lover accusations. Yet you don't see any of the Bush suporters, rabid or otherwise, make moronic little comments like "Well, it looks like so and so is finally coming to their senses." or some such similar drivel.

On the opposite side of the coin, during hurricane Katrina, some Bush supporters in here didn't hesitate to fault Bush. Did we see any of the vehement Bush supporters label them as RBHers? No we did not. But we did have comments such as "Well it looks like so and so is finally seeing the light." If you like I'll be happy to prove what I'm claiming, assuming the search is working today. But any causal readers of this forum can back up my claims, if they want to be honest about it.

That's the skew I'm speaking of, and it's idiotic and rhetorical. I doubt you'll see yourself in it, but you're part of that skewed pov.

And welcome back from vacation.

 

[Deudalus]

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

The issue isn't the Patriot Act.

The issue is are you well versed in your history and hypocritical or are you ignorant of your history and need to fix that problem? Please bear in mind I'm not trying to be mean to you, I'm simply making a point.

President Lincoln violated almost every right granted to citizen in the constitution during the Civil War. He didn't even bother to put them to vote, he simply issued an executive order removing rights and was done with it. He sent in the military to prevent a legal vote from happening in Maryland for example. He literally suspended the Democratic process because he felt he had to do so to protect the Union.

President Truman put Japanese people in internment camps. He took their money and their land with little to no compensation for any of them. He did this because after Pearl Harbor it seemed prudent given the fact that Japanese spies in Hawaii helped make the Pearl Harbor attack successful. He didn't go to Congress to do this. He didn't ask if it was ok. He simply did it.

Then you have George Bush with 9-11. It was the first attack on the US Mainland by an outside force in since the 1800's. We had a definite threat of another attack given the fact that terrorists are successful by blending into the populace thus they are difficult to track and locate. So Bush puts a Patriot Act to Congress, which almost everyone votes for, it comes up for reaffirment after the next Presidential election so it can be easily overturned, and yet Bush is the bad guy?

President Lincoln is considered one of the greatest Americans and one of the greatest presidents in our history. President Truman is also very very well thought of because of WW II. They were both much much bolder than Bush was during their times of crisis.

Do you condemn them as well?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

Hold that trigger finger Bub, something is wrong, wrong here. Hehe! I am not saying that Bush is absurd. I was referring to your admission:

"Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss."

You are apparently the one who thinks he' pathetic. You just seem to be claiming you don't get worked up emotionally about it and allow it to distort your vision. So how does the formerly easy shot become shooting ourselves in the foot, because it's said with passion? Are you saying the superior argument is the one that is emotionally dead? Bush pisses in your soup and you jump on the first guy that attacks him. Hehe, it makes sense to me. OK, well I just want to report that Bush pissed in your soup, but I don't care. Just wanted to calmly note the fact. He is a nice man but has a few problems. I won't disembowel him or anything. Time for my lunch, I think my cucumber is cold.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

The issue isn't the Patriot Act.

The issue is are you well versed in your history and hypocritical or are you ignorant of your history and need to fix that problem? Please bear in mind I'm not trying to be mean to you, I'm simply making a point.

President Lincoln violated almost every right granted to citizen in the constitution during the Civil War. He didn't even bother to put them to vote, he simply issued an executive order removing rights and was done with it. He sent in the military to prevent a legal vote from happening in Maryland for example. He literally suspended the Democratic process because he felt he had to do so to protect the Union.

President Truman put Japanese people in internment camps. He took their money and their land with little to no compensation for any of them. He did this because after Pearl Harbor it seemed prudent given the fact that Japanese spies in Hawaii helped make the Pearl Harbor attack successful. He didn't go to Congress to do this. He didn't ask if it was ok. He simply did it.

Then you have George Bush with 9-11. It was the first attack on the US Mainland by an outside force in since the 1800's. We had a definite threat of another attack given the fact that terrorists are successful by blending into the populace thus they are difficult to track and locate. So Bush puts a Patriot Act to Congress, which almost everyone votes for, it comes up for reaffirment after the next Presidential election so it can be easily overturned, and yet Bush is the bad guy?

President Lincoln is considered one of the greatest Americans and one of the greatest presidents in our history. President Truman is also very very well thought of because of WW II. They were both much much bolder than Bush was during their times of crisis.

Do you condemn them as well?

Wasn't Genghis Khan even bolder? Do you condemn him?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

The issue isn't the Patriot Act.

The issue is are you well versed in your history and hypocritical or are you ignorant of your history and need to fix that problem? Please bear in mind I'm not trying to be mean to you, I'm simply making a point.

President Lincoln violated almost every right granted to citizen in the constitution during the Civil War. He didn't even bother to put them to vote, he simply issued an executive order removing rights and was done with it. He sent in the military to prevent a legal vote from happening in Maryland for example. He literally suspended the Democratic process because he felt he had to do so to protect the Union.

President Truman put Japanese people in internment camps. He took their money and their land with little to no compensation for any of them. He did this because after Pearl Harbor it seemed prudent given the fact that Japanese spies in Hawaii helped make the Pearl Harbor attack successful. He didn't go to Congress to do this. He didn't ask if it was ok. He simply did it.

Then you have George Bush with 9-11. It was the first attack on the US Mainland by an outside force in since the 1800's. We had a definite threat of another attack given the fact that terrorists are successful by blending into the populace thus they are difficult to track and locate. So Bush puts a Patriot Act to Congress, which almost everyone votes for, it comes up for reaffirment after the next Presidential election so it can be easily overturned, and yet Bush is the bad guy?

President Lincoln is considered one of the greatest Americans and one of the greatest presidents in our history. President Truman is also very very well thought of because of WW II. They were both much much bolder than Bush was during their times of crisis.

Do you condemn them as well?

Have you even read the Patriot Act? Dear god...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

Hold that trigger finger Bub, something is wrong, wrong here. Hehe!

I'm not the one with my finger on the trigger, Moonie.

I am not saying that Bush is absurd. I was referring to your admission:

"Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss."

You are apparently the one who thinks he' pathetic. You just seem to be claiming you don't get worked up emotionally about it and allow it to distort your vision. So how does the formerly easy shot become shooting ourselves in the foot, because it's said with passion? Are you saying the superior argument is the one that is emotionally dead? Bush pisses in your soup and you jump on the first guy that attacks him. Hehe, it makes sense to me. OK, well I just want to report that Bush pissed in your soup, but I don't care. Just wanted to calmly note the fact. He is a nice man but has a few problems. I won't disembowel him or anything. Time for my lunch, I think my cucumber is cold.

:sigh:

It's not said with passion, it's said with vitriol, bile, and vomitous spew. If that's what passes for passion your world, and that seems to be the case, nothing I can say to you will be meaninful.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. 😀 How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

is this some kind of joke? you are one of the most blatantly partisan posters here.

Only from the point of view of some of the most blatantly anti-Bush partisans in here. I've seen people in here who have no like of Bush whatsoever make a single favorable comment about Bush and watched the anti-Bush crew accuse them of being a Bush apologist, a Bush fluffer, blah, blah, blah...the usual accusations. You are so blindly partisan you can't see otherwise, which is your problem and skewed pov, not mine. Until you actually figure that out you will continue to be lost and adrift.

Explain to me how my view on George Bush is skewed. Show me how the views expressed in the patriot act are constitutional.

The skew that I'm addressing is the pov of the opposition and it's highly obvious in this forum.

There have been times in this forum when posters who are not known to support Bush have made comments favorable to him and certain people, usually the most vehement of the anti-Bush crew, start with their Bush apologist/fluffer/lover accusations. Yet you don't see any of the Bush suporters, rabid or otherwise, make moronic little comments like "Well, it looks like so and so is finally coming to their senses." or some such similar drivel.

On the opposite side of the coin, during hurricane Katrina, some Bush supporters in here didn't hesitate to fault Bush. Did we see any of the vehement Bush supporters label them as RBHers? No we did not. But we did have comments such as "Well it looks like so and so is finally seeing the light." If you like I'll be happy to prove what I'm claiming, assuming the search is working today. But any causal readers of this forum can back up my claims, if they want to be honest about it.

That's the skew I'm speaking of, and it's idiotic and rhetorical. I doubt you'll see yourself in it, but you're part of that skewed pov.

And welcome back from vacation.

You're making a vast unfounded generalization; nor have you even begun to define this "Point of View." For the most part you've made it out of thin air.
I personally don't see how the additude of the forum is revelant to debate. So what if Bob says "Bush sucks the big one!" or Joe says "Bush is my hero!"; it's irrevalent to the debate at hand. There is plently of extremes on both sides, it's not an issuse.
You have yet to explain to me how my "point of view" is skewed; please do so. I am just using the Patriot Act as an example of something that we could discuss.

 

[Deudalus]

Have you even read the Patriot Act? Dear god...

Is that it?

Yes I've read it and I understand what it does. I know you are up in arms about it but my life hasn't changed a bit because of it to be honest. I haven't lost any freedoms.

If I was Japanese under Truman I would have lost my money, land, and possibly my life. If I was a citizen of Maryland when Lincoln was in office my representative would have been denied the right to vote and I would have been stripped of many other rights.

Yet these two men are regarded as two of the best presidents in history. They didn't ask to do these things, they simply said "make it so" and people's rights were revoked, democracy set aside, and the constitution thrown out of the window.

I fail to see how Bush who put the Patriot Act to a vote, it recieved bi-partisan support, and has to come up for re-affirment after the 2004 election is somehow so horrible.

Would you care to address my points at all or are you too busy beating your head in the wall trying to avoid the facts?