Joe DeFuria
Legend
Clashman said:
And perhaps some of us react more harshly to the months and months of continuous and non-stop Bush and U.S. Bashing. Go figure
When political polarization goes too far
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
And perhaps some of us react more harshly to the months and months of continuous and non-stop Bush and U.S. Bashing. Go figure
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Clashman said:
Oh, and to address that point specifically...
Yes, I've been on a bit of a "tear" the past couple days, toward two specific individuals:
1) Natoma: It's one thing to argue against Bush economic policy. Don't think tax cuts are a good idea? Fine. It's quite another to assert that Bush is being disingenuous by claiming that he cut taxes. (Bush didn't cut your taxes!) And then after pages of proving his "math" wrong and inconsistent, get no admittance of being wrong....in which case he either doesn't care about being wrong, or he just prefers to outright lie when confronted with the truth. Maybe if you're so upset at my actions the past couple days, you could have stepped in, tapped Natoma on the shoulder and said..."psstt....you're wrong."
2) John: After making posts and threads / comments that are about as politically divisive as one can imagine for the past week or so, he has the nerve to start a thread titled "When political polarization goes too far".
Lies and hypocricy are at or near the top of the "things that piss off Joe" list.
Joe DeFuria said:Clashman said:
And perhaps some of us react more harshly to the months and months of continuous and non-stop Bush and U.S. Bashing. Go figure
It's not Bush bashng, it's trying to protect American values over which Bush and his administration are stomping all over since they came in office, and if public approved in majority toady the gays would be even more discriminated against, the environment would be ignored even more than it is, the deficit, the war's, defence spending, patriot act, guantanamo would be even bigger, and who knows what other crazy ideas could they come up with until even you allegedly on the right side of the spectrum would not be happy with that too...
man you should be grateful that the left exists because with 100% support before new elections you would find out that Bush pushed trough congress to be decared a president for life and that you had a "patriotic" informant in every building in town nailing down the terrorists...
John Reynolds said:
Yeah there is a large and growing portion of libertarians that are disenchanted with Bush. Democoder comes to mind. Kerry pulling far ahead in the democratic race or polls vs Bush?
Sometimes in democracy the leadership from all parties is reprehensible. I have a propensity to look into political platforms to help make my political decisions. That is something I would urge all to do. Don't get me wrong here I do think the top dog is important but often leadership is moved by party policy in general.
I actually think it's more of a case of Bush and U.S. government bashing really. It's not the country or the people critics are unhappy with but rather the actions of the government.
It's much the same here in the UK with the vast majority of the populace unhappy that we were involved in the latest 'Gulf war'. It may even be possible that the Labour Party will lose the next election or, at least, have to form a coalition government. This would have been unthinkable before the Iraq debacle as the Tories have been all but unelectable for several years now.
I think it's a good thing that Saddam has gone but then we should have removed him from power back in the early 90's which could have been done more easily and without such fierce condemnation from the Islamic world - after all Iraq was the aggressor back then.
This current argument between yourself and John is getting more vindictive and nastier post by post and I can't see it doing anyone any good.
Mariner said:
No, I'm done. Joe can continue calling me a liar and hypocrite all he wants, but I'm not going to be baited into a response.
Sabastian said:
In some ways, perhaps, in others it's somewhat scary how neocons will say they love the Founding Fathers and then take action that directly violates their values. Others may disagree but I think Thomas Jefferson would describe our invasion of Iraq as the actions of a tyrannical state, and the Patriot Act as a potential danger toward our civil liberties.
John Reynolds said:
Yeah, violations of privacy are violations of negative rights. But in todays world with all the technology and sharing of information is the right to privacy a realistic proposition? Further the state is responsible for the security of its people if the coordination of the CIA and the FBI require to be unshackled by constraints in order to provide better security then is the patriot act so unpatriotic?
It may be argued from a defense perspective that Iraq or more precisely Saddam was a major threat to Americans security particularly in light of a growing terrorist threat from the demographic that Iraq is situated in.(the mid east.) By going on the offensive in both Afghanistan and Iraq the government is providing protection to its citizens. There is not likely any greater threat to Americans today then before 9/11 if anything there are some in that region who are beginning to get the message.
Further removal of the tyrant that Saddam was is not a betrayal of American values but rather, depending on how you look at it, a deeper faith in them. As the intension is to leave Iraq instilled with many of the same values that America is built on. (democracy etc...)
Sabastian said:
No, Jefferson specifically wrote about not forcing democracy on others, that trying to do so, even with the most noblest of intentions, was equivalent to fighting under a flag of tyranny. I'll have to pull out one of my old college textbooks to find that quote.
And how is the CIA and FBI bound by constraints? Why after one Reichstag-like event, albeit a truly horrific one that sadly introduced America to what other western countries have been dealing with for decades (I was within miles of a terrorist attack, a roadside car bomb, in Germany back in '86), suddenly justify empowering intelligence agencies of the federal government with never-before-granted powers? I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but the amateur historian in me says those powers will inevitably be abused. It just seems to set a dangerous precedent, especially if further terrorist attacks do occur.
Silent_One
Newcomer
True, there might be some abuse of those powers, but the way you've written it it sound like it's happening all the time -"And how is the CIA and FBI bound by constraints? There are, believe it or not, still laws and rules and guidelines they have to abide by. It's not like thir runnung around kicking in the doors of everyone around here. While there are a few cases were there was abuse-a few - do we know how many potential cases where the new powers have done any good? I don't know off hand but there proably are some. We have to be carefull in what we allow the CIA and FBI do do, but that does not mean handcuffing them either. 9-11 is different than the terrorists "what other western countries have been dealing with for decades" Al queda is different. These are difficult times.
Silent_One said:
I should've written unnecessary constraints. And, no, I don't think they're now free to run hog-wild over the American people.
Sabastian said:
Good question. Jefferson probably would've replied that they would need to fight for it themselves if they truly wanted, that it cannot be given or forced onto them. Of course I don't think Jefferson could imagine facing a dictator armed with tanks, jets, 50mm guns, etc., when writing that.
As much as I've criticized the Bush administration for the invasion, there's no intended implication that I hope the post-war efforts fail. Because that would obviously punish the innocent civilians caught in the middle.
John Reynolds said:
the invasion was wrong, however what we have to do now is to keep to the promises that were made and rebuild the country plus support the democracy - non violently- to the best that we can. And this apart from being in Iraqui interest is in our interests as a way to lessen negative view that people there have of the west.
Sabastian said:
Not that he only encouraged them, they were promised that US will come in and help, and when they made an uprising there was a change in US policy (supported by the UN) and welllll... the rest is history.
which comes to me as evidence the populas did want to fight for their freedom. They simply lacked the military capacity to do so.
Would peace have been provided for without an invasion? Why would it have? Was Saddam willing to give up power? No. Were sanctions helping the situation? No.
Would peace have been provided for without an invasion? Why would it have? Was Saddam willing to give up power? No. Were sanctions helping the situation? No.