P
puddle
Guest
It's becoming more and more apparent. . .
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
- Forums
- Archives
- Archive
- General Discussion archive (read-only)
- General Discussion 1999-2009 archive (read-only)
- General Discussion archive 2004 (read-only)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
Republican Party Reptile
Guest
> It's becoming more and more apparent. . .
...that you're a moron.
...that you're a moron.
C
Codreanu
Guest
Interesting commentary on this ridiculous notion -from Lawrence Auster's site:
latest conspiracy theory: Bush got “messages” during debate
What follows is an e-mail exchange with a person who has made intelligent contributions to VFR discussions, but whose soundness of judgment I have sometimes doubted. Here, in pushing the “Bush was wearing a wire at the first debate” theory, he adds to my doubts. The basic flaw in his thinking—which is alarmingly common today—is the readiness to believe a conspiracy theory for which there is no definite evidence, and which is vanishingly unlikely on its own terms, for no other apparent reason than that it confirms the believer’s negative views of the alleged conspirators.
Reader to LA:
In light of your discussion with Paul Gottfried on October 1st on the Bush v. Kerry match-up during the debate, I thought that you might be interested in this article at Salon.com:
It looks like Bush had a receiver in his ear for the debate.
LA to Reader:
This is more anti-Bush madness. He gave the WORST PERFORMANCE in the history of presidential debates, repeating the same phrases over and over, failing to expose his opponent’s many vulnerabilities, AND at the same time we’re supposed to believe that someone was feeding him answers? We’re supposed to credit the idea that the Bush team cheated on the debate, setting Bush up with some kind of radio device, in order that he would mechanically repeat the phrases “hard work” and “mixed messages” over and over for 90 minutes?
This is on the same level as saying that Bush lied about WMDs to get us into the war, knowing that the lie would be exposed by his own weapons inspectors after the war.
This is another example of Bush-hatred making people literally irrational.
Reader to LA:
You can see the wire under his suit though. Screen-caps from television coverage of the debate are already popping up on the web.
One of the conditions for the debate specifically requested that the press not photograph him from behind. (Which they correctly ignored.)
LA to Reader:
You see something bulging from his back. Could be anything. Your definitively calling it a “wire,” which is only a way-out possibility, not something known, shows you’ve taken leave of fact.
As someone said to me, parodying this charge:
“Bush is a robot, radio-controlled by Jewish neocons in a bunker somewhere on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.”
Reader to LA:
Well, what I can see is a small cylindrical bulge leading up to his shoulder then. It does not look like a back brace, and I don’t know of Bush wearing one.
You seem to be operating along the theory that if Bush were to wear a wire it would have made him into a much better speaker. That theory does not hold water with me. I can only imagine a wire making Bush less conversational, as he tries to pay attention to someone speaking into his ear and speak at the same time. And there is no way to tell whether they would have fed him snippets from which he would have extemporized, or whether he would have gotten whole lines.
The wire theory is more probable than your theory. That you speak of me as “taking leave of fact” based on your extremely weak “speaking ability” case strikes me as strange.
LA to Reader:
Please don’t waste more of my time with this silliness.
Reader to LA:
By wire I meant the geometrical shape—not a listening device “wire” such as the FBI uses. When I referred to a receiver, all I said was “looks like.”
Your responses have have struck me as highly emotional and “silly.” I won’t bother trying to discuss this with you, I feel that it is my time that has been wasted.
LA to Reader:
Fine with me.
And so it went.
Once again, let us remember that in order to accept this theory, we would not only have to believe that the President of the United States took into the debate hall before an audience of tens of millions of people a high-tech electronic device attached to his back and an invisible earpiece into which was broadcast Karl Rove’s brilliantly crafted promptings (“It’s hard work,” “A leader can’t give mixed messages,” “We’re working hard,” “Mixed messages,” “Hard work”), but we would also have to believe that all this wild deception and rule-breaking by the president, aimed at making him seem more intelligent and articulate, resulted in the least intelligent and articulate performance in the history of presidential debates, despite the fact that in the second debate, where no one reports seeing any telltale bulge in Bush’s jacket, Bush gave his most verbally fluid performance ever. So, the president engaged in a fantastic deception, which if discovered would result in his disgrace and electoral defeat, and which achieved nothing but “hard work” and “mixed messages,” whereas (if we are to believe the conspiracy theorists), when the president eschewed such deceptions, he gave the best debate of his career.
What the conspiracy theorists offer us is a world turned inside out, where everything intuitively false is really true, and everything intuitively true is really false.
And that very perverseness is the secret appeal of believing in these conspiracy theories. It is the gnostic thrill of imagining that one has a purchase on the “real truth” of things—the truth that is hidden from the complacent, “highly emotional” dullards such as myself who accept the conventional lies fed to us by the powers that be.
Also, I’ve learned that the chief disseminator of the “ear piece” theory, to which my correspondent gives his uncritical credence, is one Dave Lindorff, a writer at Salon.com who has compared Bush to Hitler. And let’s not forget another motive besides pure Bush hatred. Kerry had been accused of taking something out of his jacket and placing it on his lectern just before the first debate, a gross breach of the rules. Given the way today’s Democrats operate, it’s entirely possible they are hyping the absurd idea that Bush was wired in order to distract attention from the suspicions against Kerry. In any case, the anti-war left (in this case, Lindorff) and the anti-war right (my correspondent) have come together like birds of a feather.
Finally, in response to this article, I received an interesting e-mail from a reader named Rocco ([email protected]):
I read your entry about the alleged Bush remote control and had to laugh.
For what it’s worth, my conclusion concerning conspiracy theorists is that they engage in these constructs to assuage the fearful truth: that the world is actually an incredibly chaotic, unpredictable place. This notion scares the hell out of them. On a personal note, I’ve had close contact with three people who were die-hard conspiracy theorists, you know the type: the entire planet is controlled by the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, the Jews, the Bilderbergers,etc, what we “see” is actually nothing but a shell game, blah blah blah.
What did these people have in common? After getting to know them on a personal level, I concluded that they suffered from psychological problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. But it makes sense to me that if life frightens you (as it did with these folks), the best way to get a grip on it is to package it up, nice and tightly and pretend that you understand it. These theories do just that.
I owned a sound and lighting company for eight years. I’ve got a working knowledge of electronics, digital and otherwise. What your email friend and other conspiracy freaks don’t seem to know is that any geek with $50 worth of Radio Shack parts can build a reliable wireless transmitter. And based on my knowledge, building a receiver small enough to conceal in the ear canal would be easily accomplished by modifying an off the shelf digital hearing aid. Bush is in control of far more sophisticated technology. Why the hell would he risk using clunky, Soviet-style garbage?
Just thought you’d like to know…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2004 10:06 PM
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002635.html
latest conspiracy theory: Bush got “messages” during debate
What follows is an e-mail exchange with a person who has made intelligent contributions to VFR discussions, but whose soundness of judgment I have sometimes doubted. Here, in pushing the “Bush was wearing a wire at the first debate” theory, he adds to my doubts. The basic flaw in his thinking—which is alarmingly common today—is the readiness to believe a conspiracy theory for which there is no definite evidence, and which is vanishingly unlikely on its own terms, for no other apparent reason than that it confirms the believer’s negative views of the alleged conspirators.
Reader to LA:
In light of your discussion with Paul Gottfried on October 1st on the Bush v. Kerry match-up during the debate, I thought that you might be interested in this article at Salon.com:
It looks like Bush had a receiver in his ear for the debate.
LA to Reader:
This is more anti-Bush madness. He gave the WORST PERFORMANCE in the history of presidential debates, repeating the same phrases over and over, failing to expose his opponent’s many vulnerabilities, AND at the same time we’re supposed to believe that someone was feeding him answers? We’re supposed to credit the idea that the Bush team cheated on the debate, setting Bush up with some kind of radio device, in order that he would mechanically repeat the phrases “hard work” and “mixed messages” over and over for 90 minutes?
This is on the same level as saying that Bush lied about WMDs to get us into the war, knowing that the lie would be exposed by his own weapons inspectors after the war.
This is another example of Bush-hatred making people literally irrational.
Reader to LA:
You can see the wire under his suit though. Screen-caps from television coverage of the debate are already popping up on the web.
One of the conditions for the debate specifically requested that the press not photograph him from behind. (Which they correctly ignored.)
LA to Reader:
You see something bulging from his back. Could be anything. Your definitively calling it a “wire,” which is only a way-out possibility, not something known, shows you’ve taken leave of fact.
As someone said to me, parodying this charge:
“Bush is a robot, radio-controlled by Jewish neocons in a bunker somewhere on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.”
Reader to LA:
Well, what I can see is a small cylindrical bulge leading up to his shoulder then. It does not look like a back brace, and I don’t know of Bush wearing one.
You seem to be operating along the theory that if Bush were to wear a wire it would have made him into a much better speaker. That theory does not hold water with me. I can only imagine a wire making Bush less conversational, as he tries to pay attention to someone speaking into his ear and speak at the same time. And there is no way to tell whether they would have fed him snippets from which he would have extemporized, or whether he would have gotten whole lines.
The wire theory is more probable than your theory. That you speak of me as “taking leave of fact” based on your extremely weak “speaking ability” case strikes me as strange.
LA to Reader:
Please don’t waste more of my time with this silliness.
Reader to LA:
By wire I meant the geometrical shape—not a listening device “wire” such as the FBI uses. When I referred to a receiver, all I said was “looks like.”
Your responses have have struck me as highly emotional and “silly.” I won’t bother trying to discuss this with you, I feel that it is my time that has been wasted.
LA to Reader:
Fine with me.
And so it went.
Once again, let us remember that in order to accept this theory, we would not only have to believe that the President of the United States took into the debate hall before an audience of tens of millions of people a high-tech electronic device attached to his back and an invisible earpiece into which was broadcast Karl Rove’s brilliantly crafted promptings (“It’s hard work,” “A leader can’t give mixed messages,” “We’re working hard,” “Mixed messages,” “Hard work”), but we would also have to believe that all this wild deception and rule-breaking by the president, aimed at making him seem more intelligent and articulate, resulted in the least intelligent and articulate performance in the history of presidential debates, despite the fact that in the second debate, where no one reports seeing any telltale bulge in Bush’s jacket, Bush gave his most verbally fluid performance ever. So, the president engaged in a fantastic deception, which if discovered would result in his disgrace and electoral defeat, and which achieved nothing but “hard work” and “mixed messages,” whereas (if we are to believe the conspiracy theorists), when the president eschewed such deceptions, he gave the best debate of his career.
What the conspiracy theorists offer us is a world turned inside out, where everything intuitively false is really true, and everything intuitively true is really false.
And that very perverseness is the secret appeal of believing in these conspiracy theories. It is the gnostic thrill of imagining that one has a purchase on the “real truth” of things—the truth that is hidden from the complacent, “highly emotional” dullards such as myself who accept the conventional lies fed to us by the powers that be.
Also, I’ve learned that the chief disseminator of the “ear piece” theory, to which my correspondent gives his uncritical credence, is one Dave Lindorff, a writer at Salon.com who has compared Bush to Hitler. And let’s not forget another motive besides pure Bush hatred. Kerry had been accused of taking something out of his jacket and placing it on his lectern just before the first debate, a gross breach of the rules. Given the way today’s Democrats operate, it’s entirely possible they are hyping the absurd idea that Bush was wired in order to distract attention from the suspicions against Kerry. In any case, the anti-war left (in this case, Lindorff) and the anti-war right (my correspondent) have come together like birds of a feather.
Finally, in response to this article, I received an interesting e-mail from a reader named Rocco ([email protected]):
I read your entry about the alleged Bush remote control and had to laugh.
For what it’s worth, my conclusion concerning conspiracy theorists is that they engage in these constructs to assuage the fearful truth: that the world is actually an incredibly chaotic, unpredictable place. This notion scares the hell out of them. On a personal note, I’ve had close contact with three people who were die-hard conspiracy theorists, you know the type: the entire planet is controlled by the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, the Jews, the Bilderbergers,etc, what we “see” is actually nothing but a shell game, blah blah blah.
What did these people have in common? After getting to know them on a personal level, I concluded that they suffered from psychological problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. But it makes sense to me that if life frightens you (as it did with these folks), the best way to get a grip on it is to package it up, nice and tightly and pretend that you understand it. These theories do just that.
I owned a sound and lighting company for eight years. I’ve got a working knowledge of electronics, digital and otherwise. What your email friend and other conspiracy freaks don’t seem to know is that any geek with $50 worth of Radio Shack parts can build a reliable wireless transmitter. And based on my knowledge, building a receiver small enough to conceal in the ear canal would be easily accomplished by modifying an off the shelf digital hearing aid. Bush is in control of far more sophisticated technology. Why the hell would he risk using clunky, Soviet-style garbage?
Just thought you’d like to know…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2004 10:06 PM
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002635.html
C
clownbait
Guest
> ...that you're a moron.
I'd rather be a moron than an ignorant moron who votes for bush.
I'd rather be a moron than an ignorant moron who votes for bush.
R
Republican Party Reptile
Guest
> I'd rather be a moron than an ignorant moron who votes for bush.
This "Bush had an earpiece" stuff is just rubbish from Democrats jealous of the eagle eyes of Republicans who spotted the fake documents Kerry supporters tried to inject into CBS News' coverage of the election.
And I'd rather be an Afghan who voted for the first time in his life the other day than an Afghan enslaved and starving to death under the Taliban.
This "Bush had an earpiece" stuff is just rubbish from Democrats jealous of the eagle eyes of Republicans who spotted the fake documents Kerry supporters tried to inject into CBS News' coverage of the election.
And I'd rather be an Afghan who voted for the first time in his life the other day than an Afghan enslaved and starving to death under the Taliban.
M
MMFA
Guest
Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do. All of His instructions go straight into W.'s brain.
Similarly, He has gifted George W. Bush with special sight. He sees things other people can't see (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and is blissfully spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea, human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
Praise the Lord!
...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do. All of His instructions go straight into W.'s brain.
Similarly, He has gifted George W. Bush with special sight. He sees things other people can't see (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and is blissfully spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea, human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
Praise the Lord!
R
Republican Party Reptile
Guest
Re: Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
> Similarly, He...is blissfully
> spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea,
> human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
One of Bush's earliest speeches was the one in which he decalred North Korea-Iran-Iraq an "Axis of Evil," and liberals attacked him for it. It wasn't until the IAEA went into Iran to confirm Bush's warnings that liberals jumped on that bandwagon.
The U.S. economy is certainly not "collapsing." Alan Greenspan recently stated the economic recovery has traction.
Bush talks about human rights abuses constantly, and left wingers keep telling him he's supposed to ignore and make America isolationist.
> Similarly, He...is blissfully
> spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea,
> human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
One of Bush's earliest speeches was the one in which he decalred North Korea-Iran-Iraq an "Axis of Evil," and liberals attacked him for it. It wasn't until the IAEA went into Iran to confirm Bush's warnings that liberals jumped on that bandwagon.
The U.S. economy is certainly not "collapsing." Alan Greenspan recently stated the economic recovery has traction.
Bush talks about human rights abuses constantly, and left wingers keep telling him he's supposed to ignore and make America isolationist.
S
suzanne
Guest
Re: Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
> ...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human
> technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do.
yes, exactly. as James T Kirk once said, "what does God need with a starship?"
> ...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human
> technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do.
yes, exactly. as James T Kirk once said, "what does God need with a starship?"
M
MMFA
Guest
Re: Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
> One of Bush's earliest speeches was the one in which he decalred North
> Korea-Iran-Iraq an "Axis of Evil," and liberals attacked him for
> it. It wasn't until the IAEA went into Iran to confirm Bush's warnings
> that liberals jumped on that bandwagon.
Liberals haven't jumped on Bush's bandwagon-- nor has Kerry, although obviously he's stepped up his fighting posture. Real liberals have never denied or wanted to look away from tyrannical regimes, but have always pursued a policy of containment and reaction bolstered by strong international alliances rather than a reckless policy reliant on unilateral pre-emptive strikes. (Oops, did I forget Poland?) Who started the Vietnam war on the grounds of containment? Kennedy and Johnson. Who kept up the Bush administration sanctions against Iraq, effectively neutering Saddam Hussein (which has just recently been verified by intelligence reports)? Clinton. Liberals weren't looking the other way, they had a different plan of dealing with these problems.
Did September 11 change that? Must we now abandon containment and reaction? Yes, I'd say we have to. Invading Afghanistan wasn't a bad start, though it remains to be seen how that turns out. So why didn't Bush continue the fight? Why did he invade Iraq when even now people like Rumsfeld and Cheney are forced to admit there was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?
I'll remind you that Osama bin Laden did not decide to attack the U.S. because of our weak, liberal-minded leaders. He decided America was an immediate threat to the Muslim world as a result of what happened in the first Gulf War. You know, after he'd done his time as a CIA asset and seen the belly of the beast firsthand.
Your statement also ignores the fact that Bush sent a clear message to every "evil" nation in the world that the only way to prevent a U.S. invasion is to get nukes. All that "Axis of Evil" bullshit died down pretty quickly after North Korea started their program again. Bush didn't create the tyrannies in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, but he exacerbated the problem by toppling Hussein using the strategies and rhetoric he did. Our enemies aren't running scared. They're stocking up on plutonium.
Also, Bush was attacked not for pointing out this "axis" of evil, but because of his choice of words. First of all, you don't use a State of the Union speech to call out enemies like you were a pro wrestler wielding a steel chair. Not only is that gratuitous and unstatesmanlike, it's not even good policy (why alert Iran and North Korea that they're on the U.S. "to-do" list until you have to?) "Axis" was a transparent attempt to connect his dumb oil 'n' Jesus adventure to the unimpeachable arguments for the Allies in World War II, and using the word "evil" (and "evildoers") bothered liberals because it's yet another sign that Bush sees the world like a cowboy riding around the deserts of the Old Testament. A lot of political talk is hot air, but then again certain language does tend to raise one's eyebrows, as in, to cite another example, Bush and his people talking about how God put W. in the White House for "a specific purpose". Mm-hmm.
> The U.S. economy is certainly not "collapsing." Alan Greenspan
> recently stated the economic recovery has traction.
Record deficits. Social Security going in the tank. The worst job creation record in the history of the nation. The value of the dollar denigrated around the world. The gap between rich and poor growing wider every day. I'm glad Alan Greenspan likes what he sees. Do you?
> Bush talks about human rights abuses constantly, and left wingers keep
> telling him he's supposed to ignore and make America isolationist.
Bush talks a lot about a lot of things. What do you think of human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay? How about in Afghan prisons, where a U.S. contractor recently admitted murdering an inmate? Or Abu Gharaib? What about the plight of the Palestinians, who are not only off the radar but completely at the mercy of Bush's pal Sharon? How about Sudan, your pet project? And taking Bush on his own terms, what about the fate of the millions of North Koreans living under brutal conditions in their country? What about China, for that matter?
No liberals attack Bush for his talk of human rights per se. Rather, liberals blame Bush for his gross hypocrisy and for his selective vision in applying his standards of morality. There's a right way and a wrong way to secure basic human rights, and Bush has gone about it the wrong way. You don't care for people by killing them. You don't spread democracy with B-1 bombers. All this talk of "freedom" and "liberty"-- who would object to spreading these around the world? Not liberals. But these are merely cover stories used by the Bush junta to hide their real objectives, which are economic and military rather than altruistic. We looked around, realized we were the only superpower left, and decided we'd shove our values down everyone else's throat. Well, surprise. The world doesn't work that way. Especially not seven thousand year-old civilizations. And now, as Kerry correctly points out, we are overextended and spread thin on a mission our troops shouldn't be on. Contiminated fuel delivered by the demoralized schlub whose day job is cashiering at the Qwik-E-Mart, anyone?
You mentioned isolationism. An interesting concept, albeit not really feasible. I think the lesson of the twentieth century teaches the impossibility of isolationism, which I'm sure you agree with. But there's no need to take it to the other extreme, either. There's no need for an American empire. More to the point, debating the "isolationist" stance implies that somehow America was dragged into this "war" while standing innocently on the sidelines. No. We are fighting wars in the Middle East as the inevitable outcome of decades of meddling in Arab affairs, on the one hand, and unflinching support for Israel's atrocitites on the other. September 11 was blowback in response to America's non-isolationist stance, so any argument about "isolationism" is moot. We're in a great big pile of shit over there and now we have to deal with it. Bush wants to lie down in it and make happy shit-angels with his arms and legs. Kerry wants to dig us out. Granted, his shovel may be a small one, but at least he brought one to the party.
Gosh, it's so much more fun to focus on windsurfing, Cambodia and poor little Mary Cheney, isn't it!
Next.
> One of Bush's earliest speeches was the one in which he decalred North
> Korea-Iran-Iraq an "Axis of Evil," and liberals attacked him for
> it. It wasn't until the IAEA went into Iran to confirm Bush's warnings
> that liberals jumped on that bandwagon.
Liberals haven't jumped on Bush's bandwagon-- nor has Kerry, although obviously he's stepped up his fighting posture. Real liberals have never denied or wanted to look away from tyrannical regimes, but have always pursued a policy of containment and reaction bolstered by strong international alliances rather than a reckless policy reliant on unilateral pre-emptive strikes. (Oops, did I forget Poland?) Who started the Vietnam war on the grounds of containment? Kennedy and Johnson. Who kept up the Bush administration sanctions against Iraq, effectively neutering Saddam Hussein (which has just recently been verified by intelligence reports)? Clinton. Liberals weren't looking the other way, they had a different plan of dealing with these problems.
Did September 11 change that? Must we now abandon containment and reaction? Yes, I'd say we have to. Invading Afghanistan wasn't a bad start, though it remains to be seen how that turns out. So why didn't Bush continue the fight? Why did he invade Iraq when even now people like Rumsfeld and Cheney are forced to admit there was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?
I'll remind you that Osama bin Laden did not decide to attack the U.S. because of our weak, liberal-minded leaders. He decided America was an immediate threat to the Muslim world as a result of what happened in the first Gulf War. You know, after he'd done his time as a CIA asset and seen the belly of the beast firsthand.
Your statement also ignores the fact that Bush sent a clear message to every "evil" nation in the world that the only way to prevent a U.S. invasion is to get nukes. All that "Axis of Evil" bullshit died down pretty quickly after North Korea started their program again. Bush didn't create the tyrannies in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, but he exacerbated the problem by toppling Hussein using the strategies and rhetoric he did. Our enemies aren't running scared. They're stocking up on plutonium.
Also, Bush was attacked not for pointing out this "axis" of evil, but because of his choice of words. First of all, you don't use a State of the Union speech to call out enemies like you were a pro wrestler wielding a steel chair. Not only is that gratuitous and unstatesmanlike, it's not even good policy (why alert Iran and North Korea that they're on the U.S. "to-do" list until you have to?) "Axis" was a transparent attempt to connect his dumb oil 'n' Jesus adventure to the unimpeachable arguments for the Allies in World War II, and using the word "evil" (and "evildoers") bothered liberals because it's yet another sign that Bush sees the world like a cowboy riding around the deserts of the Old Testament. A lot of political talk is hot air, but then again certain language does tend to raise one's eyebrows, as in, to cite another example, Bush and his people talking about how God put W. in the White House for "a specific purpose". Mm-hmm.
> The U.S. economy is certainly not "collapsing." Alan Greenspan
> recently stated the economic recovery has traction.
Record deficits. Social Security going in the tank. The worst job creation record in the history of the nation. The value of the dollar denigrated around the world. The gap between rich and poor growing wider every day. I'm glad Alan Greenspan likes what he sees. Do you?
> Bush talks about human rights abuses constantly, and left wingers keep
> telling him he's supposed to ignore and make America isolationist.
Bush talks a lot about a lot of things. What do you think of human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay? How about in Afghan prisons, where a U.S. contractor recently admitted murdering an inmate? Or Abu Gharaib? What about the plight of the Palestinians, who are not only off the radar but completely at the mercy of Bush's pal Sharon? How about Sudan, your pet project? And taking Bush on his own terms, what about the fate of the millions of North Koreans living under brutal conditions in their country? What about China, for that matter?
No liberals attack Bush for his talk of human rights per se. Rather, liberals blame Bush for his gross hypocrisy and for his selective vision in applying his standards of morality. There's a right way and a wrong way to secure basic human rights, and Bush has gone about it the wrong way. You don't care for people by killing them. You don't spread democracy with B-1 bombers. All this talk of "freedom" and "liberty"-- who would object to spreading these around the world? Not liberals. But these are merely cover stories used by the Bush junta to hide their real objectives, which are economic and military rather than altruistic. We looked around, realized we were the only superpower left, and decided we'd shove our values down everyone else's throat. Well, surprise. The world doesn't work that way. Especially not seven thousand year-old civilizations. And now, as Kerry correctly points out, we are overextended and spread thin on a mission our troops shouldn't be on. Contiminated fuel delivered by the demoralized schlub whose day job is cashiering at the Qwik-E-Mart, anyone?
You mentioned isolationism. An interesting concept, albeit not really feasible. I think the lesson of the twentieth century teaches the impossibility of isolationism, which I'm sure you agree with. But there's no need to take it to the other extreme, either. There's no need for an American empire. More to the point, debating the "isolationist" stance implies that somehow America was dragged into this "war" while standing innocently on the sidelines. No. We are fighting wars in the Middle East as the inevitable outcome of decades of meddling in Arab affairs, on the one hand, and unflinching support for Israel's atrocitites on the other. September 11 was blowback in response to America's non-isolationist stance, so any argument about "isolationism" is moot. We're in a great big pile of shit over there and now we have to deal with it. Bush wants to lie down in it and make happy shit-angels with his arms and legs. Kerry wants to dig us out. Granted, his shovel may be a small one, but at least he brought one to the party.
Gosh, it's so much more fun to focus on windsurfing, Cambodia and poor little Mary Cheney, isn't it!
Next.
C
Colleen1962
Guest
Re: Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
> ...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human
> technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do. All of His
> instructions go straight into W.'s brain.
> Similarly, He has gifted George W. Bush with special sight. He sees things
> other people can't see (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and is blissfully
> spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea,
> human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
> Praise the Lord!
Oh....My...God... you cannot be serious? Didn't you SEE the OBVIOUSLY THICK WIRE in the back of Bush's crappy blue suit, underneath his shoulders? If YOUR Almighty is for Bush, we are in SERIOUS trouble. The man cannot organize his way out of a paper bag, much less a country. Praise Morrissey!
> ...after all, everyone knows that the Almighty doesn't need human
> technology when he tells George W. Bush what to do. All of His
> instructions go straight into W.'s brain.
> Similarly, He has gifted George W. Bush with special sight. He sees things
> other people can't see (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and is blissfully
> spared seeing what everyone else does (nukes in Iran and North Korea,
> human rights abuses, collapsing U.S. economy).
> Praise the Lord!
Oh....My...God... you cannot be serious? Didn't you SEE the OBVIOUSLY THICK WIRE in the back of Bush's crappy blue suit, underneath his shoulders? If YOUR Almighty is for Bush, we are in SERIOUS trouble. The man cannot organize his way out of a paper bag, much less a country. Praise Morrissey!
S
Small Paul
Guest
Re: Come on, that 'wire' story is SO ridiculous...
> Oh....My...God... you cannot be serious? Didn't you SEE the OBVIOUSLY
> THICK WIRE in the back of Bush's crappy blue suit, underneath his
> shoulders? If YOUR Almighty is for Bush, we are in SERIOUS trouble. The
> man cannot organize his way out of a paper bag, much less a country.
> Praise Morrissey!
Colleen, some friendly advice. If you want to avoid appearing a bit dim, take some time reading the posts properly before responding.
> Oh....My...God... you cannot be serious? Didn't you SEE the OBVIOUSLY
> THICK WIRE in the back of Bush's crappy blue suit, underneath his
> shoulders? If YOUR Almighty is for Bush, we are in SERIOUS trouble. The
> man cannot organize his way out of a paper bag, much less a country.
> Praise Morrissey!
Colleen, some friendly advice. If you want to avoid appearing a bit dim, take some time reading the posts properly before responding.
M
Morrissey the 23rd
Guest
They've reformed? NM
Similar threads
B
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 673
B
B
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 651
B
L
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 981
O
M
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 2K
R
Share:
- Forums
- Archives
- Archive
- General Discussion archive (read-only)
- General Discussion 1999-2009 archive (read-only)
- General Discussion archive 2004 (read-only)
