BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:05 PM

Gee, Doug, I gave you the opportunity to look up your own sources, and you didn't bother, and complained.

I gave you my sources, and you complained you don't like them because they are politically slanted. Well, duh -- is there any other kind?

Of course, many of those sources quoted extensively from mainstream newspapers, the AP wire, and SEC reports -- you could go look up the originals if you want. One was even a copy of an internal Harken Energy document. Is it "anti-Bush" because it says something you don't like?

I still don't know what "charge" you think I made -- because I never made one, except to say that it looks like a lot like a snake. And it still does.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:28 PM

I rest my case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:53 PM

Well, Doug, my friend, I do think your hypocrisy is hanging out at tad here. Nicole has not only provided you with more stuff to work with than Ken Starr got for your $40M, but also has done it in a logical and concise manner. And the little timne between your post suggests that you didn't spend much time on *evaluating* but a lot of time in *reacting*.

A second thought on the subject, which also has some apparent hypocritical undertones on your part relates to *proff*. Here, Nicole has provided you with a lot more proof of Bush's wrong-doings than Bush has presented the American people in trying to sell a war against Iraq.

Yeah, I know you will twist this up to suit yourself, but you are not sounding like the *thoughtful* guy we've all come to wrestle with here lately and I, for one, miss the old Doug!

Free Dougie Now!

Free Dougie Now!

Hey, just practicin' in case someone has actually taken you off and left Ari Fleisher to man your spot in the Catbox. Man, that would be bad, because this guy 'ill shoot ya' if he don't like ya'. Just ask him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:59 PM

All right, you reactionary cross-eyed mugwump of an owlhoot!! Who are you and what have you done with my buddy DougR??

**BG**

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:59 PM

I ain't doin' it again. (At least not any time soon.) All that re-organized plagiarism was hard work.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:04 PM

Thank you Nicole, for the time and trouble you went to. The information is well organized, and again, thank you for doing it.

I expect that President Bush will be arrested any day now, along with his father, his mother, his brothers, and all their kin. :>)

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:17 PM

Are you experiencing deja vu, Doug? :-)

I do not think it's fair to lable G.W. as "un-American". Unsavoury, perhaps...unrepentant...unconscionable...uncanny...unresponsive...but definitely NOT unAmerican. The nerve of some liberals!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:35 PM

LOL, Leedle 'Awk!! You 'ave ze ahrony in your blood, Non?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM

But seriously, I don't think Bush is "un-American." That requires defining what being "American" is, and I don't think any of us can manage that.

That doesn't mean I might not question his motives and I definately believe that he is acting contrary to American interests. (In a BIG way!)

I might call him un-American if he were trying to get American to rejoin the British Empire or such :)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:58 PM

See, the thing is that those who understand the core values of the Founding Fathers embrace a tolerance which allows even sleazeballs into their definition of "American". But those who embrace the vision of sleazeballs don't make the same room for visionaries of a more Jeffersonian stamp!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:59 PM

Doug. Oh Doug. NicoleC kicked your ass, ON YOUR TERMS, and you can't even begin to show her the respect she deserves... How can you be so stupid (yes, stupid) to suggest that ANY credible critsism of GWB would EVER come from his 'supporters'... Duh... Bushmen are the kings of denial, and the princes of pay-off... all blind support, and yes, they are supressing facts right now!.


The facts that NicoleC presented to you on a silver platter are no less true because you have sluffed them off as discreditable sources... I think in fact, the way the Bushmen work is this... "one unsupportive word and you're out on your ear"... and,... "we've got enough on you to keep you quiet for a long time"...


The way I see it, Bush can't take two steps away from "his" military, because when he does, he'll have no actual support at all... get real Doug... will these "facts" be real enough then?


For my part, the connection between the bin Ladens and the Bushs makes my skin crawl...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:14 PM

If I can't discuss a subject with someone without being called stupid, then count me out.

I have great respect for Nicole. She is an excellent spokesperson for views that are opposite from mine. If I offended her, I am sorry, but I do believe that she is capable of defending herself if I did, and I don't believe she would hesitate to let me know.

Were I to use Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hennity, or any other conservative voice as a resource to support my views, I would be labeled a right-wing kook, I'm sure. Yet sources opposed to Bush are used with abandon here, and are considerd by the majority in this forum as being perfectly okay.

I believe if GWB was as bad a person as Nicole claims, he would have been jailed by now. He certainly would not be president of the United States.

That's 30 for me on this thread.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:01 PM

DougR:

You are certainly not stupid, and it was inappropriate to resort toshallow ad hominem propositions. Thomas, go stand in the corner! :>)

I value your views, Doug -- change them when you wish,but don't stop communicasting.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:30 AM

Doug, I said you were being stupid. I did not mean that I thought you were a stupid person... I am way stupider than you!


To the corner I shall go today

Dreaming of the peace

And quietly as we should say

That warring has to cease


Speaking out to better worlds

Inlists the ardent minds

Better than a flag unfurled

Flown high... so often blinds


Entreat me now in ruptured joy

What are we doing here?

Are war machines but one man's toy

When all shed bitter tears?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:16 AM

Graciously done, Thomas me friend! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:29 AM

Well, DougR if you used Rush Limbaugh as a source it would be decried by us (or at least by me) because he is a flaming Nazi gasbag who makes up his facts. Hennity I don't know, so I can't comment. But Nicole went to CNN, to the Associated press, The Washington Post, Time, The nation; in other words to people who go and report real facts. So I think there is a difference there.

What's not that logical about your position is that you asked for facts relating to Bush's wrongdoing but then discredited the facts nicole sent on the grounds that the people presenting the facts were anti-Bush. Obviously, if someone is presenting facts that incriminate Bush, their rhetorical goal MUST be to discredit him--otherwise they would present different facts. So you have asked for certain facts and then essentially refused to accept any of those same facts because they can only serve an anti-Bush agenda. Seems to me you didn't REALLY want the facts you asked for.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Peg
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:15 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but Doug, you are being very unfair and difficult about this.

Nicole was apparently damned if she did, damned if she didn't. What sort of "facts" is she expected to provide beyond the reporting of a number of respected journalistic venues? I realize journalism isn't what it used to be in Ed Murrow's day, but neither should the research and investigations of reporters for these news outlets be dismissed simply because you enjoy characterizing al of the press as "liberal." (I teach media studies and it has been my conclusion more and more recently that nothing could be further from the truth, especially given the corporate ownership of most major news outlets).

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to CNN? Please. And last time I checked the Washington Post was considered a fairly conservative paper...so where's the bias now?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:29 AM

Well, Peg, truth is in the eye of the beholder, I think. I don't believe most conservative thinkers would consider either CNN, The Washington Post, or the sources Nicole relied on to support her argument as conservative in any way. Liberals may consider them so, but not conservatives.

I don't want to pick on Nicole. I like her, though I have never met her. But charges made about GWB on this forum, in my opinion, are outrageous. Note that I said, in my opinion! The charges made by many posters are unsupportable by facts. They can be supported by sources opposed to him. No doubt about that.

I have been accused of being unfair to Nicloe. Perhaps I have. But can anyone who has pointed the finger at me, refer me to a single article in those same sources she used to support her argument, that supports the president on any single issue? If you can, I will apologize to Nicole, and to all Mudcatters.

The general feeling on the Mudcat seems to be that one can level any charge against GWB or any Republican for that matter, point to a source that is anti-GWB and Republicans, and everyone is supposed to say, "Hey, that must be right!" It says so in print! I don't subscribe to that theory. Were I to use the same arguments to criticize the Democratic leadership citing conservative publications (there are some)I'm sure my liberal friends would be as unaccepting of the evidence as I am about Nicole's sources.

I replied to your post, Peg, because I respect you, and your views. I had already posted a 30 at the end of my last message, and as a teacher of Journalism, you know what that means. I will still read messages posted to this thread, but this time it is really 30 for me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 09:58 AM

I've spent an interesting afternoon reading through the links provided above by Nicole.

Fascinating reading! - If it were about anybody other that George W Bush - nobody would have given a hoot, not an eyebrow would have been raised.

The sixteen links she refers to in her chronological table (some are duplicated) date largely from the late 1990's to some written in 2002. The two exceptions are the Harkin Minutes of Meeting dated 6th December, 1989, and the motherjones.com link piece re Family Values dated Sept/Oct 1992.

Excellent exercise in 20 x 20 hindsight, combined with extremely dextrous weaving of exceptionally tenuous threads in order to build the case.

This won't come as much of a surprise - but in this case Doug you are spot on - the whole thing is purely a political hatchet job - the authors know they don't have any evidence against the man, but by God they are going to muddy the waters for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:12 PM

Well, I don't think I need an apology, Doug -- I was just making a point. I don't usually post links to newspaper as "proof," because eveeryone will disagree about the politics of a particular newspaper.

The point was, though, that you accuse others of using rhetoric, while doing the same thing yourself. When offered the opportunity and the assistance to look at the proof from sources you would consider okay, you didn't.

Your deefense seems to be certered around the idea that he's President, so he must be a good guy. Hogwash. Popularity contests do not ensure that the best contestant win.

The only charge I would level at Bush is that he's a hypocrite and a liar. He talks about corporate responsibility & ethics, but his own record is awfully dirty in that department -- much of it barely on the side of the law, but some of it not.   When it come to his episode of insider trading, he's either guilty or a complete blithering idiot -- take your pick.

He talks a big military game, but chose to go AWOL for a year while serving with the national guard.

He talks a lot about "Christian values," but fails to behave in a way that emphasizes the teachings of Christ.

He's been caught in so many lies, I can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He lied about his alcoholism, lied about his history with CHIP, lied about his military record. He lied about his relationship with Kenneth Lay. He said he watched the first plane hit the Twin Towers live on TV -- when there was no such broadcast on any TV station. He lied first about having foreknowledge of the fact Harken Energy would report a loss, or he wouldn't have sold his stock. When shown he DID know, he decided to say the paperwork had been lost. 4 times. Then he said the SEC has exonerated him, when it hadn't ever done so.

The list goes on and on. Yet we're supposed to believe him when he says, "I have proof, trust me?"

Not a chance. He's either a deliberate and prolific liar, or too stupid to remember events in his own life.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM

". . . truth is in the eye of the beholder, I think."

Just to pick a small philosophical nit, Doug. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Truth is truth. Whether or not someone choses to look at it is another matter.   

Don Firth