BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush

Subject: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:01 PM

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:11:34 -0500
A Conservative point of view
You might be interested in the following just written by Charley
Reese of the Orlando Sentinel. If you know the writer and
his strongly conservative reputation, you should find it eye
opening. Note particularly what he says about John Kerry.
The conservative journalists, Robert Novak and William Kristol,
happen to be saying the same things. Here's a column from the
VERY CONSERVATIVE Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinal.

Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet
          Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war ---Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neocons ervative ideologues and their corporate backers.
          I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.
         It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.
         John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.
          But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be. People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.
          It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.
          It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?
         This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world due to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration.
          Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace. I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site (www.johnkerry.com ) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face.
          Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:08 PM

Guest, Frank.

Israel as dangerous as North Korea and Iran?

Did you pull some of your brain matter out the last time you used a Q-tip on your ears?

All we don't need is Herman Munster for President.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:10 PM

He's not alone. Even conservative stalwarts like Tucker Carlson and George Will are finding plenty to complain about with George. Regardless of political orientation, incompetence is incompetence. Bush's pursuit of Iraq as an attainable military objective with no end game, his continuing anything-but-conservative fiscal policy, his growth of federal government's reach and power, and his investment of time and money in 80s anti-ballistic missile technologies in preference to controlling the spread of third world and terrorist access to nukes, are issues with which even staunch conservatives have difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:33 PM

I think it's true that Israel is much less dangerous than North Korea and Iran, for this reason: if you leave them alone, they won't do anything to anyone. Now I understand that many feel the status quo there is unfair, etc., etc., but Israel has no plans to expand, no desire to attack other countries, and there's very little danger of their using nukes since their only significant enemies are right on top of them.

The US is a different story.

Vote Kerry. What we don't need is Alfred E. Neumann to stay in office. I'll take Herman Munster or Lurch any day!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 05:56 PM

"Israel dangerous"

What you treat as if it was a statement of fact is simply a European poll result, found at one particular moment in time with one particular question (sorry, I don't know the wording, but I know it was criticised harshly).

You may look differently at this in North America, but from a European point of view of course what Israel (or Arafat or Egypt or...) does (or does not) is considered much more relevant than what North Korea does. That assessment has nothing to do with the right or wrong of what Israel does, just with the perceived relevance for European safety.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 06:45 PM

Martin--This is not a comment from Frank, it is news commentary--as he says here:

>You might be interested in the following just written by Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel.

You can increase the type size to make this stuff easier to read--

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 07:42 PM

"if you leave them alone, they won't do anything to anyone"

There's every reason to see that as applying to Iran and North Korea, at least as much as it does to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 09:30 PM

"Israel has no plans to expand"

Hasn't Israel expanded its territory by a factor of four since it was established?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 09:49 PM

LEJ:

What is the source for that? Curious.

The initial area at the time of partition was about 10,000 sq miles. What is it today, do you know? Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 09:59 PM

And if Israel won that land in a war, too bad.

How little do you WANT them to be, LEJ?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:05 PM

Well, I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of Israel. But Israel never planned to expand. Each expansion occurred when they had been attacked and defeated their attackers. It certainly has no plans for expansion now!

I think North Korea would gobble up South Korea if it could, and Iran has many people, both in government and in the clergy, who wish to wage Jihad. That's not to say there's an imminent threat, but both countries may well be powder kegs; certainly moreso than Israel.

But the point of the article again: whether you are conservative or liberal, vote Kerry!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 12:01 AM

"Each expansion occurred when they had been attacked and defeated their attackers."

Not so. Israel, Great Britain, and France attacked Egypt in 1956, and Israel invaded and occupied the Sinai. Detailed account cut and pasted below:

As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Britain and France, both of whom were in the process of losing their centuries-old empires, decided on a strategy straight our of their 19th Century Imperial histories. This plan led to a joint invasion and occupation of the Suez Canal zone by Britain and France. This was meant to reassert control of this vital waterway to the British and French companies stung by Nasser's bold nationalization. At France's suggestion, planning was coordinated with Israel, a fact which all three nations denied for years afterwards.

On October 29, 1956, Israeli troops invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and quickly overcame opposition as they raced for Suez. The next day, Britain and France, following their part of the script, offered to temporarily occupy the Canal Zone and suggested a 10 mile buffer on either side which would separate the Egyptian forces from the Israelis. Nasser of course refused, and on October 31, Egypt was attacked and invaded by the military forces of Britain and France. In response to these developments, the Soviet Union, which at the time was ruthlessly suppressing an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary, threatened to intervene on Egypt's behalf. President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt. The United States, caught by surprise by the dual invasions, was more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Britain and France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez. The war itself lasted for only a week, and invading forces were withdrawn within the month. As a result, Egypt now firmly aligned herself with the Soviet Union, which armed Egypt and other Arab nations for the continuing struggle against Israel.

So, that was an Israeli attack, not an Egyptian attack. (there had been numerous provocations on both sides, but Israel, the UK, and France launched the war) Israel was persuaded to pull out of the occupied Sinai by the USA.

Then in 1967 Israel launched another war, the "Six-Day War", described briefly as: "In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side."   

Yes, in '67 it was Israel which launched a devastating surprise attack on its Arab opponents (destroying their air power) and it was in that war that Israel took most of the Arab and Egyptian land that it has since occupied. Israel attacked and the Arabs did NOT defeat their attackers. Jordan lost the west bank, Egypt lost the Sinai, and Syria lost the Golan heights.

Israel also later invaded Lebanon and occupied much of that country for a time.

I make that 3 wars launched by Israel, not upon Israel, all resulting in the occupation of other people's land. (Israelis will claim that there were provocations, and there were...there were plenty of provocations going in BOTH directions on pretty well a fulltime basis. :-) But Israel launched the full scale wars that followed those provocations.)

In 1973 the Egyptians and Syrians launched a surprise attack of their own (having learned a thing or two since '67), and were somewhat more successful than usual...the longterm result was: Egypt was able to arrange a treaty with Israel and get back most of the territory they had lost in the Six-Day War.

For Israelis to perpetuate the absolute myth that they have only been attacked and never been the attacker is rather odd, given this history, but people who can't be bothered to study it may easily believe such a myth.

Read up on the whole sad story at:

"The History Guy - Arab-Israeli Wars"

It is not a site that takes sides on the matter, it's simply a chronological history of the events.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:38 AM

I disagree, LH. It's easy to say "provocations occurred on both sides, but Israel initiated the full-scale war." All that means is that you decided one of Israel's moves was the start of the war. In fact, by not recognizing Israel, the Arab governments have mostly kept themselves in a perpetual state of war with Israel.

In 1956, Nasser stated outright that he wanted to destroy Israel, took command of the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then blockaded Eilat and Israel's access to the Suez Canal. These last were breaches of treaty and acts of war.

The whole question of Lebanon is irrelevant, because Israel did not annex any territory or claim it for Israel, which is what we were discussing. You wouldn't say that the US expanded its territory by occupying Japan in 1945. So we could argue the merits of that action, but it's not relevant to the size or territory of Israel.

In 1967, Israel did strike first, but after Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilized their armies and made clear their intentions to attack. Even so, Israel struck only against Egypt; Jordan and Syria then attacked Israel. So the only claim you could make for Israel taking territory through aggression is the Gaza strip, and even that is a stretch.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:54 AM

By the way, I really don't want this to turn into a discussion of Israel, so can we just say that the whole issue was a sideline to the original point? Regardless of whether you think Israel was the agressor or not, as Wolfgang says, it's just a European poll, and does not express the opinion of either Charley Reese or Guest, Frank. Therefore it's not really relevant to this thread, which should be about conservatives turning against Bush. So by all means, if you want to discuss Israel we can do so. But please start another thread.

To get this one back on course, I have heard that the very conservative Lou Dobbs of CNN has also been converted to the anti-Bush side. Does anyone have more information on this?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:15 AM

Not on that, but the Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag, last Friday printed another column, by a conservative, stating that it would be better for conservatives if Bush lost. In addition to drawing parallels between Bush and John Major (who presided over a drastic fall in Tory influence), the column also has some great lines--Bush's "fiscal policy has been an orgy of irresponsibility." and:

"If he secures re-election, President Bush can be relied on to press on with a foreign policy based on pre-emptive military force, to ignore the impending fiscal crisis ( on the Cheney principle that "Deficits don't matter") and to pursue socially conservative objectives like the ban on gay marriage. Anyone who thinks this combination will serve to maintain Republican unity is dreaming; it will do the opposite".

Better for Bush to lose--couldn't agree more. Let's see if we can oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 06:14 AM

Most European conservatives would agree - in private.
Please do them that favour.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:33 AM

but elephants are such comfy beasts to ride!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 04:03 PM

In order to clear up some historical inacuracies in some previous posts in this thread, I am posting this from Simha Flapan, an Israeli historian who played an active role in the 1948 war. According to Flapan, "Arab invasion" was not the reason for the start of that war. Israeli expansionism was the reason for the start of the 1948 war:

http://desip.igc.org/The48ArabInvasionDeconstructed.html

"Flapan divides his book into seven sections, each addressing a myth associated with the birth of Israel. Examining "Myth Five," Flapan argues that it was not the Arab invasion which brought on war, but rather the decision by the Jewish leadership to declare statehood on May 14. Flapan contends that documents show that the "Arabs had agreed to a last minute American proposal for a three-month truce on the condition that Israel temporarily postpone its Declaration of Independence. Israel's provisional government rejected the American proposal by a slim majority of 6 to 4." (p. 9)

Ethnic Cleansing, 1947

The reason the Americans and the international community were alarmed as May 14 approached was that a calamitous communal war had broken out immediately after passage of the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. In the war between the stronger Jewish forces and the less prepared Arab community, parallels can be drawn to the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Bosnia.

Like the Serbs today, the Jewish forces generally did everything they could to force the Palestinians to flee their cities, towns and villages. The Arab flight which numbered 60,000 by the end of March 1948, increased dramatically after April 9, 1948, the date of the infamous Dir Yassin massacre, when Menachem Begin's Irgun (with the tacit complicity of Ben-Gurion's Haganah) slaughtered more than 100 civilians from a "friendly" Arab village near Jerusalem.

News of the massacre, including cases of rape, spread quickly throughout the Arab community and led to the terrified mass flight of civilians in search of safety. Before the middle of May '48 almost 300,000 Palestinians had fled.

Avoiding Repatriation

One reason that Ben-Gurion opted for Statehood on May 14 despite international opposition was because he understood that if he held back and a truce was effected, a new Israeli State might well be forced to repatriate the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians already made refugees. Moreover, by mid-May, there remained more than 500,000 Palestinians in areas that the Jewish forces controlled or desired for their state. Ben-Gurion had no intention of allowing such a large Arab minority to remain in Israel and therefore he chose war. In the end, more than 750,000 Palestinians were exiled forever from their homes.

Flapan also argues that an unprepared Arab nation entered the war reluctantly. The Arab forces were divided politically and, contrary to myth, they were no match for the Jewish forces in numbers either.

Flapan cites figures which indicate that the combined Arab armies totaled no more than 25,000 troops; including 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,500 Transjordanian troops and perhaps 3,000 troops from Palestine itself, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon respectively. In contrast, all estimates of front-line Jewish troops, united under a single command, put the number at least at 25,000. In addition, some estimates of Jewish forces are as high as 60,000 or 90,000 more if settlement troops, irregular forces and others are counted. (Flapan, p. 196) With these figures in mind, it is easier to see how Ben-Gurion could gamble on a unilateral declaration of the state of Israel on May 14, and war."


Having said that, I agree with Nerd that this thread should not become a thread about Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 04:50 PM

I thought Ed Koch and Ron Silver gave wondersful speeches as Democrats supporting Bush.    I look foward to Zel Miller - democratic senator from Georgia giving the keynote speech supporting Bush.    I also like the democratic mayor from Minnisota coming out for Bush.

I must have missed all the elected republicans coming out for Kerry in the democratic convention.   Maybe they weren't in prime time.

PS- I think the purple heart band aids can be a big seller if they put them on the market.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:18 PM

CIA Factbook about Israel

Do people in Europe see Israel as a greater threat to peace than North Korea.

Are they? Of course they are. The have fought wars and taken territores from other countries. They are occupying and settling land that is under negotiation. They are treating neighbouring countries as the US cavalry and settlers treated the native Americans.

This is certainly a bigger threat to peace than the current standoff in North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:33 PM

After all the huffing and puffing from Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. about how Hollywood celebrities know nothing about politics, and should just shut up, I was surprised to see Ron Silver featured so prominently (and Ahhhnold is on the way, although he, like Ronald Reagan, has actually been elected).

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:50 PM

Look for my response in a new thread, here CarolC, to avoid cluttering this one. Needless to say I don't agree.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:59 PM

Since you chose to put my name in the thread title, Nerd, I feel very disinclined to participat in that thread. So I'll put my answers here instead, a little later when I have more time.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 07:36 PM

I'm surprised no one has brought up Pat Buchanon, who I believe has written a book coming down harshly on the 'neo-cons'.

What I'm not clear about, because I haven't read a lot of this conservative critical works, is are we talking about a severe break. Are these guys advocating voting for Kerry? Is this serious enough to be a break in the Republicans? Because their convention looks pretty damn unified and dare I say, snazzy?

BTW, if you want to take up origin of wars, we can light a nice fire on that ol' chestnut, was the Civil War fought against slavery, or was the War Between the States fought to preserve States' Rights? As far as Israel goes, I have a history book that doesn't agree with Carol's. But it does go so far as to say: "The Wars of Israel are not a matter of wrong versus right, but a matter of right versus right." Which is what makes this subject (and the US Civil War) quite contentious at times, particularly if you have a vested interest.

One other reflection: During the War of US Independence, (or liberation), the common historical view is that about a third of American colonists were pro-revolution, a third were loyal to the Crown, and a third didn't care. There was a huge amount of dispossession and relocation at that time, and one of the results was the beginning of the Anglo - French difficulties in Canada, because until that time almost all the Canadian residents were Francophones, with an English administration.

The point being: Israel resettled the dislocated of other lands, the Arab nations around it did not. We have an inherent imbalance here.

Now my tortured attempt to relate this to the thread title. There seems to be a division in the United States leadership as to how to relate to the mideast in relation to the US special relationship to Israel. The current president is argued to have a special relationship to the Saudi royal family. Is this true? Isn't it remarkable that a conservative American leadership is able to straddle this divide?

As to Europeans taking polls. I guess I'm as willing as any American to believe the worst of Europeans. BUT, without knowing how that poll was structured, what was meant by the word 'danger', in other words, there's not enough information there for me to get all bothered about Europeans. We Americans have produced some pretty flaky polls in our time, and I'm not getting near the subject of
'Freedom Fries'.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:09 PM

"The Wars of Israel are not a matter of wrong versus right, but a matter of right versus right."

That's an interesting way of looking at it. There certainly was a profound need that was being met by Israel (as well as some other places). Personally, I don't see any need to use history in order to point fingers at one group or another, but to simply understand the reasons for behaviors that, on the surface, don't seem to make any sense. In order to believe the more widely acknowledged historical narratives about the Middle East, we have to believe things about Arabs (or at least Palestinians) that are not necessarily true. And if we believe those things, we can use them to justify doing things to them that maybe we shouldn't be doing. So I think it's very important to make sure that the historical narrative that we are using as the basis for Middle East policies in the US is as accurate as possible.

What I find interesting right now is the different ways that those who have a vested interest in what happens in and to Israel perceive each candidate in relation to their concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 08:27 PM

Well, it's quite clear that both sides are under the impression they are legitimately defending themselves. That's usually the case in any given conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 10:33 PM

Carol, I'm a proud man to be bookended by your posts!

It's a perceptive point you're making, and while I am not a historical expert I love some of the historical books I've read and some of the great observers of history, and I have serious doubts as to whether history can ever be made 'accurate' to satisfy all parties.

As William Faulkner observed, "The dead past isn't dead - it isn't even past."

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 10:47 PM

Thanks robomatic.

I'm still busy (editing a script), so I won't be able to address Nerd's points until tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 11:08 PM

My impression is that while the Arab nations have been great at making florid statements of aggressive intention toward Israel, it is the Israelis that have been the past masters in launching highly effective aggressive attacks upon those Arab countries time and again...and Israel has been the primary aggressor most of the time in actual fact when it comes to real warmaking.

The Arabs bluster, the Israelis attack! And the Israelis take land. And they settle people on it with the intention of occupying it for perpetuity. Sounds like they figure they need "lebensraum" to me...

The only time the Arabs really got it together to make a "pre-emptive" attack on Israel was in 1973.

The rest of the time it's pretty well been Israel right from the getgo. Israel goes wherever it wants to, whenever it wants to, with maximum force. They do what no one else would dare to do (except maybe the USA). They are tremendously skilled at aggression, and at posing as a victim of aggression...a "little guy"...when they are in truth a regionally dominant military power.

Funny how when the other guy does it, though, it's an evil crime, a sneak attack...but when "we" (whoever the "we" is) do it, it's legitimate self-defence. That is self-serving hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 11:55 PM

But let's not use this thread to talk about Israel! Although I disagree I will let LH have the last word on Israel if people will let this thread go back to its original topic.

CarolC, don't respond here; begin your own thread if you must respond!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:27 AM

If I have your permission, Nerd, I'll see if I can have the title of your thread changed. But I have stated many times that I'm not going to start any threads on the subject of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:55 AM

Carol,

I'll talk to a joeclone myself. I had a PM from one who already saw the situation, so I'll just have the name changed.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 01:02 AM

I just requested the change, so let's hold off on any more Israel talk here until that thread is re-titled. I asked for "Middle East Continued" so look for something along those lines.

thanks, all!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 01:22 AM

By the way, robomatic,

when I said it was "just a European poll" I didn't intend for that to be disparaging toward Europeans! I meant that it was not the opinion of either the writer who was being quoted OR the 'catter doing the quoting, so there was no point making it the central focus of the thread.

In case anyone wonders, I have a great respect for Europeans, speak French quite well and (to relate this to Robomatic's Revolutionary War points) just got back from a trip to the Fortress of Louisbourg and other Acadian sites in Nova Scotia. You won't catch me eating "Freedom Fries"; I prefer pommes frites!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 04:09 AM

Cool, Nerd!

I showed up at the fortress at Halifax a few years ago. They had wonderfully period-costumed guides 'splaining the need felt to have such a well armed redoubt against those pesky 'murricans.

LH I seem to recall that Israel was attacked in '48 when it was just aborning, was being attacked by cross boarder raids in '56, and oh, right, three separate Arab countries combined forces to push her into the sea (their language) in '67. That's a lot of bluster!

So by all means blame the winner. An Israeli author named Ephraim Kishon expressed your view as 'sympathy for Goliath.'

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 10:06 AM

Hi, GUEST.

I actually missed the fortress of Halifax on this trip. But I know that it was founded to offset the French power represented by Louisbourg, and only later became a site in the fight against the unruly colonials. In fact, one of the things that pissed the Massachusetts colony off was the founding of Halifax, and the way the Brits handled Louisbourg in general. Massachusetts wanted it to be part of their sphere of influence because it was a major center of both trade and fishing. It would have made Massachusetts easily the most powerful of the colonies. When the British gave Louisbourg back to the French, then destroyed it in a later battle, it really made them mad. In 1745 the British had needed to use Massachusetts troops to take Louisbourg; in 1758 they used British troops based in Halifax. So the existence of Halifax meant that the British army would no longer need to bring in troops from Boston, and Massachusetts was cut out of many lucrative deals. Massachusetts then realized how screwed they were with no representation in Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 11:11 AM

For further Israel-connected controversy...visit the thread entitled "The Jihad Must Be Stopped"...and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:05 PM

I apologize that I wasn't properly logged in, that GUEST remark above about Halifax and Goliath was robomatic.

I believe another thread with 'Mideast' in the title is developing, so that part of the content of this thread is migrating over there, methinks.

More on Halifax. I love Canada, I love Nova Scotia. I was late for the tour with that period costumed dude. He was remarking that there were almost ten Canadians and only 1 American in the crowd. As I came up I remarked "I'm your second American. We're even, now!" And it's part of why I love Canadians that they smiled, for they all damn well they'd try something like that in reverse next time they visited us.

I've been listening to Maureen Dowd discuss her book: "Bushworld". It's not exactly on topic, since I don't think she's a Conservative. But it might be instructive to read Pat Buchanon's book and Maureens. I just have a lot of trouble buying hard cover books that are topical. In my opinion, topical should be paperback, Hard Cover is for the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps, Lonesome EJ, you are correct when you say Tucker Carlson and George Will have some problems with GWB, but I don't believe you will see either of them beating the drum for John Kerry.

Anybody watch Kerry at the American Legion Convention in Nashville today. I'd say he got a rather tepid reception quite in contrast to the many standing ovations the President received when he addressed the group yesterday. Kerry's efforts to paint himself as "just one of the boys" comes across pretty lame. Funny, but Kerry didn't mention the Swift Boat TV spots even one time during his speech.

John McCain, former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Laura Bush and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made some great speeches already at the RNC in New York City. I can't wait to hear Senator Zell Miller (Democrat) tonight! The VP is scheduled to present a rousing speech tonight too! Tune in to C-Span to hear the most exciting political goings on in a long, long time.

Then tomorrow night tune in to hear GWB tell the nation and the world what he plans to do when he is re-elected in November!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM

The problem is that every third line out of the RNC is flavoured with redolent, sizzling falsification and penetrating fabrication. The Bush machine machinates the truth like a pretzel every time it opens its mouth. So they will now put their VP back into his Purple Barney Dinosaur suit and dustoff their over-b;own "Compassion" inflatable sign and wave it around until the cows come home.

I believe this sort of foofarah is fun and games when it is relatively innocent ballyhooing, but when it is orchestrated by Cheny, Wolff and the like is criminal idiocy of the first order. Great speeches are cheap, Doug. In support of the kind of death-mongering your boys have perpetrated, what I wonder is how you sleep after the speeches are over. Or doesn't the smell of warm blood in the hot desert come this far?

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 06:25 PM

I sleep like a baby, Amos, because I feel secure with all the fighting going on in Iraq instead of the streets of Phoenix.

Also, it would be appreciated (by me at least) if you would point out the falsifactions and fabrications you so cheerfully accuse the RNC of promoting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM

Phoenix? We were never close to needing to defend Phoenix! Remember, after 9/11, we were expected to react to Osama and view as justified by most of the world. If there had been a Democrat in office, HE would have gone into Afganistan...any president would have.

But not ANY president would have found such a lame pretext for totally stirring up the hornet's nest and changing our image from the 'wronged' to the 'enemy of all Islam'.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 10:38 AM

Bill D,

don't forget about those Mexican suicide bombers who are always threatening Arizona!

And didn't you see "Red Dawn?"

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 01:17 PM

Doug - We, the Maple Syrup Brigade, the Canadians intent on taking over the USA and utterly destroying all that you hold dear...have not yet worked an attack on Phoenix into our schedule.

It's Scranton we're planning to go after next. Then Schenectady. They are both corrupted bastions of Republicanism.

Phoenix is somewhere way, way down the list I'm sorry to say.

We'll rememer what you said, though, and consider giving Phoenix a higher priority. :-)

(you poor lad, you're living in fantasyland...Phoenix? Fighting in the streets of Phoenix???? Oh...ha! ha! ha! ha! (gasp!) snicker! Oh...God...where ARE those weapons of mass destruction anyway? Darn! Where did I put the Transmogrifier and the Laser-guided Osterizer?)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 12:04 AM

DougR-read Al Franken's book-Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 12:31 AM

Wolfgang: of course Europe is more concerned with the conflict between Palestine and Israel than in the threat that North Korea presents. That's a given. But the sooner we recognize that the threat of terrorism is world-wide the better. North Korea, while not an immediate threat to Germany for example, is a threat to other civilized people. That means that it is a threat to Germany, France, and the rest of Europe. I'm much pissed off that France and Germany does not seem to recognize terrorism as a threat to the whole world. If they did, they would join the U. S. in attempting to eradicate it. Not negotiate with it, that's not possible. It has to be wiped out.

If George Bush is re-elected, the U. S. will, with the help of our allies, do everything possible to eleminate the terrorists before they have an opportunity to attack others.

The situation in Russia is an example of what could happen in any country in the world. The terrorist must be killed before they kill others.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 01:25 AM

Rant coming.

"I feel secure with all the fighting going on in Iraq instead of the streets of Phoenix."

Forgive me if this sounds like personal insult, but I don't know how else to say it: If you expect me to believe that, you either think I'm stupid or you're stupid yourself.

That is exactly one of those lines "flavoured with redolent, sizzling falsification and penetrating fabrication."

Tell me, please tell me, how the Iraqis could possibly invade the US, much less get as far as Phoenix.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 03:37 PM

Uh, Clint, thank you for the kind words.

The fighting that is going on in Iraq is being conducted by terrorists. I don't expect ANY country would try to INVADE the U. S. Your post, it seems to me, illustrates your complete misunderstanding of war with terrorists.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 04:10 PM

Well, it seemed to me, Doug, that your post illustrates your complete misunderstanding of war with terrorists.

Pretty funny.

I don't know if that means we agree or not.

But seriously, folks (folkies?), I don't see how fighting insurrectionists in Iraq keeps terrorists out of the streets in Phoenix. Some terrorists don't come from Iraq and don't care what we're doing there; some are no doubt pleased to have us tied up fighting in Iraq.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 06:29 PM

The problem in isolating terrorists is that the political climate in the US has made it possible for them to thrive internationally through such policies as military pre-emption.

This has an effect on what's going on in Russia as well.

The Bush administration is encouraging nations and insurrectionists to be armed to the teeth through the failed Iraq policy. If Bush gets in office, there will be justification on the part of these villains to increase.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 06:45 PM

you can't kill all terrorists. you can't know ahead of time who all terrorists are and pre-emptively kill them. they don't all look alike, think alike , or act alike. to think that these things are possible is a fantasy.

the only way to control terrorism is to gather all the nations facing this threat and work TOGETHER to use all the resources available to accomplish this. nations will not work with people who present them with boneheaded bullying attitudes like "if you ain't with us yer with the terrists!".

a lot of the fighting in iraq right now is being conducted by iraqi people (not "terrorists") who object to the occupation of their "soverign" country.

the main reason conservatives and any one with a lick of common sense should wish for GWBs early retirement is because of his absolute INCOMPETANCY in conducting the war on terror. the fact that he offers that as his strong point and people actually believe it is astounding and a testament to the power of marketing and advertising.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 07:21 PM

Speaking as a "Middle-Of-The-Roader" (neither a Lib nor a Con), I must agree w/ Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel...Bu$h is a threat to all of America (and in a very real way, the rest of he world), and it's long past time for his departure...impeachment and imprisonment would be justice, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 01:18 AM

People who terrorize large numbers of civilians with malice aforethought are committing terrorism.

On that list are: Al Queda, the Chechens, the Tamil Tigers, the Bush administration, the Russian government, Hamas, the Chinese government, Islamic Jihad, and the Israeli government.

And that's just the beginning of the list...

I fear terrorists armed with nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, tanks, and stealth bombers just as much as I fear those armed with Kalashnikovs and suitcase bombs. More, in fact. They have a far longer reach and they kill far more people...and they own the media and police, mint the money, and collect our taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:27 AM

Spent and BLEW more money than the Democrats, Sent Our Jobs Overseas! Cheapened the Value Of A U.S. Dollar! Wrecked the GDP of our country for years to come, etc. etc. and under a Republican Adminstration To Boot!

Plus maintained an arrogant attitude in Iraq, and toward others around the world. Not much of a sign of a leader in my handbook!

Wipe the Cocky Grin Off Your Face Mr. President! Your've Divided This Country and Wrecked Our Economy, and worst of all, You've actually made John kerry look like a credible alternative to you!

Dewey (a dis-appointed conservative)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:37 AM

Also sad is the fact that President Bush has little else to run on or talk about other than the War on Terror.

The Country is definitely economically worse off four years after his taking office, Normally a President Gets BOOTED OUT for this!

I will still relunctantly vote for BUSH for the good of the security of the country (don't trust the ability of Kerry to run a war on Terror, and this is a dangerous time for the future of America, here and abroad.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 04:46 AM

"I will still relunctantly vote for BUSH for the good of the security of the country (don't trust the ability of Kerry to
run a war on Terror, and this is a dangerous time for the future of America, here and abroad."

this is a perfect example of what i don't get. how do you compare a guy who has actually led people successfully in combat, held real jobs (prosecuter), served in the legislature for decades and can answer an impromptu question without sounding like a moron to a guy who's a chckenhawk, ducked service, never run a successful business, dodged testimony at the 9/11 hearings until they agreed uncle dick could come along and hold his hand and has arguably done a completely INCOMPETANT job of running the "war on terror" already and come up with the answer that you still have to vote for GWB!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:39 PM

guest from NW, I think it all boils down to machismo. Bush has a more macho swagger than Kerry, and in the US, people tend to equate machismo with strong leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:51 PM

Dewey:

Ask your higher powers about that. I am pretty sure Bush makes them barf.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 06:03 PM

I got off a rant on the 'new kind of terror' thread so I'll just say I totally understood what Doug R meant by saying he'd rather fight 'em in Iraq than Phoenix. I think most Americans see it that way in spite of the lack of WMDs.

I also want to say that I do not rate as a Conservative, and I kinda resent the way the Bushies have pasted Kerry into a corner, after all he's the one with the war record. I just hope people in the US aren't as easily sucked in by the pomposity of the RNC Convention. Nevertheless, they put on a good show and are playing hard ball politics well within the American tradition. It ain't pretty but I don't think they're doing anything that hasn't been done by all parties before.

I think Kerry could be plenty tough, but unfortunately the Dem's aren't there yet, by which I mean the Democratic party isn't on the war wagon, or is only partway on. This is a weakness which is probably making Kerry crazy. The Republicans are up there with the biggest flags and loudest war-whoops.

And I have a lot of trouble equating Bush with machismo. I personally see it as bluster, but I guess most people swallow it. Kerry comes off as a pontificator, which has its own problems.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 12:42 AM

I too totally understood what Doug R meant by saying he'd rather fight 'em in Iraq than Phoenix.

I just think implying that if you fight 'em in Iraq you won't have to fight 'em in Phoenix is nonsense. And implying that the War in Iraq is a war against terrorists is nonsense.

It's a GWB slogan, not a reasoned plan of action.

How 'bout "If we'd killed them hijackers in Iraq we wouldn't have had that 9/11 disaster?" That's the By-God Truth, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:46 AM

Amos,

I get your point, (Bush advocating war death etc.)
And yes I agree, the war in a Iraq was heavy handed.

Should we try a candlelight vigil For World Peace?

We all could? but... it will displace these facts: not everyone on this planet wants peace,


Anyway Lets Keep the Vibs Coming. either that or speak softly and carry a big stick

(I'll let all of you out there determine which it is you perfer)

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact. But only on that issue alone does he score high, not the economy.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:58 AM

I would also add that Just having a big stick doesn't license you to use it.

Peace

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 05:51 AM

Dewey:

But it's such a BIG stick? C'mon, one swing around the parking lot before it's full!

Seriously, I just saw a CSPAN presentation from June of this year ('04) wherein a fellow who works at the U.S. Naval War College, Thomas Barnett, was putting forth a global view as to what's going on and what the US should do. He's got a new book out called "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century". It was late and I didn't catch it all, so I don't feel up to summarizing it except that he's one of the few people I know to articulate a world view. I did understand him to be in support of globalization as an overall modernizing and civilizing influence in the world today. He seemed to be saying that the countries which embraced globalization had less terror and mayhem, the those which weren't getting into it were the opposite, and they were mainly the Arab countries and Africa. He was critical about several aspects of American policy, especially not getting other significant powers in the world to join us.

I'm going to follow up on this. If any of you are familiar with him please chime in.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:11 AM

The majority of Americans? Wow, that's definitely a court of high appeal; I would trust it more if their information had not been so unceasingly distorted by Bush's machinery. That anything close to 48% of America wants a war-monger for a candidate is disturbing to me.

As for you arguments about war, I find them circular and self-fulfilling, and trite and low on merit.

It is a colossal and tragic failure of imagination that we decided to solve the Iraq situation, whatever it actually was, with violence and murder.

It was not necessary at the time. Knowingly perpetrating violence and murder is the earmark of a murderer.

And 48% of the nation is a deluded accessory after the fact to an act of murder. We killed, not because we had to but because we could, and we did it at the premeditated behest of an insane human being.

Those are the facts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:36 AM

Amen,Amos

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:37 AM

Amos:

It's pretty apparent you were answering the post above mine but you didn't specify, unless you see yourself holding a running argument on the forum.

There's definitely a failure to communicate. Your post is full of emotion, not "the facts." 'W' has not been the best communicator either, but he has communicated enough to put forward reasons for his actions. I think that it is true that a majority of Americans back him, although we'll learn more in November when we actually vote on it. Whether you like it or not, that's a hell of a lot of folk.

I think there has been a failure of the imagination. Us with too little and Islamic Fundamentalists with too much.

And those are FACTS!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:23 AM

My post, which I agree was high on feeling but not unfactual, was addressed more to Dewey's previous one to me.

GWB is, in fact, an individual who has knowingly and willingly exercised his power over the military to bring about the death of innocent individuals.

He was not unaware this would happen when he exercised that power.

For all the facile excuses you care to make about the nature of states and the formalisms of war, I cannot escape the fact that he committed an act close to or identical to serial murder.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 01:38 PM

Also, let me point out that Dewey's claim:

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact.

is bullshit. In AD 500 you could say "I believe the world is flat. And the Majority of my countrymen agree with me.   This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact."

But you'd still be wrong, and it still wouldn't be a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:37 PM

How Bush got into this position is unbelievable. He had FIVE years total in any kind of public service- and I have talked with many Texans (I am involved in tourism and many Texans travel) who say that he made a mess of the economy and goals in Texas in those five years.

He would NEVER have gotten in line for the presidency without the political powers who wanted him in there and plugged him in. My god, he can't even formulate a coherent paragraph by himself.

Nowadays it is being said that he is not as stupid as we used to think- but my suspicion is that he is simply better at learning thes lines.

In contrast, John Kerry is a thinking man who has spent many years in the Senate where he has been exposed to many issues that have been debated by various sides and then acted upon with various degrees of success. He is aware of nuance,the value of goals and the art of compromise in the pursuit of those goals.

In wartme, he served his country. When he came home, he served his country further by helping us realize the futility of the war in which we were engaged. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

How in the world does Bush come off as being a better leader? Or better in combating terrorism? What has Bush done that has helped? If anyone can point to FIVE things that Bush has done that has made this a better, stronger, safer country since he took office, I will shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 06:22 PM

How can anyone really trust Bush with the security of this country? He has done more to increase terrorism internationally than any president we've ever had.

His solution in Iraq should be evidence enough to know that he doesn't have any decent plan to secure America.

Kerry has at least some military experience. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and all the other war-mongers have made a mockery of US foreign policy.

Those that claim that Bush is strong on security more than Kerry are just following the Party Line. They get their news from Fox.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 07:41 PM

I sadly predict, if the shrub is elected or re-appointed, his arrogance will know no bounds. His selfish, mindless agression will trigger a divison in this country that will make the 60's look tame.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 09:59 PM

And Iran will probably be the next war zone.

The 911 hijackers were not from Iraq. Most of them were Saudis. Their top leaders appear to have graduated from the same Mujahedin religious fanatics that the USA originally trained and funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the collapse of the Soviet system in the late 80's, the USA decided it needed a new enemy on the World stage. They chose the Islamic fundamentalists. Why? 2 reasons. Oil and the general Israeli agenda in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalists were the perfect enemy for America to fight an endless war with. (An endless war is economically more advantageous than a war with clearcut and final objectives.) They were located in not one place, but many. All the better. They could serve as a justification for intervening in not one place, but many. And they were weak enough militarily to be considered a suitable target (unlike China or Russia)...yet spread out enough for it to be impossible to ever completely eliminate them AS an enemy.

Absolutely perfect!

Islamic Fundamentalism is an enemy made in heaven from the point of view of the Neo-Conservative planners and the American military-industrial complex. They now have a classic Orwellian worldwide war that is unwinnable, unloseable, unendable, indefinable, almost incomprehensible, and totally unjustifiable (except to a very credulous person who believes the all-pervasive fear propaganda dispensed by the corporate media).

It is entirely possible that certain of those same neo-conservative forces conspired in arranging or allowing the WTC attack.

Our version of "burning down the Reichstag". Very convenient for people wanting to launch an endless war.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:02 PM

More at http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090604A.shtml

"This is my reply: Mr. President, I know that you probably still "don't do body counts," so you may not know that almost one thousand U.S. troops have died doing what you told them they had to do to protect America. Ryan was Number 832. Liberty was, indeed, precious to the one I lost-- so precious that he would rather have gone to prison than back to Iraq in February. Like you, I don't know where the strength for "such pride" on the part of people "so burdened with sorrow" comes from; maybe I spent it all holding my mother as she wept.

"I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while "doing good," as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us "Moms" and "Brookster." But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death. You are in my prayers, Mr. President, because I think that you need them more than anyone on the face of the planet. But you will never get my vote.

"So to whom it may concern: Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you."

    Sincerely,
    Brooke M. Campbell
    Atlanta, GA

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:45 PM

I'm so sorry, Ebbie. I didn't know. This is what America needs to see. The face of real people facing real loss at the hands of an administration out of control and preying on people's fears. Yes, the terrorist threat is real, but this was not the way to fight it.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:21 AM

The lady not only talks the talk; the lady also walks the walk.


Web posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at JuneauEmpire.com

Juneau dissent is healthy to explore

People who equate criticism of the Bush administration with being anti-America are proving only that they do not have any understanding of what this country is about. Dissent is written into the U.S. Constitution and has been supported by all of the philosophers and statesmen since. Objecting to dissent is a non-thinking, simplistic reaction. If dissent were not allowed, this country would be a very different one from the one we love.

Let me put it into simplistic terms. Say that I object heartily to, and worry about and resist the plans and policies of Juneau's mayor or the Juneau Assembly. Does that make me "anti-Juneau?" Does that mean that I hate Juneau? Heavens, no. Nothing of the sort. I love Juneau and want it to do well. It means only that I don't have the same response or proposed solutions as they do to current problems and outlooks. I'm well aware, as should be those so quick to label as un-American those who disagree with the U.S. government, that mayors and assemblies and U.S. administrations linger for awhile then move on. The city, the state, the nation remain.

Elva Bontrager
Juneau

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:24 AM

And another.

Web posted Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Are we better off?
Letter to the editor




Ronald Reagan, famously, asked us: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The country responded. "No," they said. Today, it is time to ask the question again.

Should George W. Bush be elected this fall, he will have a mandate to continue on his course. We, as a nation, will be perceived by the world as having told him that we agree with him and his goals and the means he uses to achieve them. Is that what we want the world to think of us? Is that how we want to think of ourselves? Are we better off today than we were four years ago? No. No. No.

Elva Bontrager

Juneau

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 11:04 AM

This thread has gone bonkers. High on emotion and quotations of other peoples' emotions. I sure hope LH was trying to be sarcastic when he/she/it posted that it was likely that the WTC was an American plot.

That was not just tripe, it was thoughtless vicious tripe.

The rest is emotional tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:18 PM

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it was. But I do know that from the point of neo-Conservative planners it was very fortuitouis, given the fact that they were planning a second war with Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:33 PM

Lonesome EJ:

You said "and his investment of time and money in 80s anti-ballistic missile technologies in preference to controlling the spread of third world and terrorist access to nukes, are issues with which even staunch conservatives have difficulty. "

I believe that the controlling of the spread of third world and terrorist access to nukes is the exactly the justification for the attack on Iraq, and the probable attacks on other countries. The time and money presently being invested on the "80s anti-ballistic missle technologies "( developed in the mid to late 90s...) is in addition, to deal with a different threat, which still exists: long range missiles. I don't think that the GI with a rifle is any good against the spread of biological agents- does that imply we should not bother to have the GI? (Hint- the answer is to prepare for ALL types of attacks)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:38 PM

I didn't say it was "likely", I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it is that that occurred. But I do know that from the point of neo-Conservative planners it was very fortuitouis, given the fact that they were planning to launch a second war on Iraq ever since 1996. The WTC attack enabled a public mood in America of support for such a course of action...even though it was not Iraq that was responsible for the attack.

So it's blasphemy to you? Well, consider this...stranger things have happened. All it would take is a few pragmatists in high places who figured they needed a terrorist incident to stir up the public. That doesn't mean George Bush knew about it. He wouldn't need to know about it. Better if he didn't, in fact. Wars have been launched before over bizarre (and in some cases totally fictional) incidents, such as:

1. The blowing up of the Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898. Very handy. Led to the USA gaining an overseas empire from Spain at very little cost. May have been an accident, may have been sabotage...but almost certainly was NOT done by the Spanish, who did NOT want a war with America.

2. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. Entirely phony. Never happened. Used by LBJ to justify massive American involvement in Vietnam.

3. A government group in the intelligence community had on paper plans to arrange missile or bomb attacks on American cities or down American civilian airliners in the early 60's and make it look like Castro did it, therefore providing an excuse to invade Cuba. John Kennedy came across the papers detailing these plans, had a fit about it, and stopped the whole thing dead in its tracks.

These things happen, and the people who arrange them don't really give a damn how many people get killed in the process. They are playing geopolitics and they play to win. You may wake up one day and discover that those you most trusted to protect you have in fact betrayed you.

Not everyone in the government is a good person by your definition or mine.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 02:50 PM

LH you are playing a very dangerous game when you posit a possibility based on who YOU PERCEIVE benefits. It's not far from that to considering a while passel of farfetched theories based not on any kinds of facts whatever but on plot scenarios, which are a dime a dozen as you should know. Within hours of the events on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, there was commentary widespread over the Islamic world that it was an Israeli plot. I don't think what you are implying is any different because once you stop considering the facts, your fantasy is as good as anyone elses.

Leave us not forget the tapes wherein Osama specifically took credit as leader of Al Qaeda for the planning and execution of the terror.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:31 PM

I think the point is whether O b L had help from people in the American intelligence community. However, I will never forget the gloating face on that sick piece of shit as he smiled and nurtured glee at the death of 3000 people. Something to be proud of I'm sure. However, the question still remains: Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the US without being questioned? And I'd still like to know about the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon. How history can be made obscure, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:35 PM

Guest, Grok:

What about the plane that hit the Pentegon? Why the quotes? There are films and witnesses. A friend of mine was the airline agent that sold two of the hijackers tickets.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:42 PM

Direct me to a site that explains it all in simple terms. Thanks. The hole in the Pentagon made by the plane that slammed into it seems so small. And the video looks fake.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:55 PM

no idea of a web site...


But when I drove by, before the constructipon, it did not seem that small. The incredible thing is how far in it got ( to the third ring, I think)- that building was built of LOTS of concrete! The video I have seen is from a security camera, and the frame rate is not what we are used to. But there were pieces of plane about- and that plane went somewhere- the radar says into the building. Or did some shadowy group kill everyone on board without leaving evidence, and sneak the bodies into the burning Pentagon?

There were several eyewitnesses driving on Rt 395 past there at the time of the impact- I remember the interviews, and drove by about two days later where the press had interviewed them ( Just south of the 14th St. bridge, after the Rt. 1 splitoff that I took for a number of years)

Simple explaination...

Hijackers took over plane after takeoff from Dulles, guided it into the Pentegon. Check NTSB for the crash report, I am sure they have one.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

bb,

You are likely right. The thing is, Washington has put so much spin on things to do with 9/11 that it really is difficult to know where truth ends and conspiracy begins. It's too bad that things have come to this in the United States. It is too bad that so many Americans could even think that their government would use citizens as pawns in this type of political manipulating. Honesty is a thing of the past in politics, and the Enron, Halliburton rip-offs certainly make average 'gotta pay the bills and feed the kids' people feel like garbage. Sign of the times, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

"Honesty is a thing of the past in politics"


I think that BOTH parties can take credit for this, not just the Republicans...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:21 PM

And on that point we both agree, bb. Like talkin' morals in a whorehouse.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:26 PM

In a conversation between F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemmingway, one of them said " What's moral is what I feel good after, and what's immoral is what I feel bad after."

The mark of maturity is the length of time after...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:32 PM

Maturity is the ability to cope with reality without becoming paralyzed by indecision. (Anon.)

Bush failed this one in Florida sitting in a school classroom. To me, this election is not about Bush and Kerry. It is about who is more trustworthy. From my perspective, Kerry engenders more trust than Bush. I cannot bring myself to feel loyalty to people who sell off the poor of their country to big corporations. The Neocons are doing this. It sucks. I truly feel that Kerry is the better man for the job. However, it may already be too late to save what was once the greatest country on this planet. But, I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:36 PM

I just hope people in the US aren't as easily sucked in by the pomposity of the RNC Convention.

This is a joke, right?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 06:34 PM

What I said is not "my fantasy", it's merely one possible theory about what happened in 2001. If I believed in this theory without a doubt, then it would be my fantasy. I don't necessarily believe in it, I just wonder about it. It's a possibility.

If people are unwilling to even consider such a possibility, it's probably because it scares them too much...or it violates something they consider sacred. People who are unwilling to consider possible theories for the commission of a crime do not make very good crime investigators, do they?

Ask yourself why this theory frightens or outrages you so much that you cannot stand to even hear it articulated by someone, and you will come to understand more about yourself in the process.

If I had been a German in the 30's and had suggested publicly that the Reichstag fire was planned by the Nazis, the Gestapo would have come and arrested me and probably had me shot....for speaking the unspeakable. I would have "disappeared". Believe me, I'm glad it hasn't gone quite that far in America yet. Be careful that it doesn't, because it's well on the way. If it does go that far, you'll know it soon enough, and your Bill of Rights will be just a fading memory.

The rest of the World can see it, but how many Americans can? Not enough yet to stop it. The World now fears America, for good reason. America is the most feared nation on the face of the globe, because it is under the command of a rogue government with the most powerful weapons of mass destruction in the World and the will to use them...whenever and wherever it pleases. Britain rides on its coattails and shares in the spoils.

And, yes, both the Democratic and the Republican Parties have become so dishonest that they are virtually beyond redemption. They do not represent the public, they represent their primary funding sources...the major banks, the World Bank, the IMF, and the major corporations. And there is nothing the public can do about it through the normal avenues of electoral politics. Nothing whatsoever. They pick the candidates, you rubber stamp their pick...after fighting over your non-choices (Tweedledum and Tweedledee) uselessly for a year. They win, you lose. Every time. You (Americans) have all collectively been robbed. You are ruled by a corporate and fiscal oligarchy that serves money and raw power...not liberty, freedom, justice or anything else even remotely like those values.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 08:30 PM

Please let me add some fuel to the fire. The following is from a dubious website, but the site SOMETIMES has some valid information. A new book regarding 9/11 is coming out soon, and here is a preview of what it states. (Sometimes conspiracy theories arise because there have been conspiracies. But sometimes not.)

Mike Ruppert's new book "Crossing the Rubicon" will be released publicly in mid-October.

In his press release he synopsizes the key points:

"1. I will name Vice President Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room;

2. I will establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations -- taking place on that day.

3. I will also demonstrate that the TRIPOD II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in the above.

4. I will also prove conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action.

5. I will also show that the Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks."

An unattributed article (its link was not available) at the Jeff ***** site gives some further details on the specific exercises:

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen.

Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began.

NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips. Cheney could.

It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.

http://www.rense.com/general57/lid.htm

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 08:34 PM

pdc:

What's left of the free world thanks you.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 09:44 AM

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:55 AM

Well, once again I'm observing WAY lotta thread 'drift'. Right to la-la land. These are NOT possibilities because they are rants from various wackos with no legitimacy either in logical analysis nor are there facts on their side. You face them with facts and they counter with additonal end runs into fantasies.

Expounding falsehoods on the open market is not a crime, nor is the pursuit of truth. Therefore LH continue to breathe the air of freedom. In case you don't remember, this is one of the countries that defeated that other country in which the Reichstag fire occurred. I think you might find some history and a geography available on the web, if you have the power to distinguish them, from, oh, a map of the Shire.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 12:25 PM

Stalin's Russia was also one of the other countries that defeated that country where the Reichstag fire occurred, Robomatic...doesn't prove a darned thing either way. To have fought dictators does not in itself guarantee one's own moral spotlessness. Not by any means.

I have long been an avid student of WW II history, and I am far more familiar with maps of Normandy, Barbarossa, and the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes) than I am with any map of the Shire. :-) Matter of fact, I can't recall any of the principle features on the map of the Shire. My father drove an M5 Stuart tank for the British forces and helped defeat the Nazis...all the way from Normandy to Prague.

The USA was once a bastion of freedom and progressiveness (albeit an aggressive and expansionist bastion of such). It is now just an aggressive bastion, period.

My father, who is still alive, holds that same opinion I just expressed. He is astounded at what has happened in American politics in the last 20 or 30 years, and he considers the present American government to be the moral antithesis of the American Ally whose forces assisted his in defeating the Germans in World War II.

I guess he's living in "the Shire" too according to you, eh?

You're resting on laurels that are way out of date.

I do breathe the air of freedom, because: 1. I'm in Canada, and 2. I'm in charge of my own destiny, and rely on myself instead of on a corrupt bunch of liars in high places to do my thinking for me.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 02:02 PM

After the collapse of the Soviet system in the late 80's, the USA decided it needed a new enemy on the World stage. They chose the Islamic fundamentalists. Why? 2 reasons. Oil and the general Israeli agenda in the Middle East. (Little Hawk)

The Jewish conspiracy to control the world? The Israeli agenda in the Middle East is one of two reaons for the USA to chose the Islamic fundamentalists as a new enemy?

I didn't say it was "likely", I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it is that that occurred. (Little Hawk)

You're juggling with words, Little Hawk, and they fall down.
You didn't say 'possible' as you prefer to remember now, you said entirely possible. The emphasis 'entirely' makes a neutral reading that you now claim impossible for the normal reader.

But if you really claim that the neutral reading should be the correct one then you should grant that also to the word 'likely' which is at least as neutral as 'entirely possible'. Have you really not seen the irony that you have used the word 'likely' yourself in your attempt to explain how the word 'possible' should be understood as being different from 'likely'?

A last note about the Reichstag fire. I see this in discussions used, in particular, by Americans as an example for a government doing an evil deed and blaming someone else. You should consider taking another example to make this point. Since a few years, mainstream (and not just Neonazi) research in history has slowly started to rethink this scenario. The main reason for that was the fall of the wall which made possible access to documents about the fire (the Reichstag building was on the East side of the wall) which were not known before. It is not proven (they are still debating) but it is entirely possible, more than remotely likely and fairly probable that this is a communist propaganda lie still believed by Western lefties. It seems the Nazis have not done this particular deed, though there is no doubt that they have used the fire in their sense. When I read the Reichstag fire argument I read it in the new sense: It shows that not in each case someone who profits from a happening has staged it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 03:55 PM

My problem isn't with Jews, Wolfgang, it's with Zionists. I like Jews in a general sense. Many of my heroes are Jews. I don't like the policies of the Likud Party.

As for the Reichstag fire, well...I am not in a position to know for absolute certain who started it.

My use of the phrase "entirely possible" was to indicate that I think it's a rather plausible possibility as opposed to a completely implausible one. I have drawn no final conclusion about it, however, I just have some suspicions. If you object to my use of the phrase "entirely possible" in that context, that's okay, I guess. We all have our own ways of expressing things and interpreting them.

Perhaps I should clarify what I said further. I don't know whether or not elements in the USA government colluded in, helped arrange, or helped allow the WTC and Pentagon attacks. I simply consider it a possibility, and not an implausible one.

It's a possibility worth considering and investigating.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 04:37 PM

LH:
Nice post twice above. My compliments to your father and his part for the Allies. My father was posted to the Pacific Islands, and after VJ Day he was in the occupation of Japan.

I am a big fan of Canada in spite of their opposition to the current American efforts overseas. You guys are true friends and your opinion is your opinion. You're sort of like the French only sane.

By your lights I am a strong Zionist, so there we are. I don't think our problems with the current terrorists are over Israel, however. I believe that rather than the US being perceived as a supporter of Israel, Israel is perceived as being an American incursion into the Islamosphere. I am all for it.

I still think your credulosity as between plausible and implausible is at a different 'set point' from mine.

I am not a knee-jerk supporter of all American policy. I was only recently enlightened into the sad history of the US in toppling Mossadegh (in Iran), and my first reaction is we had no business doing that and we set the stage for a lot of grief. I am still mostly ignorant there, though, and one can't go back in time.

In keeping with the title of this thread I urge people to take a look at Pat Buchanon's recent work: "Where The Right Went Wrong" and a very interesting book by Thomas Barnett of the U.S. Naval War College, very much a 'big picture' effort: "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century". He's been making the rounds of the book tours and I agree with what I heard him saying re: Iraq, that there were and are good reasons to be there, but there have been some tactical mistakes made.

Let the Shire remain the Shire. We may all need to go there for a break.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 08:40 PM

Wolfgang,

The interesting thing about the new data on the Reichstag fire is that the new interpretation more closely parallels what probably happened in the US in 2001: an foreign group committed a terrorist act against an important symbolic building. The government then used that as an excuse to attack any and all groups that opposed it, whether they were guilty of the attack or not.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM

That is bit Unfair of you, Amos.

The metaphoric stick I have is PEACEFULLY AT BAY,


Your stick is at my throat with bitterness and profanity for expressing my opinion. The topic was:

"What some conservatives think of Bush" I am largely a conservative so hence "the opinion was expressed."

Such hatred toward the other side is un-necessary.

Have YOU Read Dale Carnegie's Book, "How to Win Friends and Influnece People"

He says you cannot convince another person of anything, and the best way to win and argument is to avoid one all together. Sure flaming and forcing you political opinions (with profanity included) makes the enforcer FEEL BETTER, but it put the other person on the defensive
and causes him to justify himself. Also it does very little to promote harmony with others or even have them attempt to listen to your side. Most times, people (out of bitterness) will avoid intersactions with such people. Also doing this, make the enforcer of the opinion look like less of a people for not controlling his emotions and his tongue, such a person might never learn anything new (as we all are not right ALL the time) as his mind is closed.

The true richness in life is empathy and understanding for the other persons pespective as well as your own, and an open mind toward all people on all subjects people.

Sure, there are people I dis-agree with, but I try to be Holy first, and send out love and consdieration.

If one has all the answers and greats the other person with vitreal, does this help his cause in any way, his peace of mind, or his interaction with other human beings.

I'll let you all answer the above for yourself, as I didn't think that voicing my opinion her was going to cause such a caustic experience.

I'm gonna stay away from the message broards and get back to meditation and writing, I get more multiplicities of blessings from this, than posting here with the dissidence and the self ego.

Which is NOT the spirit of God, nor the kingdom of heaven that is within US.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:42 PM

Sorry Amos.

I Guess Nerd was swearing at me, I retract the statement, as it was written to the wrong party.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 11:11 PM

Ben Franklin, a diplomatic genious, expressed his convictions and opinions (which he avoiding making in the first place) in the following ways. I believe we could all benefit on the Mudcat from adopting just a few of his protocals.

For example, when forced to express an opinion that his friends might not agree with him on, he did the following:

It appears to me (at present) to be this way.
Although I agree with you argument of (such and such) I think (such and such) should also be taken into account.

Notice he used the words "At present" When Conversing, This Accomplished 2 objectives.

1. It forced him to have an open-mind and empathy toward the other person and his views. (necessary when learning anything of benefit and maintaining a friend)


2. It also lead to the perfect realization that his views
   could be wrong and offensive to someone else.

Notice also that he acknowledged the points to which he agreed with his adversaries, Finding a spirit of agreement promoted cooperation and friendship, This qwelled the anger of his advisaries, and made them more open to hearing what HE had to say. (i.e. it lowered his advesary's defenses)

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 11:13 PM

Sorry about the Caps they are offensive too, but I am trying to improve on this.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 12:13 AM

Sorry, Dewey, no offense was intended. I come from a real big city, where "bullshit" hardly counts as a swear word. (In fact, isn't that what this whole BS section is supposed to be?)

So I'll rephrase:

Also, let me point out that Dewey's claim:

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact.

is inaccurate. In AD 500 you could say "I believe the world is flat. And the Majority of my countrymen agree with me.   This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact."

But you'd still be wrong, and it still wouldn't be a fact.

I stand by this statement, Dewey. The pint is that just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make you right.

Now that the profanity is gone, would you care to address its claims logically?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 12:22 AM

No, the point is too trivial.

No offense but,

Goodbye,

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:06 AM

I thought as much, Dewey. When someone points out that your argument is logically fallacious, you can either complain about the language of his point, or dismiss it as trivial. What you can't do is effectively defend your argument.

No offense taken, as you've very kindly proven me right...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:45 AM

Nerd,

I agree.

Little Hawk,

my one point was not about what you think about the present politics of Israel, but how you construct it that the general Israel agenda in the Middle East is one of the two reasons for the USA to chose Islamic fundamentalists as a new target. How does Israel control American politics?

Wolfgang