What Is The International DNF Members Opinion On Bush/Iraq?

[INFORG]

nameslave:

it's that type of fear mongering and race baiting that has turned "liberal" into a negatively connoted term for many. You have basically stated that all republicans are pro-life zealots, toxic waste proponents, and racists. Any logical person can see right through that type of statement and realizes that your statement is too incredulous to be true and you must lie about other things as well.

There are many points of ideology where the left could differentiate itself. I would probably vote democrat if they would get off the welfare state, race baiting, and elderly scare tactics. They should concentrate more on what is logical and right as opposed to just trying to please the bottom 51% of wage earners by scaring them. IMHO the Democrats/left have been turning off increasing numbers of Americans who simply refuse to be blind to the hypocrisy.

 

[Anthony Ng]

>You have basically stated that all republicans are pro-life zealots, toxic waste proponents, and racists.

I never said that, but never mind.

>I would probably vote democrat if they would get off the welfare state

If they get off the welfare state, they would no longer be Democrats.

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by nameslave
>You have basically stated that all republicans are pro-life zealots, toxic waste proponents, and racists.

I never said that, but never mind.

Nameslave, I think I know what you're thinking.

 

[INFORG]

Nameslave:

Don't you see the problem with that? This is one of, if not THE wealthiest country in the world. Our poor people are the wealthiest poor on the planet. People are realizing that they don't want their tax dollars going so someone that doesn't work can have a steak dinner while they as hard working citizens can only have ground beef for dinner. There are simply not enough people that really consider themselves "poor" for your ideology to have as firm a grasp as it used to.

There is nothing wrong with a safety net to prevent people dying of starvation, but the net has become far too high and is riding on the heads of far too many average people. Focus on the real working class and democrats will take back control. Some suggestions:

Instead of crying about tax breaks for those folks that actually pay most of the taxes, why not suggest a better plan? How about a 40 hour tax week, so that people working more than 1 job get a break?

How about the first $2000 of capital gains tax free?

How about the democrats proposing 1 logical plan on anything?

The "We don't know what we propose, but we don't like the Republican plan!" method is backfiring.

You cannot continue to use the tax code as a Robin Hood method of wealth redistribution. We fought the revolution for less than what we pay now.

Here's food for thought: A guy you probably consider a villain - Bill Gates- has fed more people than every food bank in this country put together. You have to put capital in the hands of the producers, not take it away and give it to consumers. These people you hate are the ones that created the wealth you now want to sieze in the name of altruism.

If I give $10 to an entrepreneur, he will put that money to work and invest, which leads to some poor slob having a job. If I give $10 to a welfare recipient, they get $5 worth of lottery tickets and a pack of smokes - hardly a worthwhile use of capital.

You can have compassion for your fellow man without making him your dependent. We have helped create the plight of modern day blacks and native americans by pushing them into a never ending cycle of poverty through socialist programs that steal their souls.

The democratic plan didn;t work - time for a new one.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by nameslave
>izopod: There is nothing wrong being a liberal. Just don't let it "define" your beliefs.

You would find that there is actually a coherent set of beliefs in every philosopher. When you care enough for our environment and treat other species decently, you probably won't vote for the Republicans. Similarly, you would very likely also respect women's right (abortion included) and never hate Asians or Muslims by their cultures and/or religion.

So by your logic you would agree that all Democrats would likely vote to increase spending for social programs; limit hand guns to only peace officers, and reduce our military to a fraction of its size.

This type of logic has one fatal flaw. We don't all think alike. If we did then we'd have our heads shaved living in some commune chanting "death to individualism". We may have shared beliefs when in a group, but outside that group people are still individuals with their own take on things.

You just have to decide whether you think as a group, or as an individual. When you decide. Come back and tell us. I would be curious. I myself am an individual. Just because I vote mostly Republican doesn't mean I sign off on everything. This is a republic, not a democracy.

izopod

 

[think]

Obviously there are those here who want to go to war with Iraq.
I don't recall any "leftist" organization bringing the young lady before congress to lie about the babies being thrown from incubators. From what I gathered she was from a Kuwaiti Royal family.

I do recall Amnesty International has made public its claims that Iraq is a major violator of human rights even as far back as the 1980's when Saddam Hussain was still considered an ali and a US company sent him 8 shipments of anthax. Amnesty International still asserts that Iraq is a major violator of human rights and I have no doubts as to that.
____________________________________________________
quote:
And I am sure that if Iraq's main export was chocolate, that you would find some Nestle's stock in the portfolios of people in Washington and claim it was "all about CANDY". Fact is these guys are already rich and own stock in vast portfolios that are probably just offensive to you because they are wealthy to begin with.
____________________________________________________


I don't know too many chocolate companies that build military bases and have the inside clout or influence in Washington that large military industial complexes like Beltec has. Let's be real. Beltec has much to gain from a war and the creation of more new bases. If we start waging peace then you can yell at me for having a candy industrial complex that is getting too sweet a deal from the government.

As for Casper Weinburger, his candy included a Christmas pardon by George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992 for his role in Iran contra

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/122700a.html
____________________________________________________
Quote:

As much as you may dislike it, history has shown these Iran-Contra guys to be patriots. I may not agree, you may not agree, but Ollie North is an american hero in the eyes of many. As are his cohorts. I agree that some of the intelligence stuff is getting scary.

____________________________________________________

Senator John Kerry of Massechusetts had 8 witnesses who were to testify that the CIA and contras were running coccaine. 7 of the witnesses died by so called accidents and the 8th witness fled for his life.

John Hull, a retired army general, and leader of the Contra southern front in Costa Rica, was arrested on coccaine smuggling charges and espionage. John Hull got a loan for $375,000 from OPIC ( The Over Seas Private Investment Corporation, a US government owned corporation) to start his escapades. Of course this was never paid back.

Here is the official whitewash of it all including the drug charges:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/c4rpt/ch11p2.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/c4rpt/ch11p2.htm

Oli North and his buddies Heroes? Running coccaine, selling guns to our enemies, shredding documents galore and lieing to congress. If those are truly the makings of a hero then I have no heros.

THINK

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by think
Obviously there are those here who want to go to war with Iraq.

No one wants to go war. Again failed logic rearing it's ugly head. Pacifism towards this regime is not an option. For Pacifism to work, the other side must be willing to cooperate. So far Saddam Hussein hasn't. It is up to Saddam Hussein to decide if he wants to go to war or not. It's up to him to comply. Not the world.

If we don't hold him accountable, then as an international community we are in big time trouble. I think Bush realizes this and to his credit so does Prime Minister Blair. Ask yourself this question. What would have happened to Europe had Milosevic continued his ethic cleansing? To his credit, Clinton held him accountable.

Saddam is the one who lives a very luxurious lifestyle while his own people starve. It is Saddam Hussein who used bio weapons on his own people.

If you are looking for a way to resolve this diplomatically look to Saddam. However if past history is any indication we can all but guess what his position is going to be.

izopod

p.s If you consider yourself a liberal, and feel we should not go to war. Is the reason why because you personally don't feel we should go to war, or is it because as a liberal it's the wrong thing to do.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by Shiftlock


He's literally on vacation almost half the time. Between his Texas ranch, Camp David, and the family retreat in Kennebunkport, he takes an incredible amount of time off. Most people would be fired if they spent that much time away from work. I'm sure there has never been a U.S. President who has spent more time on vacation. That doesn't sound like someone who takes his role seriously to me.

Edit: As of late last year, the Washington Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.

He is president 24/7. He gets updates from his security team every morning. He has a communication team that follows him to instantly put him in contact with any world leader at anytime. Chalk that one up to 21 century technology.

Personally I would like to have my president get out of Washington D.C once in awhile. Clinton sure did, only it was usually overseas. Damn that had to hurt when President Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. If you didn't already know he spent the last half of his presidency "politiking" for this prestigious award.

izopod

Question: Do you really believe this:

>>>>Washington Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route<<<

 

[Anthony Ng]

2gajgops & izopod,

When I was much younger (19 when the FSLN entered Managua), I thought that the all right-wingers were evil people who only lied about their "conservative" beliefs. I later learned that there are actually people among them who really believe in what they said.

>izopod: ... This is a republic, not a democracy.

I thought we are living in a democracy.

By the way, I just took the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org again, and my political compass shows: Economic Left/Right: -5.62; Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.87. Don't take it too seriously, but it's FUN to play! Enjoy.

Anyway, let's all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ... even in an unjust and unfair world, LOL!

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by izopod
Question: Do you really believe this:

>>>>Washington Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route<<<

It's not up for question. As of late last year, it was a fact. I remember reading an article in the New York Times last year that was based on the Washington Post article in which that information was first presented. Read more here:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Bush Break Longest in a Generation.html


Bush on taking an entire month off last year:

"I'm working, enjoying myself — getting a lot done on the ranch, too," Bush told reporters Tuesday. "I know a lot of you wish you were in the East Coast, lounging on the beaches, sucking in the salt air, but when you're from Texas — and love Texas — this is where you come home. This is my home.

 

[think]

I do not favor war. Although I am a pacifist , I can understand why people fight for their lives and freedom. Currently I don't see that happening in Iraq. Obviously not everyone is happy with Saddam but where is the opposition except those in London who don't seem to want to be the ones in the battle field.

I do not see Iraq's neighbors actively seeking war with Saddam either. They are more at risk than the US if saddam is the threat he is made out to be.

Then I look around I don't see any other international support for our war with Iraq except for Britain. It appears to be totally the United States readying itself for a "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq.

It's not out of support for Saddam that I am against war with Iraq. Rather the fact that the United States is preparing to change the rules for engagement and act as policeman to the world. This is why many other people from varying nations are so upset with the US for.

As for former president Jimmy Carter, I am elated that he got a Nobel Peace prize. Jimmmy Carter did more for democracy world wide in his short tenure as president than most people realize. Carter cut off military funding to many right wing dictatorships and over 19 countries gained their independance from these thugs.

Obviously this angered many multinational corporationals based in the US who liked having the ability to bribe officials, have cheap labor with no worries over workers rights, environmental concerns, and huge advantages concerning taxation.

This is not to say that things are all hunky dory as the right wing dictators left huge debts through the World bank and IMF that these countries are still strapped with. Most Americans don't realize those loans lined the pockets of the dictators and their friends rather than helping the country as they were intended for.

NameSlave: It's nice see and hear from someone that understands the events that occurred in Nicaragua. Thank you for sharing.

Best wishes to all and Merry Christmas,
Think

 

[devolution]

I think it's a really bad idea for the US to go into Iraq.
It will only give the suicide sects cause to carry out random attacks on various facilities in the US, the UK and related targets.

But saying that - perhaps the world really does need a wake up call - it can't continue on in the same blind material pursuit as it has been carrying on for the past 100 years.

 

[bidawinner]

Let me sum this up for you .. BULL SHIT

What kind of lame ass crap are you trying to spread...

Take your snob-ass politics elswhere

Originally posted by 2gajgops


Yeah, Clinton spent much more time in the Whitehouse. Of course he had to be there in order to be blown by Monica, collect illegal campaign contributions, and other wise dole out political favors. Bush doesn't have that kind of baggage to keep in in the Whitehouse.

Come on, let's face it this is the information age. Are you trying to suggest that a person can't be president from anywhere he wants? Sounds like another whine from the left without merit. From all reports, Bush is early to bed, early to rise and has a work ethic that is unquestionable. This is not a "kingdom", he doesn't have to sit on a throne somewhere to exercise his office.

I have heard these criticisms before - usually from people who want to institute some shortened work week, mandatory monthlong vacations, etc. for the masses. The "we should all get so much time off" sentiment is lame. I feel vacation is something you earn through career progression. He deserves more vacation than you or I or the average Joe. He's technically always "on the clock".

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by 2gajgops


Yeah, Clinton spent much more time in the Whitehouse. Of course he had to be there in order to be blown by Monica, collect illegal campaign contributions, and other wise dole out political favors. Bush doesn't have that kind of baggage to keep in in the Whitehouse.

Come on, let's face it this is the information age. Are you trying to suggest that a person can't be president from anywhere he wants? Sounds like another whine from the left without merit. From all reports, Bush is early to bed, early to rise and has a work ethic that is unquestionable. This is not a "kingdom", he doesn't have to sit on a throne somewhere to exercise his office.

I have heard these criticisms before - usually from people who want to institute some shortened work week, mandatory monthlong vacations, etc. for the masses. The "we should all get so much time off" sentiment is lame. I feel vacation is something you earn through career progression. He deserves more vacation than you or I or the average Joe. He's technically always "on the clock".

How about we look at the facts of the right instead of the rights propaganda..

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/whitehouse.sleepovers/

Nah .. Ol Bushy dosent carry that kind of baggage does he :laugh:

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by 2gajgops


Yeah, Clinton spent much more time in the Whitehouse. Of course he had to be there in order to be blown by Monica, collect illegal campaign contributions, and other wise dole out political favors. Bush doesn't have that kind of baggage to keep in in the Whitehouse.

Come on, let's face it this is the information age. Are you trying to suggest that a person can't be president from anywhere he wants? Sounds like another whine from the left without merit. From all reports, Bush is early to bed, early to rise and has a work ethic that is unquestionable. This is not a "kingdom", he doesn't have to sit on a throne somewhere to exercise his office.

I have heard these criticisms before - usually from people who want to institute some shortened work week, mandatory monthlong vacations, etc. for the masses. The "we should all get so much time off" sentiment is lame. I feel vacation is something you earn through career progression. He deserves more vacation than you or I or the average Joe. He's technically always "on the clock".

I've thought about it and you are correct on the vacatiin stuff also..

How dare the truck driver, the Factory worker, the garbage man etc want better working condistions and a decent vacation dont they know that they are just slaves to the person on a career path ?

Yes, you are correct 2gajgops how could we have ever been so blind ... I forget the massess are nothing more than the professionals slave.. how foolish of me...

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by bidawinner


How about we look at the facts of the right instead of the rights propaganda..

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/whitehouse.sleepovers/

Nah .. Ol Bushy dosent carry that kind of baggage does he :laugh:

Please take note of the last line of that article. Intersting.

 

[INFORG]

Also from your article:

"But administration officials told CNN there is a difference: the Bushes' guests were all close friends or family members, and not just major donors and members of the Hollywood elite. "

But who said anything about sleepovers? I could care less that Clinton did it or Bush either. As far as I'm concerned, it's their house and they can turn it into a homeless shelter for the term of their administration if they feel like it.


Bidawinner:

You cry "bullshit", but as is typical, you refute nothing with a logical argument.

Are you saying that garbagemen can't have a "career path"? Who is the classist here? There are plenty of garbagemen who get much more vacation time than I do. They earned it through years of service - I don't whine about my poor lot because they get more than I do. It's as it should be. This country was not founded on your "free lunch" ideals, but on the principle that we are responsible for ourselves.

Socialism is a failed concept - get used to it.

The left leaning in this thread have shown themselves for what they really are. You have nothing but conspiracy theory, class/race baiting and groundless character assassination. Instead of taking on the logical points made to support war, you try to bring in anything you can to discredit the people involved - not the ideas.

Whether it is Clinton or Bush, I am not naive enough to think any of them are saints. But, I judge the ideas for which they stand and whether they take a stand at all.

You could all benefit by spending a little time at:
http://reason.com

There is actually a healthy logic based debate going on there about whether or not we should go to war. You guys could pick up some pointers from those folks. I don't deny that there can be a logical case wieghed for and against war, but the people in this thread have failed to make one.

Conspiracy theory is great isn't it. Anything that refutes your claim is a "whitewash" or "cover-up" and no evidence is necessary to purport your theory.

PS I didn't vote for Clinton or Bush.

 

[INFORG]

Here's a more precise link on the debate over war:

http://reason.com/debate/ai-debate1.shtml

I wouldn't want you guys to have to wade through too many logical thoughts to get where you are going.

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by 2gajgops
there can be a logical case wieghed for and against war, but the people in this thread have failed to make one.

I assume you're conveniently excluding yourself from that criticism. Thanks for judging everyone else and deciding that we're all a bunch of morons. That's a little arrogant, don't you think? :sigh:

 

[INFORG]

Shiftlock:

Yes, I was excluding myself. I don't consider it arrogance, or even think it necessarily reflects upon anyone's intelligence here. I made a point by point case for why a war could be the best option.

Not one single point was refuted, nor was an attempt even made to address the points. I enjoy a good debate, and enjoy one where I feel someone else is getting the better of me even more. (It helps me to further refine my position and even (gasp!) change my mind once in a while.) Unfortunately, I just received flames and off tangent conspiracy stuff.

It's a heated issue, and I can understand why some people would rather just try to "zing" instead of really debate and have to put thought into it. It's a scary thing to even think about. Especially on a board that isn't about politics or for hardcore political debaters.

Believe it or not, I would prefer we didn't go to war and that the tough talk will be sufficient to arrive at a resolution. I can't simply dismiss the idea that a war could be the best option at some point - to dismiss it without giving the actual case any thought is showing a rigidness in thought or worse a lack of character.

I am a brutally logical person. It may offend some, but I think I bring a healthy viewpoint to the table - whether you agree with that viewpoint or not.

I think you have to agree that "bullshit", "bullshit", "bullshit" does not a logical argument make.