Bush is a liar and Americans that support him are fascists

[RonOnGuitar]

<<Again, great post!>>



hahahaa, well, sometimes I get lucky, NRK! But thanks anywayz.



And just to be clear, I'm not picking on Debbie - I think she's a real sweetie!



To be sure, we're all prejudiced. And we really couldn't get by from day to day without some prejudices - we use 'em even to pick a good tomato. But prejudice can be a bad place to start from - and an even worse place to finish. "I hate Bush" is just as bad as "I love Bush" as a basis from which to espouse reliant thoughts and opinions. Knee-jerking of any sort can be a pain.



I think what you've said about the ability to experience change of thought-opinion is important. If a person believes no more changes are possible, it might just be time to give up and crawl into a 6 foot deep hole!



Ron

[debbie mannas]

thats very kind and gracious of you.



"The problem is that, like many people, her starting points are ones of prejudice and bigotry. Again, that's not because Debbie's a bad lass at all. "



If you point out any posts where I showed prejudice and bigotry, I'll be glad to reconsider my viewpoint.



Not liking someone who is corrupt for the simple reason that that person is corrupt and responsible for multiple deaths - is that prejudice and bigotry? Similarly Saddam. But Saddam was not the agressor here on fake evidence.

[NRKofOver]

Debbie, I think it's important to understand that Ron is not using the words prejudice and bigotry in a racial sense, only that you are possibly bound by preconceived notions about a person/situation and it's very difficult for you to look around those starting points.



For instance, you've reached the conclusion that Bush is a murderer because he deliberately lied about going to war with Iraq. That's a conclusion you've made based on the things you've read. My opinion is still unfounded when it comes to Bush and deliberately lying because I really haven't seen definitive evidence to suggest as much. I'm not comfortable with the way the Iraq situation has been handled and I have great concerns, but I don't yet think Bush should be condemned because I don't yet have the conclusion that he deliberately lied. In that, you have a prejudice with your statements because you are convinced and believe wholly that Dubya misled the American people for his own reasons/gain. It's difficult to have a conversation regarding political subjects when one is so convinced.



I like your posts Debbie, I see nothing 'wrong' with them, I think they're challenging to just about everyone, requiring us to think a bit more. But I'm just not sure when it comes to Bush you have any ability to look at him and situations with him very objectively because of your personal conclusions.

Read all about ME!

[debbie mannas]

bush and his administration violated international law. In pushing their point they used bogus information and way overstated Saddam's threat. Saddam is an evil wicked horrible person. But in the end, saddam got away and his people are suffering, just as they did under the sanctions.



Bush knowingly (yes, I believe that, otherwise the alternative is that he and everyone else in the administration, including the CIA is simply incompetent) lied to his citizenry to go to war. He started a preemptive war knowing that innocent people would get killed. What does that make him?



For those of use sitting on the sidelines, watching the play, its so very clear. For those of you who favour bushes position - people who do not agree with your position are "bigoted" and "prejudiced".



I think we see things clearer. We even bother to do some research about how the CIA has interfered continuously in the middle east since the 1950s or thereabouts.



I believe that foisting the US world view on everyone else because it is the "best" is bigoted and prejudiced and dismisses everyone elses culture and people as not worth consideration.



Have you read the Project for the New American Century?



"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. "



www.newamericancentury.org/



Do you know who is behind it? If you support these guys you have no business calling ME prejudiced or bigoted.



"committment to moral principle" coming from rumsfeld and cheney thats a collossal joke.

[RonOnGuitar]

Hiya, Debbie, we were talking about you!

(my thoughts were really all nice, tho.)



I think you have to define prejudice and bigotry. (And as I sez, common sense "prejudice" is useful in life.)



Probaby a good working definition is making judgments based on things we are comfortable with or that we're used to - that is, something that is consistent with all our previous experience/thoughts and doesn't rock the boat. keeping the internal status quo, as it were.



(I see NRK is explaining pretty well that "prejudiced" and "bigotry" have some more current applications -e.g. racial hatred - that kinda muck up clarity a bit when speaking of the concepts in general.)



I think you've touched on the problem a bit - the one-sided application of a criteria that causes it to fall into the "prejudice" category. Even in your last post you just cannot seem to drag yourself to unequivically state that Saddam is a evil guy who has murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It's a fair guess that Iraqis, Kurds and Iranians did not commit suicide via self-strangulation en masse over the years to make it *look like* they had been the victims of Saddam's WMD in an attempt to frame him.



Were you to address such things apart from "but what about Bush?", you'd be on to something. But if you look at just your last post, you're making excuses for Saddam and giving him a pass. "Well, sure he's a mass murderer of his own people, but...".



<Not liking someone who is corrupt>

<that person is corrupt and responsible for multiple deaths>

<Saddam not the agressor here on fake evidence>



What you're doing is what's called "stacking the deck" in propoganda terms. I think many folks will tend to dabble with that to shore up a shaky argument or non-workable belief. It certainly sounds like you're justifying a prejudice. How is starting from "I hate Bush because" better or any more valid than someone starting from "I love Bush because"? At best, emotional arguments cancel each other out, if they do anything at all.



One major disconnect in consistency is that it seems you're unable to think of any instances present/past where anyone other than George Bush has actually done such as that which you've charged him, quoted above.



As I said in the previous post, a great many people are at a loss to see "warts" outside of the borders of the US and maintain that the rest of the world (usually their own backyard) is, of course, nothing less than heaven on earth, ruled by benevolent angelic beings.



I believe that Americans are a bit different - we're a big family of diverse opinions and our problems obviously are not secret. Like big families, we have some mighty good fights over them. But we are an amazing people - the neighboor that we cuss and disagree with at a town meeting is just as often the one who will help us in a barn-raising (an old US tradition) or we'll be with him stacking bags to keep flood waters from his house.



Becoming a superpower requires some "super" people - not perfect, just good-hearted.



I think NRK has a good observation in "I'm just not sure when it comes to Bush you have any ability to look at him and situations with him very objectively because of your personal conclusions."



It's a Shakespeare quote, if memory serves - "A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still." It's when we seek on our own to challenge our existing thought orthodoxies that a few unexpected epiphanies sometines occur.



Also, even good people will still just disagree - so when all is said and done a percieved "bad opinion" does not = bad person!



Ron

[memphis mike]

The American people were "NEVER" naive enough to think that the WMD issue was the only reason we went to war with Iraq.

You say he killed thousands. We say he saved thousands and Iraq is on its way to becoming a great country once again. it's only been 10 weeks since the war ended and great strides are being made by the Iraqi people. Universities are now open, they have a functioning police dept., Public works are getting back to normal and the ones taking the jobs were the ones left out in the previous dictatorship...most problems are now being created by the Baath party members who no longer have their previous jobs and have been left out of the new Iraq. You paint a grim picture for the citizens of Iraq; the truth of the matter is, it's an exciting time to see a democracy in it's infancy. I repeat, you are so extreme, you can not be taken seriously and I suggest you take a step back, reconsider your stance and join the real world....

[debbie mannas]

what you are trying to paint is Debbie hates bush but loves saddam.



Au contraire.



Debbie loathes and detests saddam. He is a wicked man. He was a known torturer and killer from a very young man. He really has NO redeeming features. But by all accounts he is still alive...



Bush is the leader of the world's only super power. As a world leader, one expects much more. And leaders cannot be above the law. The rest of the world expects this too. If you really think mine is the only anti bush administration opinion outside of the US think again. And this is not "politically correct". This is looking at the evidence in front of our eyes.



I dont see any argument of yours against a preemptive war. Do you think its OK? From this precedent, no country that dares dissagree with the US is safe. What if bush invents some other bs to attack India or China next? What if he says, lets find the evidence AFTER we've bombed and gutted the place?



You think because Saddam is evil, its ok for you leaders to be evil, as long as its not AS evil? I mean, after all, whats a few thousand lives compared to a few hundred thousand? Its all a matter of degree right?



I also see no comment about the "project for the new American century". You think that's ok too?



Meantime, there are plenty of other cruel, evil leaders safe in their beds, with their people dying and suffering.



Ron are you and MM so blind that YOU cannot see the other side?



And now my opinions are "bad"? I'm sorry you cannot see how prejudiced YOU two sound, and worse, patronising.



MM, I have pretty much never taken anything you say seriously



Now, tell us some good things Bush has done for the world and the country. I'm all ears. and eyes.

[memphis mike]

Debbie, you don't take anything anybody says seriously, you are too caught up in yourself....being anti-Bush is one thing, but calling him a murderer is a long leap.....I also never called you pro-Sadaam.....Of course you don't take me seriously, your mind is clouded......if you took me seriously, i would begin to doubt myself......

[RonOnGuitar]

"it's only been 10 weeks since the war ended and great strides are being made by the Iraqi people"

============



Yup, it takes time to get a house in order - but there certainly is reason for hope! The Iraqis will have put their collective noses to the grindstone as they build a free nation, but they can do it :



Saddam faces war crimes tribunal

15/07/2003 21:25 - (SA)



Baghdad - Iraq's transitory Governing Council decided at a meeting on Tuesday to set up a war crimes tribunal to try members of the ousted Saddam Hussein regime, sources close to the meeting's chair said.



Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloom, son of the Shi'ite acting chair, Mohammed, said the council had taken "two important decisions: the creation of a war crimes tribunal and the restoration of the rights of Iraqis, victims of oppression under the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein."



These victims, he said, included the families of those killed under the regime and others who were displaced.



"A committee made up mostly of legal figures will be constituted to put the decisions into operation." Its role would be to establish how restitution could be made and who would be eligible.



Some non-governmental organisations have estimated that up to 300 000 people went missing under Saddam's regime, with the Shi'ite majority and Kurdish population in the north particularly persecuted during his nearly 24-year rule.



Kurds were forced out of their homes, while thousands of Shi'ites living in Iraq's southern marshlands, which were drained under the regime, fled north.



The US-led coalition has said it wants to try top members of the former regime on war crimes charges.



The most significant allegations against the former regime revolve around claims that Saddam's forces gassed to death thousands of Kurds living in northern Iraq in the late 1980s.



The 25-member Governing Council, which held its first meeting on Sunday, has yet to fix procedural rules including its choice of chairman. The body was thought to be considering both a rotating and fixed chair.



"They are still discussing internal procedure," Bahr al-Uloom said.



www.news24.com/News24/Wor...71,00.html

Edited by: RonOnGuitar at: 7/17/03 5:04 am

[memphis mike]

Quote:

---

I'm all ears. and eyes.

---

you're all mouth.....

[debbie mannas]

Bush is a murderer? Well innocent people died because he started a preemptive war. Do you deny that?



He is responsible for their deaths as surely as if he'd put a gun to their heads himself. What does that make him, a saint? In my books, if you are responsible for peoples' deaths, you are a murderer.



So you don't think so, that's your prerogative.



YOU are clouded by partisanship. I am neither democrat or republican, left or right wing.



Bush started a bogus war, people died. Thats what I see.



This is also the guy who went AWOL, BTW.

[debbie mannas]

You havent backed up any of your big talk with what good Bush has done.



So lets have it.



Instead you diss my arguments with personal insults. If you show me how I've been bigoted or prejudiced with arguments disproving the facts, I'd appreciate it.



Fact is:



Bush started a war.

He violated international law.

He started a very dangerous precedent of preemption.

He has caused an arms race.

He has polarised the world.

He has made the world a far far more dangerous place.



If you care to discuss or disprove all of the above points, you might actually be saying something.

[RonOnGuitar]

It's not necessary to pick on Debbie personally, Mike, she's not a bad person. Disageements are best fought over topically and rationally, picking on the ideas and traveling the high road whenever possible. Doesn't always work out that way, but I think it's worth the effort anyway.

[memphis mike]

why would I back him up, i don't particularly like the guy....



I'm not going to spend my time disproving any of your dribble...you haven't proved a thing...you just say it and so it is.....and Debbie said, let there be me.....



I have a suspicion you pee your pants everytime you get a negative response.....

Edited by: memphis mike at: 7/17/03 6:35 am

[debbie mannas]

"I'm not going to spend my time disproving any of your dribble..."



typical.



you have not made ONE SINGLE rationale argument. Because you can't.



Therefore, anyone who disagrees with you is anti america, anti bush anti this, anti that, jealous, bigoted, prejudiced etc etc, even if they have publically available quotes, stats, newspaper articles, letters etc etc to back up THEIR arguments.



And then you stoop to stupid juvenile insults. Ye Gad. Grow up memphis mike, will ya.



BTW, its not "dribble", but DRIVEL.



Dribble is what you do while playing basketball, or if you're a sloppy drinker.