| Subject: Another annoyingly quick response |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/22/04 10:30pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "I agree and disagree" on 09/20/04 1:12am
(sigh) Life is insanely busy right now, but I want to make a quick response to the overall thrust of your post.
>I think that's a pretty bold statement to make - I
>mean, to accuse someone of going to war to stay in
>power... If it were true, that'd be an offense worthy
>of a war-crimes trial. Yet, you've said it, the media
>says (or at least suggests it) just about daily, many,
>many people say it. If it's really true, why isn't
>Bush being impeached? I mean, that's a truly evil
>thing he's done, if what you say is true.
Well, this doesn't logically follow in the way it seems to. Remember when the controversy about Florida's vote got really bad? What people started saying was, "Man, we'd better do something or the American people are going to get completely disillusioned with the office of President." So Gore basically stepped down. I'm sure he wanted to be President, but he stepped down because he saw where it was all heading.
I think because of how disillusioned people already are with the Presidency, most analysts think we can't afford another impeachment-type incident. Moreover, Bush has some friends in very high places, and it would be difficult at best to ever bring proceedings against him. In a perfect system, yes, I think Bush _would_ be impeached, but our system is far from perfect. I absolutely think he intentionally misrepresented the truth, and I don't think that because of any certain media. When he started this whole war, I just kept saying, "Why now? With North Korea threatening to nuke us all and Osama on the run, why are we suddenly jumping into Iraq?" It didn't make any sense to me at all, and even when I saw Bush promise us all he knew exactly where these weapons were, it just seemed wrong. It seemed ill-timed.
So I basically think a lot of the anti-Bush rhetoric is true.
>In fact, because nearly every thing that's spouted as
>negative marks for Bush is never supported with actual
>evidence, I'm forced to conclude that it's
>inflammatory rhetoric, cooked up by those who dislike
>Bush for one reason or another.
What more evidence do you need than to watch him tell us he knows there are WMD's, and he knows where they are, and then later find that we haven't discovered a _single one_?
>Bush couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag, and
>Kerry couldn't lead a group of schoolchildren to the
>bathroom. But, thankfully, they're not the ones
>who're making the decisions. Well, they are directly,
>but it's their cabinet (i.e., their parties) who sift
>through military, civil, and political affairs and
>present a pallette of decisions, thereby shaping
>Bush/Kerry's decisions. I mean, Bush probably wanted
>to keep on going and steamroll the whole Middle East,
>and claim it for ours (not an entirely insane idea, by
>the way... hehe). But, thankfully, SecDef knows this
>isn't feasible, so doesn't give him the option to
>choose that plan of action.
>
>Kerry, if elected, probably would want to raise income
>taxes to 80%, socialize health care, education, and
>private industry, give free crack to crack whores,
>etc. But thankfully, SecState/Treas knows this is
>dumb, so he won't get the chance.
See, all this makes sense to me... I just don't understand your conclusion. No matter who is elected, we agree their decisions will ultimately be made mostly by a group of people smarter than they are. So that means Bush won't get to take the whole Middle East, and Kerry won't get to socialize health care. So we need to look past those issues and see what sort of person we want in that office. Do we really want a warmonger, and, on top of that, someone who can't seem to talk for five minutes without saying something embarassingly idiotic?
>What changed my view of Michael Moore was that I
>happened to do a little background reading - news,
>books, online journals, etc. and found out that he's a
>propagandist and a liar - the "getting a gun in the
>bank" bit? Lie. The failed Charlton Heston
>interview? Lie - there WAS a complete interview, but
>Heston didn't come out as the gun-toting loonie that
>Michael hoped he would be, so he canned it and made
>some other shit up.
Interesting... I'm not sure how the interview could be a lie, exactly... I mean, you can't fake Heston walking out of an interview, I don't think... but I have no doubt that he propagandized a lot of that film. I still enjoyed watching it, and I was really surprised to see the difference in the way people seem to think in Canada.
>I was furious for being tricked, and I was annoyed at
>myself for, quite frankly, "wanting" what he said to
>be true so much that I ignored my rationality.
I'd like you to give me some links to where you found this info. I think Michael Moore is probably just the liberal side's Rush Limbaugh, but I at least sympathize with his cause more than I do the right-wing's.
>And that was the problem - I was intellectually lazy,
>and so I was WRONG for so many years about so many
>things. But once I started thinking for myself, and
>really looking at the facts behind what these damn
>politicians are actually doing, I found that, while
>the religious overtones of the Republicans' rhetoric
>left a slightly bad taste in my mouth, it was the
>almost dishonest ideology of the Democrats that scares
>me a little - I can go into it more later, but I've
>written quite a bit, so I'll wrap up here, and promise
>to expound later.
Yeah, I'd be interested to hear you expound on this when you get time. Politics is not my strong point, and I need to learn a lot more about it. It's just always a struggle to really find an "unbiased" source from which to learn about politics.
>Republican Economic policy is spot-on. It's the
>economic policy of the Libertarian party - of course I
>agree with it.
>Democratic "Bedroom" policy is OK, too. It's about
>the only thing I agree with the Democrats on these
>days - that they're willing to stay out of my bedroom.
> (It used to be a more broad set of agreement, but
>they've changed...)
I guess... I still think Kerry would have a better view on the environment and on education, two key points in my book.
You have a lot of interesting thoughts on all this. I'll look forward to hearing more. :)
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 