Obama!!!

Well, she ignored Toose's simple request for context/examples. It's like I said: she just ignores a) any disagreement, and b) any request for evidence or explanation, and it doesn't matter if it comes from me or someone else. Let's face it: if she had any answers to any of these questions, we'd have heard them by now.

Meanwhile, I owe the ever-patient Gol a reply on the mechanics of British healthcare, so I should probably focus on that. No use trying to talk to someone with their head stuck in the sand, though some of the claims are so patently false that I can't always help myself. It's quite silly of me, really.

I don't question the committee's right to give the award to whoever they want. And I've never "made fun" of it. But I have an opinion that the committee's selection was inappropriate, and I will express it.

I'm constantly surprised that people go to the trouble of hating politicians. You don't like him, don't vote for the SOB. Better yet, vote for his opponent. Of course, that means getting off the couch and actually going to the polls. But if a guy wins the plurality required to take office, so be it. That's what Democracy is about. Criticize the incumbent if you will, work against him if you want, give money to the opposition party and try to field a better opponent next time. But hate him? What's the point?

Besides, Bush and Obama are both small fry compared with some of the previous people who held that office. Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Nixon. No president was hated more than Lincoln when he was in office. Leaders of his own party were thinking of fielding another candidate if he would just not seek reelection. Members of his own cabinet were among his major critics early on. And he eventually became the first president to be murdered. Wanna talk about "dark times"? Today's a walk in the park compared to several of our earlier eras.

That would seem to summarize the rabid members of both of the major political parties. Too many self-styled liberals are all too willing to shout down those who don't agree with or even dare question their PC positions. The hard-asses on both sides apparently will stop at nothing to demonize the opposition, just like what happened in the 1850s leading up to civil war.

It's not necessary or particularly desirable for "all of America" to get behind whoever is in the Oval Office during any particular period. There's always need for the opposition to offer another point of view. Meanwhile, there are many who would argue Obama hasn't been in office long enough to claim any significant "progress." That every issue still awaits resolution. Doesn't make them un-American.

With utmost respect, you seem to understand little about the American nature or US politics. How many elected officials in India have been allowed "to function in peace for some time?" I recall some went down in a volley of gunfire.

Now this is interesting--are you saying you actually hated Bush, or are you referring to a general societal feeling of hate or at least strong disregard for Bush vs. a general feeling in your local community of approval of Obama. You know, kinda like "everybody I know dislikes him but likes the other guy."

Otherwise, what was it Bush said or did to make you hate him?


So Bush is penalized because he's not glib and articulate, and Obama benefits because he's a dynamic speaker. Or is it because he's persuasive? Or could it be he says things that some people want to hear and others don't? There's no right answer, maybe no answer at all. Some politicians are blessed with a gift for speaking--Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama to name a few. Others--everyone in the Bush family--aren't. It's not fair or unfair, just a fact of life. I agree with you--Obama is a much better speaker than Bush, and Bush did say same some dumb things in an inarticulate way--nothing particularly frightening, given the checks and balances of the US government, but things some certainly didn't want to hear. Yet I think Bush revealed more about himself through his statements than Obama ever has. Or ever will.


All the Constitution requires is that the president be at least 35 years old and a US citizen by birth. So yeah, the average Joe can be president over here. Which is one reason every presidential candidate tries to convince the voters he (or she) is a regular Joe (or Josephine) because there are millions of us Joes over here. I don't mind if the candidate is an intellectual, but I don't want him to think of himself as elite. I think everyone got a gutful of the self-styled elite under Nazi Germany.

So Rufnek,

Do you think we are heading toward civil war?

__________________
Bleacheddecay

I have always been fascinated by this quote by Abraham Lincoln (from 1838!) ever since I was a little kid and saw/heard it at Disneyland at the Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln attraction.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

What do you think it means and how, if in any way at all, do you think it relates to the rancourous political exchanges and terrorist activities we've been having now for about the last 14+ years (since OKC)? ruffy already said that we live in a happy political world compared to the past, but this seems to negate the fact that with modern media, huge groups of people can do all kinds of things at what seems to be a minute's notice as opposed to how slow things worked in the past. Was Lincoln prescient concerning multiple civil wars or is he speaking of internal terrorists of our own citizenry or something which we seem to allow through negligence similar to what happened on 9/11? Or is he talking about something completely different? Remember, if we have another revolution, we'll have to come up with another Constitution, so that would mean that the people who are revolting do not like our current Constitution. The same thing would apply with another Civil War or succession from the Union, since the successionists would have to craft their own Constitution as well. Anybody have any thoughts on this or is this ancient history and has nothing to do with America post-9/11?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Mark, believe it or not I'd not heard that quote before from Lincoln. It certainly is interesting when applied to the zeitgeist of today.

I still think that whatever politics one identifies with, America and Americans have an unassailable flame within. I know how corny that sounds, but I think we all love freedom and at any real threat against it we would come together against any oppressor. To me, that's what Mr. Lincoln was getting at. We have no true enemy but ourselves and I don't mean that to sound like I think that we are better than other nations, but we ARE fundamentally different.

For some reason we, as a country, have become a little lost. We've always believed in a better and brighter future and now all we hear is doom and gloom. I think the Obama campaign recognized this and attempted to get behind it but their ideas are opposite to many of those that made this country great. We're a bit like a great ship adrift in the sea whose lost sight of the lighthouse. We have a framework second to no other but no guiding spirit... so we drift and grasp at anything that looks like it may set us back on course.

I don't think this a formula for a civil war. Squabbles, yes. A re-definition of course? Perhaps. Whatever happens won't ultimately happen because of some 'great' individual leader though. I have a feeling that we'll come back together with purpose soon.

Of course the entire post above is representative of my gut and nothing else. That and two dimes won't buy you a cup of coffee.

A general societal feeling of hate vs. a general societal - not local - approvalI, definitely. I would say that if you did approval ratings in Sweden when Bush was in office he would probably get below 10 % while Obama would be more like 75-80 %. Then of course, Obama has not even been in office for one whole year yet. And I would say that generally we've gone from a genuine ant-Americanism to a mix between the usual pre-Bush skepticism and support for some of the things Obama's trying to do.

Personally, but that's just me, I wouldn't say that I hated Bush as a person. But I think that his administration was a disgrace. Now, if you'd asked me about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.... my feelings towards them would probably be much closer to hate than what I felt for Bush.

Now, why did my "local community" hate Bush. I can't speak for a whole community, but I think that we here in Sweden experienced Bush and his administration as very conservative. Here the term "neo liberal" is a common term, which has little to do with the kind of liberalism that Americans associate Obama or the American left with. Here, it's stands for conservative social and moral values mixed with laissez-faire capitalism, and in the Bush admin. case, also with christian fundamentalism and American nationalism. I also think Swedes associated the Bush admin. with hypocrisy with all its talk of freedom and democracy while at the same time passing the Patriot Act, imprisoning people without trials in Guantanamo, CIA-agents operating more or less freely in European countries - including Sweden, passing laws that helped to concentrate the Media market around a few powerful conglomerats, all the BS that lead up to the war in Iraq, the way Bush supporters talked about "the old Europe" because several countries refused to support the war in Iraq, Fox News in general and their depiction of the "islamized" city of Malmö in particular, and that kind of things.

Ever since the war in Vietnam there has always been, as I said before, a scepticism about USA and especially their foreign politics and in some groups it's been downright hate. But during the Bush years the hate was more widespread and stronger.


You're right, Obama is an excellent speaker and Bush is not. But I was talking about what they were saying, not so much about how they were saying it. I actually think that Bush's rethorical techinque - at least in the beginning of his presidency - was quite effective. Well, obviously it was, since a majority of the people bought it. He used the same kind of trick as several presidents have done before him, Republicans as well as Democrats; he appealed to the pioneer, the cowboy, in all genuine freedom loving Americans. All of a sudden the American borders seems to be somewhere far away from the actual geographical borders we see on the map again. In some way he managed to sell the the story about how American freedom has to be defended by going to war in distant countries and that non-American civilian lives by the thousands is necessary to secure the homeland.

The fact that Bush wasn't very articulate made his supporters love him and his opponents ridicule him. The supporters thought he was easy going and likeable (and put his politics aside, I would actually agree) while his opponents thought he was plain stupid. At the end of the day, the politics is actually what decides what you thought about the guy. If he represented the politics I sympathize with, I would probably like him a lot as a person. But again, it was his administration (and especially Cheney et al) that I despised, not the man himself.

Well, give me a break.. You think the elite is not in charge in your country? Of course the average Joe can be president, but he probably never won't. My guess is that our Prime Ministers have probably been more Average Joe than your presidents if we would turn that into a competition.

And speaking of Nazi Germany.. Nazism stands for National Socialism. The German Nazi state was actually very, very generous to the working class and wives of soldiers and people in general with a low income. That is, of course, if you did not belong to the wrong crowd, so to speak. And also that it was all financed with stolen property and money from jews and other countries.

The SA in Germany was a working class project from the start (and sometimes collaborated with communists), but then the SS gained power in the NSDP and everything changed.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Why hate Bush?
Because he was a moron...a Bible thumping nutjob...dubious in his dealings...and he utterly ruined the feelings of solidarity after 9/11 by attacking stupid ass Iraq that had nothing to do with anything.

Worse he made the ****ing fanatic enemy...a victim!
All of a sudden people were whining about the poor Muslims and how poor old cuddly Islam was being picked on for no reason....
HICK IDIOT! Just finishing what Daddy failed to do!

Instead of going after Islamists that did 9/11 by JUST going into Afghanistan (then leaving again once the job was done...with dire warnings that we will be back if we have to with even bigger bombs) and by pressure, threat and when needed covert action against any and all Islamist freaks wherever country they may be, he went after nutty old Saddam for no reason at all, and lied to us about it!

Iraq was a total farce. It was a waste of money, time, resources and men and it gave worldwide sympathy to the biggest bunch of fanatic, dark ages dwelling, barbaric zealots the world has seen since Hitler strapped on his Swatika jockstrap.

Only Bush and his poodle fellow Bible basher Blair could make victims out of the ideology that carried out 9/11!

That's why i hate Bush.

Whining leftists, communists (as we see in the UK any gathering of The Muslim Mob has plenty of 'Socialist Worker' signs and George Galloway fanboys on show) and pseudo-liberals hate him though because he's right wing in general and dared to say naughty things about that cuddly little, predominantly brown/black skinned, religion of peace.
Not allowed!

My reasons for hating him though seem legitimate...the other just mentioned reasoning is not imho.

Good grief. Rampant psychological speculation and random, unsubstantiated insults have no place in a serious discussion. Nobody's going to take what you say seriously when your idea of political discourse is to type "HICK IDIOT!" Nor should they. Some of the things you've said are demonstrably false, like the idea that Iraq "had nothing to do with anything." They weren't responsible for 9/11, but they were a completely logical part of the War on Terror.

You've basically run through every single cliche reason people have for hating Bush. I don't know if I've ever seen them all in the same post before, so kudos for that. But reasonable people have to have things called evidence to form beliefs, and it's pretty clear you just want to rant. I don't think you'll find much agreement here, even from the Bush-bashers. Most of them are too thoughtful to pretend things are even half as cut-and-dried as you make them out to be.

And if people feel sympathy for Islamic extremists because of Bush, that's on them.

No that's on Bush.
Are you seriously telling me that Iraq did not slam down the biggest amount of criticism of America/The West seen since 'Nam and global sympathy and increased power for Islam and Muslims?
If you do then the ill-informed nonsense comes from you.

And basic historical facts are nothing to do with speculation.
Name one thing I mentioned that is speculation?
What did I say about Iraq that was not 100% true?
Please feel free to tell me any advantage going into Iraq had or what it had to do with 9/11.

If you can't...I accept your apology.

Or...the widely known facts. And a cliche is a cliche for a good reason.
You mean I said what most people say when criticising Bush? Well yes. I did.

And I will say what I want and think the way I want, such is my right. Thanks though.

Actually I used my eyes, ears and brain. Try it sometime.
Listening to Bush speak, seeing what Bush did over Iraq, seeing the obvious dodgy goings on concerning his re-election and going by his open (based on The Bible) bigotry I can indeed say, with very well informed and educated certainty, that Bush was indeed a moronic, dubious, Bible bashing hick.
Whether you approve of me doing so or not, Mum.


And oh yeah...feel free to have your childish 'neg rep' back. *sniffle*

Thereby proving that Bush isn't reasonable. Ditto Blair... And anyone who believes in a religion, God or Superior Being too... And Liverpool fans.

No, I'm telling you that the fact that it happened in no way demonstrates that the blame is on Bush. That's like saying that if I get you worked up and you go out and kill someone, it's on me. You can criticize Bush for generating anti-American sentiment if you want, but you can't hold him responsible when people take it too far and start doing absurd things, like filling sympathy for terrorists. People are still responsible for their own reactions to things, especially when those reactions are absurd.

Er, "HICK IDIOT!" is the expression of a "basic historical fact"? Really? How about what comes next?

"Just finishing what Daddy failed to do!"

This is pretty much the definition of speculation. You're saying that Bush invaded Iraq simply to finish what his father started. You have no evidence for this whatsoever; you are speculating as to his state of mind, and what's more, you're saying that the man went to war for purely emotional, familial reasons. That's absurd, but even if it wasn't, it's definitely speculation.

"Iraq that had nothing to do with anything."

9/11 resulted in a general declaration meant to combat terrorism in general. You might remember it; it was called the "War on Terror." Iraq, apart from openly firing on U.S. planes for many years, also offered lump sums of cash to Palestinian suicide bombers. There are many other examples of the ways in which Iraq supported or encouraged terrorism, but this is more than enough to make the simple point that Iraq was a reasonable part of the War on Terror. Thus, your assertion that it was some completely unrelated flight of fancy is false.


See above. Also, I'm not claiming that it was connected to 9/11. Granted, it may have been heard to get this from my post, when I said, verbatim, "They weren't responsible for 9/11." I'll be clearer next time.


I didn't say you didn't have a right to say those things, I said they were ridiculous and had no place in a serious discussion.

It's pretty bizarre to defend wild ranting by reminding me that you have the right to rant. It reminds me of those people who say absurd things and then scream "it's a FREE COUNTRY!" When all you can fall back on is the fact that you're allowed to be unreasonable, it's a pretty good sign that there isn't a lot to what's being said.

This is a 6th-grade quality insult. It doesn't make you appear tough, or clever, and it sure as hell doesn't constitute an argument.

And I can say that your summary of his Presidency is simplistic, hateful nonsense that even the majority of his critics would not condone (which really ought to tell you something).

So, playground insults about me not using my brain are cool, but giving a thumbs down to an angry, insulting post (which is what the system's for) is "childish." Right.

What wet, fence hugging, apologetic nonsense!

So Iraq had some kind of links to some sort of terrorism stuff that has been going on for decades and that's why it was suddenly invaded after 9/11!?

And you talk about serious discussion? Yeah, right.

And tell me then.
If this was not simply using 9/11 as an excuse to finish what Daddy started, going by your farcical justification for Iraq (and yes, all the sympathy it generated for our enemies..just face that fact), why was Saudi not invaded?
That's perhaps (see the next example) the biggest terrorist funder and extremist ideology spreading country in the world!! AND it WAS connected to 9/11!
Well?

Where was the invasion of Pakistan? Already a massive terrorist funding country and training camp for terrorist easily on the level of Afghanistan.
In fact today it is perhaps THE MOST dangerous country as far as exporting terrorism goes.

But no...Bush went into Iraq!
Because according to you that was a really vital (much more than those 2 other countries far more explicitly linked to 9/11 and Western terrorist attacks) traget in the 'war on terror'.
Please.
Just stop it. What was that about using your brain? Or basing arguments on knowledge and facts? Hmm....


And actually the insults came from YOU first.
YOU decided that MY post, not remotely to do with you at all or remotely aimed at you in any way, warranted this reply:

So actually it was you who decided to personally attack me for a post that was simply my own views.

And i could care less about rep. In fact all that good rep was getting boring. So bring those red suckers on.
But the difference between us is...I never even considered giving you negative rep for your post (even after the unwarranted insults) it never even entered my head until I saw you had already given some to me.
So yeah...I do call it childish.
A reply is simply part of a debate or argument where we don't agree...the neg rep is like sticking your tongue out and going 'ya boo shucks'.
So okay then, I'll play...'ya boo shucks' right back at yer.

Here you go...I just thought of the best way to end this farce and your wails of victimhood.

I attacked BUSH.
Yoda then attacked ME.

See the difference there?
That says all that needs saying.

First of all, it's not "some kind of links to some sort of terrorism stuff." That's a really transparent attempt to make what they did sound tenuous. It wasn't. It's a direct link to terrorism. Adding words like "some" and "sort of" to it doesn't change that.

Second, they were invaded after 9/11 because 9/11 convinced the Administration that these threats had to be dealt with before they became more dangerous. Bush said this approximately 1.6 billion times. 9/11 caused a reevaluation of international policy, which led to the "War on Terror," which Iraq was naturally a part of. It isn't complicated.


It wasn't "connected" to 9/11, the hijackers were just from there.

And there are lots of countries that support terrorism in some way, so unless we invade every single country that does this, you could always say "oh yeah, why didn't we invade so-and-so?" At some point, simple logistics are the problem, because you can't invade everyone.

Now, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but it's not as oppressive as Iraq was; it was actually an ally during the Gulf War, and it doesn't have the same history of regional aggression. The idea that the logic which led us to invade Iraq obligates us to the exact same thing with the Saudis, whose situation is quite different, just doesn't add up.

And I'm sorry, but the idea that Bush did this to impress his father is just absurd on its face. You don't know the man, you don't have any special insight into his emotions, and wars are not, in this day and age, usually started by such trivial things. It is an unknowable, and one which you have no evidence for. That makes it speculation, as I said before. I take it you're conceding that point? Or do you have some kind of incredible, shock-the-world transcripts from Bush's psychiatrist?

Er, you know I can't reply to you until you actually post something, right?

I didn't say anything about Iraq in comparison to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. At all. Please read the posts. You have to argue with the things I actually say.

How is it a "personal attack" to say that you're speculating and ranting, and to say that those things have no place in a serious discussion? I didn't say you were stupid, or idiotic, or make some grade-school crack about using your brain. I didn't attack you at all; I attacked what you said, and I did it without anything overtly personal. You, on the other hand, seem unable to make an argument without weird personal attacks. God knows why. It sure doesn't help your case.

Again: saying "try using your brain" isn't childish? Are you serious?

No, the neg rep is like saying "this isn't constructive." And your posts haven't been constructive.

It is very, very rare that I give out neg rep to someone I am arguing with. I give more positive rep to things I disagree with, actually, provided they are thoughtful and substantive. I give out neg rep only when they devolve into personal insults, behave rudely, or start saying things without supporting them. That is precisely what the system was designed for.

Er, no, I attacked what you SAID. Dunno why you can't make that distinction. I replied, and argued with you, and I did it without making things overly personal. I was definitely harsh, but only about your words.

To have a gander at the first person to make a direct personal attack, consult your local mirror.

I consider this personal and indeed aimed at me.

Like I said, you disliked me picking on Bush so you got 'harsh' with me.
Personally.

And you also accused me of basing my views on nothing but random speculation and that I was not to be taken seriously.

I consider that another personal attack as well.

I simply replied that actually I based what I thought (whether you damn well approved or not!) on what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears and thought about with my own brain.
Despite what your smear remarks eluded to about how I came to my views.

And sorry, But you can go on about Iraq all you want. But not only was it nothing at all to do with anything at all to do with 9/11, it was also a very small part of international terrorism compared with all the other countries America/The West did nothing at all about!

If you are going to excuse Bush for invading Iraq (and almost destroying the 'war on terror' before it had even started) with the excuse that it had 'some kind of terrorist links in general' then you simply don't have a leg to stand on when you desperately try to explain why we did not then attack Iran, Syria, Saudi, Somalia or Pakistan.

In fact if Saudi, Somalia, Iran and Pakistan were smoldering holes in the ground...the World would be a far safer place now even if Iraq had been left untouched.
It's a simple fact. Not an opinion. A fact.
A fact because ALL of those countries...then and most certainly now...have far, far, far, far more to do with Global Islamic terrorism and Western Islamic infiltration than Iraq ever did!
'War on Terror' you say?

So again, your excuses are just that. And if I'm angry it's because stuff like this, **** ups like this, mean far more to me than any damn film.

Out.

So, what do you guys think about that Lincoln quote I posted above?

Okay.... Who exactly is whining again??

Okay, I'm mostly with you on this one in your war on lunacy. But that is a very general and farfetched connection.

When exactly is an act an act of terror and when is it not? Is it determined by the nature of the act or by who's actually executing the atrocity? In short, why can USA and their allies (according to some) do pretty much anything in any country at any time in the name of democracy and freedom while having money in the wrong bank account sometimes was enough to go to Guantanamo?