Bush Supporters PLEASE Explain THIS!

Montana wrote:

I can't figure it out. Bush's lies are right in front of our faces and It's beyond me why so many people don't see it. I'm constantly shaking my head on this one.

hysterical blindness ? Cool

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Before I go, I'd just like to say, Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11. Bush also lied about the WMD's. I could go on and on, but as I said before, "I don't particularly like wasting my breath".

Bye now.

You broke your promise.

It's easy for you to say that "Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11," but it would be infinitely more difficult for you to prove this rash charge. Break your promise yet one more time and provide us with substantiation of this alleged lie.

And while you are at it, provide us with some proof that Bush lied about WMDs as opposed to being mistaken.

But I know, you don't want to waste your breath.

Reminds me of when I was a a lot younger and some kid would back down from a fight with another kid who he knew would clean the floor with him, but try and cover his retreat with "I'd fight you, but I'm afraid I'd kill you."

Don't want you to waste your breath Montana, as I'm sure you can put it to better use.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Which personal attacks are you referring to?

I suspect it was this one from Frank posted right after george's comments.

"Sounds like you shudda sounded off, Kicky. Nothing rational coming from the other side."

In fairness, this one came from me and I think I'm on the other side of Kicky in this discussion.

"Perhaps if you stopped shaking your head you would think straighter."

The difference in the two, and perhaps it is a difference without distinction is that Frank's followed a reasoned posting and was a poor substitute for a reasoned response. Mine followed a poor substitute for a reasoned response to a reasoned posting.

To the extent that I drop insipid bon mots like Montana's and attempt to disguise them as serious commentary, please feel free to attack me personally. Also feel free to do so when I respond to a reasoned posting with a smart ass and equally inspid comment like Frank's.

0 Replies

You have one of the more beliggerent styles going, finn. Anybody calls you on it, could be you got it coming.

0 Replies

As usual, Finn, you have made some interesting points, in a very articulate, rational, and intelligent manner. Too bad the guy you're supporting can't do the same. He he--sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm glad I didn't jump in here, because after thinking about it, it is not a Bush thing. Both sides do the same thing. They try to convince people, using what works.

This is what the spinmeisters and campaign strategists do. They find what works. Obviously, for the past few years (actually it's probably been this way at least since TV came along, I'm sure), dumb seems to work.

When it stops working, we will see less of it.

0 Replies

Im thinking if Bush was half as inteligent and passionate as some of you are here, he might not be so bad. But anyone who didnt see the ignorance on the debate "uh uh uh" My opinion is he is a puppet. He has one line and its all I here from Busch supporters "He keeps changing positions uh uh uh" Busch has definately used our vengeful nature for his advantage. He rushed out to war to finish his fathers job and help make Cheney rich. If Bush was the hero people make him out to be then why are the genocides in Sudan still going on? Are they less deserving than the Iraqis to see freedom or even have their lives.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Montana wrote:
Before I go, I'd just like to say, Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11. Bush also lied about the WMD's. I could go on and on, but as I said before, "I don't particularly like wasting my breath".

Bye now.

You broke your promise.

It's easy for you to say that "Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11," but it would be infinitely more difficult for you to prove this rash charge. Break your promise yet one more time and provide us with substantiation of this alleged lie.

And while you are at it, provide us with some proof that Bush lied about WMDs as opposed to being mistaken.

But I know, you don't want to waste your breath.

Reminds me of when I was a a lot younger and some kid would back down from a fight with another kid who he knew would clean the floor with him, but try and cover his retreat with "I'd fight you, but I'm afraid I'd kill you."

Don't want you to waste your breath Montana, as I'm sure you can put it to better use.

I can't help but smile at your attempts to bait me :-)

It's Bush's job to prove that Saddam was involved and that there are WMD's, and the fact that he can't prove these aligations, makes him wrong. You can't just go around attacking countries on a hunch, duh!

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

I can't help but smile at your attempts to bait me :-)

It's Bush's job to prove that Saddam was involved and that there are WMD's, and the fact that he can't prove these aligations, makes him wrong. You can't just go around attacking countries on a hunch, duh!

I don't think he was trying to "bait " you. However whatever bait potential was there, you certainly took, hook and all.

Now you say that Bush failed to prove to your satisfaction that Saddam had WMDs or was in any way involved with 9/11 or those who did it.

However above you repeatedly affirmed that Bush knowingly lied about these issues. There is a profound difference between these assertions, whether you can understsand it or not.

The fact is that the administration has repeatedly made clear that it would fight a preventive war with the forces behind 9/11 and those who supported it, warning that those not with us were against us. Right from the start Bush identified Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as focal points in the challenge before us. No one versed in the history of the last fifty years could argue effectively against that observation.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

You have one of the more beliggerent styles going, finn. Anybody calls you on it, could be you got it coming.

There are several forms of beligerence. You have illustrated one here.

0 Replies

I am beliggerent often myself. That don't change what I wrote.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Montana wrote:

I can't help but smile at your attempts to bait me :-)

It's Bush's job to prove that Saddam was involved and that there are WMD's, and the fact that he can't prove these aligations, makes him wrong. You can't just go around attacking countries on a hunch, duh!

I don't think he was trying to "bait " you. However whatever bait potential was there, you certainly took, hook and all.

Now you say that Bush failed to prove to your satisfaction that Saddam had WMDs or was in any way involved with 9/11 or those who did it.

However above you repeatedly affirmed that Bush knowingly lied about these issues. There is a profound difference between these assertions, whether you can understsand it or not.

The fact is that the administration has repeatedly made clear that it would fight a preventive war with the forces behind 9/11 and those who supported it, warning that those not with us were against us. Right from the start Bush identified Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as focal points in the challenge before us. No one versed in the history of the last fifty years could argue effectively against that observation.

Bush lied because he said they knew that saddam was involved and that there were WMD's, when he was simply running on a hunch. When asked for proof, he couldn't provide any and that's when his stories began to change. I know I'm still waiting for proof!

You can talk down to me all you'd like and pretend to be bigger than I, but know that I laugh at people who try to belittle me.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

You have one of the more beliggerent styles going, finn. Anybody calls you on it, could be you got it coming.

I prefer to consider it challenging rather than belligerent, but if I engage in the sort of postings to which I referred, I hope they do call me on it.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

As usual, Finn, you have made some interesting points, in a very articulate, rational, and intelligent manner. Too bad the guy you're supporting can't do the same. He he--sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm glad I didn't jump in here, because after thinking about it, it is not a Bush thing. Both sides do the same thing. They try to convince people, using what works.

This is what the spinmeisters and campaign strategists do. They find what works. Obviously, for the past few years (actually it's probably been this way at least since TV came along, I'm sure), dumb seems to work.

When it stops working, we will see less of it.

Thank you.

It may very well be that the advice being given to Bush is cynical or venal (although I don't think it is), but as you've noted that is something far different from what Bush actually says or does.

Actually it is too bad that Bush isn't quicker on his feet than he evidenced last Thursday night. I don't know that I would have been, although I'd like to think so.

The problem with this and other campaigns is that too many people are relying upon images, soundbites, and slogans to influence their decision making. At the end of the day, did last week's debate really tell us anything about who should be president? The mere fact that Bush was inept calls into question Kerry's so called victory. It wasn't the substance of Kerry's arguments that won the day, it was his confidence and Bush's ineptitude. To really test the substance of Kerry's arguments in a debate, it would be necessary to oppose him with someone who has at least the same level of debating skills as him. Clearly that didn't happen.

If William Kristol or Charles Krautheimer squared off against Kerry and he got the better of either of them in a debate on substance, then I would have to concede him a serious victory.

What I do know is that Kerry has, on numerous occasions been incoherent in the presentation of his positions. This is not a partisan opinion or the Late Night Shows and The Daily Show would not be lampooning him on it. One need only have watched his interview with Dianne Sawyer, pre-debate, to know of what I speak.

So what happened last week?

Kerry was obviously better prepared than Bush (I suspect Bush fell victim to the arrogant assumption that he could "wing it.")

Kerry was more disciplined than Bush. I'm sure some of the things Bush said about him annoyed him, but unlike Bush, he had the discipline to stick to his game.

Kerry is intellectually more agile than Bush. I confess to preferring this trait in my choice of candidates, but, at the same time, understand that it is not the only trait worthy of merit and consideration.

The debate did tell us something of the difference between the two men, and in that telling I think Kerry came out ahead, but I don't think it was a matter of substance and it wasn't enough for me to doubt my decision to vote for Bush.

I will acknowledge, though, that to the extent that image does actually matter, in terms of leadership, Kerry won hands down. He looked like a leader, and Bush didn't. However, it would be truly foolish for any of us to base our decision of each individual's leadership capabilities on 90 minutes of a pseudo debate.

0 Replies

Bush said, "the enemy [Saddam/Iraq] attacked us [9/11]."

Saddam/Iraq did not attack us. Bush knows full well that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to to with attacking us [9/11] making his statement a lie.

That is, unless he is a victim of his own administration's propaganda.

0 Replies

Well said, Finn.

So, why are you voting for Bush?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Simple,

Bush has focused on the essential points - (1) confronting Islamist terrorism and supporting the development of modern secular (or at least tolerant) governments in the Moslem states most in need of it, and (2) the productivity of the U.S. economy.

Funny you mention a secular government, because we just overthrew a secular regime which was opposed by Al Qaeda. So If they go to a Islamic theocracy, will you consider the war in Iraq a failure?

As for the US economy, it's been stagnant for four years, do you want to see some graphs on the topics?

Quote:

Kerry is merely a talented opportunist circling about and looking for vulnerabilities. He has no detectable political values, and a very questionable character. The various remedies he so skillfully has put out all amount to various versions of belling Aesop's proverbial cat. His arguments appeal principally to visceral opponents of Bush and those who are easily taken in by sophistry and nice words. Which are you?

Hmm, who has the questionable character? The person who has continued to mislead the American public on not only the facts for going to war, but also the profiteering done by his base backers and the disinformation put out by the aforementioned administration or the Senator calling them out for all of the above? This doesn't even mention the treasonist actions about ousting a CIA operative because her husband had the unmitigated gaul to tell the truth.

Have a little realism in your life and stop listening to Faux news, Hannity, Rush and O'Reiley, for they wouldn't know the truth if it cold cocked them across the face.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I will acknowledge, though, that to the extent that image does actually matter, in terms of leadership, Kerry won hands down. He looked like a leader, and Bush didn't. However, it would be truly foolish for any of us to base our decision of each individual's leadership capabilities on 90 minutes of a pseudo debate.

Good post, but you neglected the obvious. It wasn't Bush's demeanor that was his failing in the debate, it was his inability to answer a single accusation from Kerry.

As far as I could see it Kerry said Bush did the following.

Misled the American public about the threat and the reasons for going to war.
Profiteering done by the administration.
Failure to counter the threat of both Iran and North Korea.
Neglected to continue the fight on terrorism and instead went to Iraq.
Allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and outsourced the military help.
Claimed Bush took forces away from Al Qaeda and instead focused on Iraq.
Failed to get allies on board with the program.
Failed to generate any semblance of peace in the Middle East.
Completely ignored any and all counter intel associated with Iraq.
Failed to differentiate who attacked us.

All of these are serious accusations and Bush had absolutely no explanation of any of these accusations, but instead said "you're a flip-flopper, so you can't lead the country". These are the reasons he lost the debate, the demeanor and actions of the president only solidified the belief that the accusations were not only true, but that Bush had no counter for the obvious. This is why he lost and this is why it was looked on by America as such a failure for the GOP.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Montana wrote:
Before I go, I'd just like to say, Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11. Bush also lied about the WMD's. I could go on and on, but as I said before, "I don't particularly like wasting my breath".

Bye now.

You broke your promise.

It's easy for you to say that "Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11," but it would be infinitely more difficult for you to prove this rash charge. Break your promise yet one more time and provide us with substantiation of this alleged lie.

And while you are at it, provide us with some proof that Bush lied about WMDs as opposed to being mistaken.

But I know, you don't want to waste your breath.

Reminds me of when I was a a lot younger and some kid would back down from a fight with another kid who he knew would clean the floor with him, but try and cover his retreat with "I'd fight you, but I'm afraid I'd kill you."

Don't want you to waste your breath Montana, as I'm sure you can put it to better use.

I can't help but smile at your attempts to bait me :-)

It's Bush's job to prove that Saddam was involved and that there are WMD's, and the fact that he can't prove these aligations, makes him wrong. You can't just go around attacking countries on a hunch, duh!

Bait you? I am merely asking you to offer a shred of evidence, other than your opinion, that proves your claim that Bush lied to the American people and told them that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

If he did make this claim then it would be up to him to offer proof of Saddam's involvement. As he did not, why should he be expected to provide such proof? You are the one who has made an unsubstantiated claim: "Bush claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11." and thus it is up to you to prove your claim. Do you really expect Bush or his supporters to prove that he didn't make the claim? If so, then try this on for size: "Montana is a shoplifter." Now prove that you are not.

As for the WMDs, if the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of them was merely a hunch then most of the world shared in that hunch. The French, Germans and Russians never argued that Saddam did not have WMDs, simply that it was unnecessary to go to war to address the problem.

Again you have offered no proof that Bush lied as opposed to being mistaken. Perhaps in your circles it is acceptible to accuse people of lying without offering proof, but in most civil groups it is not.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Bush said, "the enemy [Saddam/Iraq] attacked us [9/11]."

Saddam/Iraq did not attack us. Bush knows full well that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to to with attacking us [9/11] making his statement a lie.

That is, unless he is a victim of his own administration's propaganda.

When did he say this, and did the bracketed info appear above his head so that all could tell, like you, that he was referring to Saddam attacking us on 9/11?

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

As for the US economy, it's been stagnant for four years, do you want to see some graphs on the topics?

Where did you get that notion? We have enjoyed higher GDP growth rates and lower unemployment than any of the other G8 states for each of the last five years (or more). The U.S. GDP/capita is, by a very large margin, the highest in the world. There was a world wide recession beginning in late 1999. Ours was the softest and involved the least reductin in growth of all the G8 countries. We emerged from it more quickly and with higher growth rates than any of them as well.,

Quote:

Have a little realism in your life and stop listening to Faux news, Hannity, Rush and O'Reiley, for they wouldn't know the truth if it cold cocked them across the face.

You don't know anything about what I read, watch or hear. Moreover you haven't demonstrated much ability to yourself know and understand the truth about even readily quantifyable matters such as economic growth rates. I think I'll pass on your advice.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters PLEASE Explain THIS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know