Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Well, you could explain yourself more thoroughly. But, there can be no dispute about a horrible economy--$3,000 GDP per year per person in CUBA. The USA's citizens have a GDP which is at least 13 times larger.

I hope you are not saying that it is our fault that Cuba has not developed economically, McTag. Your post was so brief that it is difficult to fully understand.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Well, you could explain yourself more thoroughly. But, there can be no dispute about a horrible economy--$3,000 GDP per year per person in CUBA. The USA's citizens have a GDP which is at least 13 times larger.

I hope you are not saying that it is our fault that Cuba has not developed economically, McTag. Your post was so brief that it is difficult to fully understand.

For goodness sake. An total economic blockade for forty years might have an at least marginal effect, I would have thought.

0 Replies

And why would the brutal US have caused the brave people of CUBA to suffer? It couldn't be that the dirty ba.tards allowed the Soviets to put missles on that island, could it?

You weren't in the USA during the missle crisis, were you, MCTag?

I was and we were convinced that we might be blown away any day during that fateful October.

Castro has many chances to make a reapproachment with the USA. He has turned them all down.

Sometimes, McTag, even with the best of motivations, emnity lasts a long time.
'
Ireland is a case in point. As a great Liberal Priest, Andy Greeley, writes in his column in many US papers about Nothern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland--The best Catholics and the best Protestants in Europe but not a Christian in the lot.

0 Replies

blatham said

Quote:

But I'm frankly disgusted by each and every one of you, most particularly those of you who profess convergence with christian values, where you support those who have designed and carried out such a depraved policy as torture.

georgeob said

Quote:

In the first place "torture" is your word, not their description of what may have been done.

It's not torture because the people doing it or responsible for it say "we don't torture".

They are to be trusted because they are the government and military and intelligence. Government, military and intelligence never issue falsehoods. Never. Particularly when the truth would embarrass them.

Government is a bad and dangerous creature, not to be trusted. But it can be taken on its word when it is secretive, disallowing all objective witness or investigation. That's when you know it is really doing its job and not something corrupt or dispicable.

Besides, it can't be torture because America is involved. If America is involved, clearly no torture will be present. That is axiomatic. And even if it is happening, it isn't really because worse has been done by barbarian peoples so that immediately makes our words unclear. Let's clarify and start from the axiomatic proposition that torture is "what we don't do".

Those of you who continue to support and defend this administration through all that the past 5 years have revealed - most acutely, regarding this matter of torturing people - demonstrate an almost absolute lack of the moral capacity or the strength of character to speak out loudly and bravely against your emporer. Your 'loyalty' has long since ceased to be virtuous.

To watch good people allow their most fundamental principles to become this malleable is probably the most depressing observation of people in community that I've encountered.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

To watch good people allow their most fundamental principles to become this malleable is probably the most depressing observation of people in community that I've encountered.

Amen.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The Cubans in Florida are largely economic migrants who are there because the economy of Cuba has been throttled by.....????

Actually the majority were political, not economic migrants. Soon after Castro's revolution, virtually the whole Cuban middle class fled to the United States. Those who came afterward were looking for both prosperity and freedom. I don't know what were their inner motives (and neither do you) but when asked, they generally say they were lookiong for freedom. The Cubans in Florida and other states are a very active anti Castro political force here.

McTag wrote:

For goodness sake. An total economic blockade for forty years might have an at least marginal effect, I would have thought.

It isn't a blocade at all. We don't interfere with Cuba's trade with other countries. We just don't lend them money and we severely limit our own trade with them. As has been noted these actions came only after Cuba's aggressive collusion with the Soviets. Since then they have been unremitting in their attempts to destabilize the region and to oppose our interests. That, of course is their right, but we have no obligation to accomodate them. The economic problems in Cuba have the same origins as those now slowly disappearing from eastern Europe - the stagnation that results from authoritarian socialism. Cuba has nothing much to sell and no hard currency with which to buy things. That is the real source of their lack of trade, not the United States.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

.

Besides, it can't be torture because America is involved. If America is involved, clearly no torture will be present. That is axiomatic. And even if it is happening, it isn't really because worse has been done by barbarian peoples so that immediately makes our words unclear. Let's clarify and start from the axiomatic proposition that torture is "what we don't do".

Those of you who continue to support and defend this administration through all that the past 5 years have revealed - most acutely, regarding this matter of torturing people - demonstrate an almost absolute lack of the moral capacity or the strength of character to speak out loudly and bravely against your emporer. Your 'loyalty' has long since ceased to be virtuous.
.

Stirring rhetoric, but a bit empty on close examination. There is a huge difference between what has even been alleged by opponents of our government and what is now known to have been done by such "barbaric" governments such as the UK in Northern Ireland and France in Algeria. Europe and Canada for the most part have enjoyed a free ride in the resistance to the major political and military dangers of the past 50 years simply because the United States had no alternative but to resist. There is an important difference between virtue and the mere absence of temptatiion.

I'll wait and see just what facts unfold amidst all the rhetoric, hyperbole, and political gaming that surrounds this issue.

0 Replies

The problem with Blatham, as I have commented often, is that it seems he never reads the news reports.

He evidently does not know that the chief architect of the "ban torture" policy, Senator John McCain, left a huge loophole when he was discussing the "torture" policy.

BELOW IS A CHICAGO TRIBUNE STORY FROM 12/19/2005 WHICH THE BLATHAM APPARENTLY MISSED.

quote

"Across the Nation"

Washington D. C.

McCain Tempers Torture Policy

Sen. John McCain, who pushed the White House to support a ban on torture suggested Sunday that harsh treatment of a terrorism suspect who knows of an imminent attack WOULD NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS.
The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in U. S. law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience" including mock executions.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation could shock the conscience, MC CAIN SAID IT WOULD NOT>"

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The Cubans in Florida are largely economic migrants who are there because the economy of Cuba has been throttled by.....????

... Fidel Castro, of course. And I have serious reservations about your dichtonomy between economic migration and political migration. I think it's a false one in this case.

Since we're at it, I think there's a long shot between the contention that Bush's erosion of civil liberties is shameful (which is true), and the contention that Bush is no better than Castro (which is hogwash). I believe my fellow Bush opponents are doing our arguments a disfavor when they sacrifice this distinction to rhetoric effect. It puts our opponents in the comfortable position of having to show only that Castro is worse than Bush, when they ought to have to show that what Bush did was okay -- which is much, much harder, if not impossible.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

. ,,,, when they ought to have to show that what Bush did was okay -- which is much, much harder, if not impossible.

OK by what standard? How does one open a closed mind?

I certainly do not argue that Bush has been the embodiment of perfection in either his foreign or domestic policy. However, when confronted with the shrill criticisms one see on these threads, the double standards and hypocrisy that attend them, and the paranoid fantasies used to embellish them, together with the near complete lack of the historical context that should accompany such criticism, it is difficult to focus on anything but the absurdity of the criticism itself.

0 Replies

george, The only "paranoid fantasies" on these threads are the continued mention of 9-11 by the president in most of his speeches, and the "fear" of another attack on US soil.

0 Replies

Bush has shown repeatedly his inability to understand the background history or future consequences of his ineptitude; democracy does not come from without, and staying the course is not a successful outcome.

His failure to protect the citizens of this country in one of the biggest disasters to hit us during modern times in New Orleans speaks for itself. He assigned a horse show manager to be in charge of FEMA.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However, when confronted with the shrill criticisms one see on these threads, the double standards and hypocrisy that attend them, and the paranoid fantasies used to embellish them, together with the near complete lack of the historical context that should accompany such criticism, it is difficult to focus on anything but the absurdity of the criticism itself.

That was my point. There are reasonable arguments to make against George Bush's snooping, but they won't get any attention when people offer paranoid fantasies instead.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush has shown repeatedly his inability to understand the background history or future consequences of his ineptitude; democracy does not come from without, and staying the course is not a successful outcome.

His failure to protect the citizens of this country in one of the biggest disasters to hit us during modern times in New Orleans speaks for itself. He assigned a horse show manager to be in charge of FEMA.

I would say that if anyone in this world demonstrates a lack of understanding of the lessons of history it is the leading nations of Western Europe. However that is another subject.

I believe you should take the trouble to better inform yourself of the truth behind ther disaster in New Orleans. This is a corrupt city in an even more corrupt state that has entertained two generations of Americans with a continuous spectacle of picaresque, corrupt government, and a general willingness to live of the labor of others. The levees that failed and flooded the city were the property of the State. Their operation and maintenance was overseen by a board appointed by the singularly inept governor. The property zoning decisions that permitted the extention of the city into areas of the expected flood plain was the work of local government. The pumping station that lacked a reliable emergency backup power system was the creation of the county government.

FEMA's initial efforts were hampered in part by lawlessness in a lawless city and a Governor who refused to either act to stop it or accept Federal control. Today the esteemed Mayor and local "leaders of New Orleans are loudly complaining about the flood of Hispanic workers who are working 14 hour days on construction crews cleaning up the mess - they resent the work ethic and ambition of these people and fear that they represent a threat to unique culture of the "Big Easy".

You should look below the surface and not simply believe everything you read in the San Francisco Chronicle.

0 Replies

This is funny. I read this article not 5 minutes before reading the above post Smile

Blanco orders remodeling just after storms

0 Replies

george, You're more apt to read the San Francisco Chron, because I read the San Jose Mercury News most mornings I am home. Your whole premise about misinformation goes right out the window with your pompous rhetoric of "corrupt government." It's possible you still haven't read or heard about the troubles of DeLay and Abramoff and many of the republican congressmen that received big payoffs for their votes. That's what I really call corrupt government.

When the president assigns a horse show manager to run FEMA, you prolly don't understand what's in store for the American people, and why FEMA failed to act in a timely manner to a national disaster.

0 Replies

Excellent comments by both Thomas and george. A slight difference in perspective, but essentially saying the same thing.

Hyperbole is a fine device to make a point when used sparingly. A constant barrage of overblown rhetoric will severely undercut any argument.

I am always left wondering if the user is simply so angry that he or she is unable to reign in passion, or so mad that they are unable to connect with reality. Since these folks seem incapable of acknowledging their hyperbole for what it is (as if this would be some sort of defeat), it makes it all the more difficult to reach a conclusion.

Now a constant barrage of smartass barbs, that is perfectly OK.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Excellent comments by both Thomas and george. A slight difference in perspective, but essentially saying the same thing.

Yes, and the hell of it is that Thomas, a German, said it in fewer words. I'll get even with him later on.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your whole premise about misinformation goes right out the window with your pompous rhetoric of "corrupt government." It's possible you still haven't read or heard about the troubles of DeLay and Abramoff and many of the republican congressmen that received big payoffs for their votes. That's what I really call corrupt government.

Do you mean to argue that neither New Orleans and Louisiana have a long and infamous histories of corruption?

You may prefer to blame Bush rather than Nagin or Blanco for the new Orleans Katrina debacle, but it is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worse to try and suggest that New Orleans and Louisiana do not have a long and proud history of corruption that extends to this very day.

It has become politically correct (read: Liberal approved) to dismiss the corruption that is systemic in New Orleans and Louisiana. This is perfectly understandable since:

1) Both are governed by Democrats
2) New Orleans is the national "Victim" of 2005 and we all know how Liberals love a good victim and are more than willing to forgive all of their sins.

Liberals have flocked to the cause of Katrina struck New Orleans in a way that it is difficult to believe they would duplicate for Omaha, Dallas, or Salt Lake City.

Note: Let's set the record straight. New Orleans was not devastated by Katrina. The Mississippi Gulf coast was devastated by Katrina. There was very little wind or storm surge damage to New Orleans. In fact the day after Katrina made landfall, people in Mississippi were digging there lives and the bodies of their loves ones out of the wreckage while New Orleanians were giving thanks to the Loas that Katrina had passed them by. New Orleans was devastated by the failure of its levees. New Orleanians were devastated by the failure of their local and state governments to provide for them.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Excellent comments by both Thomas and george. A slight difference in perspective, but essentially saying the same thing.

Yes, and the hell of it is that Thomas, a German, said it in fewer words. I'll get even with him later on.

Lucky for Thomas that he used English. Fewer German words do not necessarily mean fewer syllables, and so you might have won the battle of brevity after all.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know