Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

But, yes, I see the difference in class between "you" and "us": You think a funeral is a political rally.

Yes, there's the difference. There, the few families complaining (and what exactly was their complaint?) were trying to make a political point by their complaining.

Lash is like totally Goth.

But, yes, I see the difference in class between "you" and "us": You think a funeral is a political rally.

And you, or fox, represent what exactly? Objective and inclusive bigitude?

dyslexia wrote:

Lash is like totally Goth.

OK. I have never before realized.


I have never seen a black Goth.




Confounding.

OE, you've lowered the bar on every one of those answers.
1) Capturing Bin Laden - ? Obviously not. Anon doesn't seem to know who attacked the World Trade Center the first time either. Ridiculous.

Lie No. One! Show me anywhere I said anything about bin Laden. I didn't say we captured him. I said we hadn't had any attacks on Continental U.S. Soil

(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg- In 1998 Dessert Fox was called off in the eleventh hour

You made my point ... Thank You!! Clinton was not so bloody stupid as to attack and create the mess that Bush has! Bushes father was also not so stupid as his son. In Iraq War One he refused to invade. Only Bush the Stupid did that!!

(this would have been the appropriate response to Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of ceasefire.

Only for the Incredibly Stupid!! All you have to do is look at Iraq today to see the evidence that this kind of action has brought on us!!

Our intelligence on Iraq wouldn't have been so spotty had Clinton not allowed Saddam to throw out the inspectors.

There were inspectors in the field while Bush banged the war drums. He made the inspectors leave. As a matter of fact, they barely got out before Bush the Stupid attacked. Bush is the one who threw out the inspectors so he could wage his stupid war!!!

All that notwithstanding; the "Middle east powder keg" was far from defused.

The Mid-East was much tamer. Palestine and Isreal were in peace talks while Bush and Sharon plotted war from the sidelines before they were even elected. Bush and Sharon impeded the peace process by interferring when it was none of their business. They were busy making phone calls to each other prior to the election. There was quite a fuss about it.

Israel and her neighbors were good buddies? Ridiculous.

Lie No. Two Show me where I said they were good buddies.

(3)Making everybody in the world love America- Please. I'll grant you the world's grown considerably less fond of America, but they most certainly weren't in love with us before. And even this answer is looking past the fact that (3) refers to everybody. Ridiculous.

JustWonders said everybody. I'm not that ignorant!

However, we had the sympathy of the world after the WTC went down. ALMOST everyone was behind us and we could have used it to great advantage! Bush and you ignorant rightwingers, instead of using it, sodomized the U.S. with your bloody war. You are the ones responsible for the state of the world today, and WE told you it would work out this way if you were this malignant.

The liberals have called every Bush f*ckup long before it happened, and it happened just like we said ... meanwhile you ignorant supporters just cheered on for the bloodletting!!


(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.- What role did Anon's we play in this? At which point did the "Supreme leader", Khamenei cede power to the moderates? Or even stop referring to us (presumably Anon's "we") as the enemy? The least ridiculous of the four, perhaps, but it's certainly NOT something "we managed" to do.

Your ignorance screams from the page! Start reading about a third of the way down the page.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iran/leader_khamenei.html

Anon's contention "JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!" is patently absurd. "Ridiculous" was generous as "idiotic" would have been every bit as accurate.

So...Yemen let them out, eh?

Anyone following this?

JustWonders wrote:

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

Except, when conservative Republicans do, you won't see it. You just won't. Automatic defence systems go up at the hint of shameful behaviour on the part of your party (which I define as the Republican Party-as-long-as-it's-run-by-conservatives).

If you'd see it, yes, you surely would turn your back on it, because you're a good person. Thats why you wont let yourself see it. I guess thats how loyalty works.

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.

When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.

snood wrote:

JW:

Quote:

1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

Anon

Lie No. One! Show me anywhere I said anything about bin Laden. I didn't say we captured him. I said we hadn't had any attacks on Continental U.S. Soil

Lie No. Two Show me where I said they were good buddies.

blatham wrote:

Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.

I have not heard one articulated by any Dem Leader,and I truly am curious.

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

nimh wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

Except, when conservative Republicans do, you won't see it. You just won't. Automatic defence systems go up at the hint of shameful behaviour on the part of your party (which I define as the Republican Party-as-long-as-it's-run-by-conservatives).

If you'd see it, yes, you surely would turn your back on it, because you're a good person. Thats why you wont let yourself see it. I guess thats how loyalty works.

I swear I hadnt seen the fascinating article that ILZ just posted yet when I wrote the above.

It includes this fascinating bit:

Quote:

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.

When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.

Link to thread / full article

Anon Voter wrote:

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

This wasn't about what happened in 2000 or 1998 or any time in the past. We were discussing the Democrats lack of credibility on national security and the effect of that on future elections. It would be in their best interests to come up with answers to my questions if they are serious about having a leadership role in this country.

blatham wrote:

Take a month. Quit reading and watching your present sources. I'll provide you with a modest list of things to read each day (good quality). That would help with the "enlighten" thing.

Anyone want to bet NYT is near the top of the list? :wink:

There's been a long tradition in this country (not a rule, just a tradition) that former presidents refrain from criticism of current presidents. Both Clinton and Carter have ignored that tradition on several occasions for political gain.