Has Bush united or divided the country ?

Calling King a divider because he alienated a few bigots is like calling the Founding Fathers dividers because they alienated the British.

Again, Brandon's bizarre viewpoint seldom disappoints.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I believe he has united all the whacko's, mental patients, uneducated youth, over-educated pseudo-intellectuals, as well as the dotty, aberrant, delusional, eccentric, odd, queer, strange, foolish, senseless, witless, irrational, unreasonable, delirious, distraught, frantic, frenzied, and hysterical against him.

That has to be good for the country. Keeping the loons busy hating Bush while the country moves on without them.

Agreed. Your terms are quite descriptive and gets the point across. And check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184804,00.html

Who is really dividing the country, may I ask? I simply used Gore as an example in the above link, but you could cite many, many examples. I could name a few more. Howard Dean suggesting Bush may have known about the planes flying into the trade towers before it happened, Democrats accusing Republicans of rampant racism, such as the black man being dragged along the streets, black churches being burned, Kerry accusing our soldiers of terrorism, Bush of lying constantly with little or no evidence. The above link has Gore accusing the U.S. of indiscriminately rounding up Middle Easterners. And he does this in Saudi Arabia no less. And by the way, he doesn't wish to back up his statements. I have a question. Does the man have a conscience? Does he have any respect for facts. Does he have any respect for his own country and his own fellow citizens. Even old Jimmy Carter has the gall to use Mrs. King's funeral as a proper venue to bring up Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans as examples of racism.

I can read much of the same mantra on this forum, and the same exists on other forums. I think it must be typical of the kind of game the Democratic Party has decided to play in order to gain back their power. The party has no platform as far as I can tell, only a platform of hatred and division. In my opinion, the current cast of characters leading the Democratic Party has made it the most divisive organization that I've ever seen in my lifetime in American politics.

0 Replies

What a pile of bullsh*t your last post was, Okie.

Karl Rove and the Republicans have perfected the use of divisive politics in order to maintain control in America. They specifically forward issues and memes designed to widen splits amongst moderates every time.

The actions of the Republicans in the House and Senate are indicative of this; they use every procedural trick there is to keep Democrats from ever getting a bill to the floor, they make changes in conference in order to slip approrpiations and earmarks into bills when there are no Dems to object allowed to be present, they attack the patriotism of anyone who dissents with their position. This is the very definition of divisive politics.

The Dems' reaction to these politics has lead to some of the things you listed. Ask yourself, why they dislike the Republicans so much? Do you really believe it's just jealousy? No, it's watching a bunch of crooks smile and laugh as they gut our country in the name of Freedom.

And I do mean crooks. You'll be lucky if your leadership manages another year without being sent to jail.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Democrats simply can't get over the fact that they aren't in the majority in Washington now, and like spoiled children, are whining an moaning about everything the Republicans want to do. When they were in power for 40 years in Congress, I guess they expected it to last forever. Now, the Teddy Kennedys and others of his ilk can throw their little tantrums. It isn't very becoming of grown men, but it does put their character on display for all to see, which should be instructive, just like your little tirade. If I see people go to jail for legitimate reasons, I'm all for it, both Republicans and Democrats.

0 Replies

okie's idea of a reputable information source is Fox or townhall. Not a lot of good is going to come from that diet.

0 Replies

The original sources are your own leaders.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
On the contrary. When you see an image of people marching in the streets with King for their rights, and the police shooting them down with water cannon, that doesn't look like unity to me. Within his lifetime, his actions caused more polarization than unity. People who take a stand for the right thing often cause great dissension at first.

So the country was united before King organized these protests?

No, I didn't say that, and that doesn't follow from what I said, but his work had an initial polarizing effect, although it resulted in increased unity many years later.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Calling King a divider because he alienated a few bigots is like calling the Founding Fathers dividers because they alienated the British.

Again, Brandon's bizarre viewpoint seldom disappoints.

Indeed, the decision by the Founders to declare independence did polarize the country at the time. There was much strife and combat between those favoring the revolution, and the loyalists. This is pretty obvious. I'm not commenting on whether what the Founders did was good or not - obviously it was very good. I'm just stating the obvious fact that it had a polarizing effect within American and British society of the period.

0 Replies

Quote:

It isn't very becoming of grown men, but it does put their character on display for all to see, which should be instructive, just like your little tirade.

You have no substantive attack on my argument. It wasn't a tirade. It is a factual description of the tactics used by your own party in order to divide America.

Tactics such as the 'gay marriage' issue, which the Republicans bring up every election in order to get voters to the polls, and then never do a damn thing about it later.

Tactics such as using 1.6 Billion dollars of taxpayer money on propaganda promoting their own programs to the taxpayers, in just the last two years. Don't believe me? http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/060213231136.kobx68wq.html

Tactics such as having party leaders such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, Coulter. People who advocate killing Liberals, deporting them, calling them traitors, accusing them of aiding Al Qaeda, questioning their patriotism constantly. When asked, the Republican party says 'oh, they aren't leaders, noone pays attention to them'; But the money, tv numbers, book sales, and appearances don't lie. They ARE leaders of the Republican party, every bit as much as the elected ones.

The current Administration aren't even conservative! In the slightest! Huge government spending increases during their term, Huge debt increases, Gigantic increases to Entitlement programs(Prescription drug benefit is going to cost trillions, great job), not a single veto, interntational meddling, scandals - doesn't that sound like the way you would describe a Democratic administration?

In order to keep conservatives from figuring this out, your Leaders use Divisive politics to play the Conservatives off of the increasingly Liberal left, using Abortion, Gay marriage, and Fear - fear of terrorism, with the security blanket being National defense - and they have had some success doing this. Up until now, that is; people are starting to wake up.

This is why Bush's approval has been less than 40% for most of a year now, why Senate Republicans have had much lower numbers than predicted just 6 months ago, why the Dems look better than they ever thought they would after the 2004 election. And the scandals, oh, the scandals, I know you hate this - I imagine you hate it about as much as you loved the Clinton scandals!

But they aren't going away - DeLay, Abramoff, Frist, Ney, Safavin, Libby, now Cheney; how many leaders can you lose to scandal before the whole thing starts to unravel?

Therefore I predict the divisive politics will be dragged right back out into the fore this year. I dare you to turn a critical eye to the Republicans and see what they've become while you were busy insulting the Dems.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Calling King a divider because he alienated a few bigots is like calling the Founding Fathers dividers because they alienated the British.

Again, Brandon's bizarre viewpoint seldom disappoints.

Indeed, the decision by the Founders to declare independence did polarize the country at the time. There was much strife and combat between those favoring the revolution, and the loyalists. This is pretty obvious. I'm not commenting on whether what the Founders did was good or not - obviously it was very good. I'm just stating the obvious fact that it had a polarizing effect within American and British society of the period.

Jesus Frigging Christ!!!!!!!!! Can you not understand a simnple declarative sentence??? My analogy had nothing to do with dividing ""the country," it had to do with alienating the British.

Would someone inform this guy who gets his history from newsreels that there was no country in 1776? It is really ridiculous that we have this childish level of discourse at what is supposed to be an adult forum.

What is really pathetic is that he still doesn't understand the point that King could no more be expected to unite virulent racists to his cause than we would expect the British to help us with our revolution against them.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Calling King a divider because he alienated a few bigots is like calling the Founding Fathers dividers because they alienated the British.

Again, Brandon's bizarre viewpoint seldom disappoints.

Indeed, the decision by the Founders to declare independence did polarize the country at the time. There was much strife and combat between those favoring the revolution, and the loyalists. This is pretty obvious. I'm not commenting on whether what the Founders did was good or not - obviously it was very good. I'm just stating the obvious fact that it had a polarizing effect within American and British society of the period.

Jesus Frigging Christ!!!!!!!!! Can you not understand a simnple declarative sentence??? My analogy had nothing to do with dividing ""the country," it had to do with alienating the British.

Would someone inform this guy who gets his history from newsreels that there was no country in 1776? It is really ridiculous that we have this childish level of discourse at what is supposed to be an adult forum.

What is really pathetic is that he still doesn't understand the point that King could no more be expected to unite virulent racists to his cause than we would expect the British to help us with our revolution against them.

It's a pity that you always have to bring the character of your opponent into the argument, even when your opponent's posts are to the point and dignified.

My point, is that taking a stand to do the right thing often polarizes society initially (as when the Declaration of Independence polarized the people of the colonies), and, conversely, doing something that polarizes society doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point, is that taking a stand to do the right thing often polarizes society initially

Following your logic, the question is of course: how do you know that it is the right thing? Because it polarizes the society?

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
I think Bush has done a great job ... uniting the countries who hate our guts and want us dead!!

Anon

@ Anon........ but its true

Too true unfortunately.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
On the contrary. When you see an image of people marching in the streets with King for their rights, and the police shooting them down with water cannon, that doesn't look like unity to me. Within his lifetime, his actions caused more polarization than unity. People who take a stand for the right thing often cause great dissension at first.

So the country was united before King organized these protests?

No, I didn't say that, and that doesn't follow from what I said, but his work had an initial polarizing effect, although it resulted in increased unity many years later.

This is a very shallow and false understanding. You ought to get straight on how it is that.

1) The Hatfields and the McCoys have a century-long total hatred with occasional violent outburts and absolutely no sense of shared values or affinities.

2) One young McCoy brother decides the situation is mutually destructive, so sets out to bring the two groups into a better relationship and secretly invites them to a McCoy hoedown.

3) They come and a riot breaks out

He did not create nor promote nor increase division. He merely made it more visible.

It's a simple point. If you continue to refuse to understand this simple and critical difference between M L King's goals and Karl Rove's goals then there is very little reason for any of us to assume you are up to much other than apologetics.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
On the contrary. When you see an image of people marching in the streets with King for their rights, and the police shooting them down with water cannon, that doesn't look like unity to me. Within his lifetime, his actions caused more polarization than unity. People who take a stand for the right thing often cause great dissension at first.

So the country was united before King organized these protests?

No, I didn't say that, and that doesn't follow from what I said, but his work had an initial polarizing effect, although it resulted in increased unity many years later.

This is a very shallow and false understanding. You ought to get straight on how it is that.

1) The Hatfields and the McCoys have a century-long total hatred with occasional violent outburts and absolutely no sense of shared values or affinities.

2) One young McCoy brother decides the situation is mutually destructive, so sets out to bring the two groups into a better relationship and secretly invites them to a McCoy hoedown.

3) They come and a riot breaks out

He did not create nor promote nor increase division. He merely made it more visible.

It's a simple point. If you continue to refuse to understand this simple and critical difference between M L King's goals and Karl Rove's goals then there is very little reason for any of us to assume you are up to much other than apologetics.

My point is that taking a stand for the right thing may sometimes initially produce polarization of society, and, converseley, if the stand someone takes produces polarization, that does not mean he was in the wrong. This is virtually self-evident.

0 Replies

Some people just cannot be reasoned with. That is the ONLY thing that is self-evident.

0 Replies

Back to the topic of the thread. Bush said he was a uniter, but he pretty clearly isn't. So, now that we all agree that he is a divisive figure, is he taking a stand on something important for which the polarization will eventually fade and we'll all come out and sing hallelujah thank God that GWB took a stand? If so, what would that thing be and why is it right?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Back to the topic of the thread. Bush said he was a uniter, but he pretty clearly isn't. So, now that we all agree that he is a divisive figure, is he taking a stand on something important for which the polarization will eventually fade and we'll all come out and sing hallelujah thank God that GWB took a stand? If so, what would that thing be and why is it right?

Opposing two or three dangerous forces in the world that might realistically kill many Americans or greatly injure America:

1. Terrorism
2. The proliferation of WMD to nations which cannot be relied upon to use them only or primarily as deterrents.
3. The proliferation of WMD to so many countries that their eventual use becomes likely.

0 Replies

I would think that the country is pretty much united on those three topics.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I would think that the country is pretty much united on those three topics.

We're united on taking active measures, even military measures, to stop the spread of WMD to high risk countries like Iraq and Iran? Really? Fascinating.

0 Replies

Has Bush united or divided the country ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know