You are foolish, rock_nog. Tell me, do you think Kennedy was a good president? He started a war without justification also - a war that claimed almost 60,000 American lives. For the mathematically challenged, that is fifteen times as many troops that have died in five years of the Iraq War.
If you say that you think Kennedy was a bad president, worthy of your hate even, then perhaps you do have the ability to be consistent. If you try to say it was somehow different, or find some way to continue the veneration our media gives to President Kennedy, then you are a hypocrite.
My problem is not with people who disagree with our current administration. It is with the hypocrites. If President Obama sends troops to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide, and it ends up taking five years and four thousand lives, will you support him or turn on him?
Did I say Kennedy was a good president? What would make you assume that? I have said nothing to suggest that I think Kennedy was a good president. With regards to the Vietnam War, he was, quite frankly, a monster. And if Obama invaded the Sudan, I would have a problem with it. What makes you think I wouldn't?
Starkist, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You just make these wild, baseless assumptions, and then you call me foolish based on these assumptions. Why? I don't even know how you come up with this stuff. How does one make the leap from "Well, he said he hated Bush," to "That must mean that he loved Kennedy!" Do you see the problem there? It just doesn't even make sense. There is no reason to assume that one who hates Bush loves Kennedy.
Another poster who needs a class in remedial reading. Sigh. Seriously, read my post. I made no assumptions about you. I asked questions.
Please, those questions were so damn loaded... It was pretty clear what your true intentions were. I mean my God... I figured you were gonna pull this crap - it's the old "Imply something without actually saying it, so that if someone calls you on it, you can always claim you didn't actually say it" trick. Congratulations, you got me. I should've ignored your baiting, obviously, but I was hoping against hope that you weren't just looking for a childish and immature way to put me down.
Seriously... What is up with all these mind games? I don't understand why you're so obsessed with just putting everybody down rather than, say, actually discussing Bush's presidency. I mean, you're the one who brought the whole thing up, and I figured you actually wanted to discuss it, but apparently not.
Start a new topic if you want to discuss the president's policies. Just check the hysteria at the door and be prepared to use facts and logic.
One would recommend that you do the same.
Starkist politics threads are the new Beldaran religion threads.
Starkist: Outrageous statement.
AGN: Knee-jerk reaction
AtmaWeapon: Hey guys this is a not cited statement perhaps we should ask the kind OP to provide a source before we raid city hall?
AGN: Knee-jerk reaction
Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the civil war. People who complain about the Bush Administrations policies on censorship and disapproval of protesters need to wake up and realize that this type of thing is nothing new. Despite knowing inside that the constitution bans these types of laws seemingly obviously, they've been getting passed here and there as early as the Adams Presidency (Alien and Sedition Acts). In their defense however, most of these presidents passed them due to far greater threats against the government (at least in their eyes) than are around today.
There were no good reasons for the Alien and Sedition Acts.
I, in fact, don't like Lincoln or Kennedy.
Inf fact Lincoln might even be worse that Bush II.
Nor do I like the sedition acts of various presidents.
EatinCake wrote:Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the civil war. People who complain about the Bush Administrations policies on censorship and disapproval of protesters need to wake up and realize that this type of thing is nothing new. Despite knowing inside that the constitution bans these types of laws seemingly obviously, they've been getting passed here and there as early as the Adams Presidency (Alien and Sedition Acts). In their defense however, most of these presidents passed them due to far greater threats against the government (at least in their eyes) than are around today.
Since when does "It has happened in the past" make things right? We may be the first to complain, but so too were the founding fathers the first to fight back against the British Empire. Should we follow their example, or the example of the people that accepted boots to the face?
The message DON'T TREAD ON ME was very clear, very simple, and embodies the spirit the American people should have. We have every right to be angry regardless of whether past presidents have misbehaved. We cannot allow our freedoms to slack.
AtmaWeapon wrote:
The message DON'T TREAD ON ME was very clear, very simple, and embodies the spirit the American people should have. We have every right to be angry regardless of whether past presidents have misbehaved. We cannot allow our freedoms to slack.
Don't say this kind of thing. Starkist will expertly argue you into a corner by adroitly pointing out that you don't know how to read, or that you are unable to use logic. He will provide no examples of this, but you know he will be right because god agrees with him on everything. He knows this because god communicates with him telepathically and fills him with a romantic feeling of platonic superlove. You can't argue with that!
On the contrary, Beldaran. I totally agree with him. It's not for nothing I hang a copy of the Declaration of Independence in my living room. Are you ready to take up arms against the oppression you see? Or are you just a weenie, complaining on the Internet?
Again, my only point with this thread was to shut up those historical idiots who suggest that President Bush's alleged infringements on our freedoms are somehow worse than past administrations (they are not) or are unprecedented in American history (they are definitely not.) It really stemmed from that poll I posted where President Bush was voted "Worst President Ever" by the members of this message board.
It doesn't, I'm just reinforcing his original point that we've already been through far worse treads on free speech. Of course I don't agree with the practice, but for various reasons it pops up here and there. The hard part is preventing ourselves from forgetting these things, and not letting our emotions lead us into electing officials who will pass shit like this.
EatinCake wrote:It doesn't, I'm just reinforcing his original point that we've already been through far worse treads on free speech. Of course I don't agree with the practice, but for various reasons it pops up here and there. The hard part is preventing ourselves from forgetting these things, and not letting our emotions lead us into electing officials who will pass shit like this.
The problem is, there is no one who can possibly be elected president who genuinely respects the Constitution. For all his quirks, Ron Paul is probably the closest there is.
Which, of course, is why I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and will vote for him in the general election as well, via write-in.
What are Ron Paul's "quirks" by the way? He seems perfectly reasonable to me, except for the fact that he believes in god.
I dunno, the fact that he doesn't represent mainstream voters at all? Not that I'm saying that as an insult or anything. Really, don't take that as a personal judgment or anything. I'm just trying to explain why he didn't get much support - his views are not really in line at all with either mainstream Democrat or mainstream Republican views.
I'm just pointing out the insanity of upholding the constitution being viewed as a "quirk".
The only real "quirk" of Ron Paul I saw is when I finally decided to google him against my better judgement all I saw was a bunch of platform promises that are great ideas but infeasible in the current political environment. Were America to be completely destroyed, then rebuilt and seeking a new political system I think there's a slight chance he could implement his stuff.
Otherwise it reminded me of that episode of Doug where he promised free sodas for everyone if he was elected then he realized he was up the unsanitary tributary because he couldn't do it. I don't remember what I read but I do remember thinking to myself it was standard politician promises; the same kind of thing is printed on the back of crappy software and uses prases like "synergizes business processes" that no one understands or can define.
So basically you're too pessimistic to vote for someone who advocates freedom because you don't think they can deliver, so you'll just vote for someone who is obsessed with war because you know they can deliver.
Starkist wrote:President Wilson and President Roosevelt were extremely oppressive. They silenced political opponents, they operating enormous propaganda machines, and they both led us into wars against enemies that did not attack us. Yet Democrats and others on the Left revere Wilson and Roosevelt, whilst denouncing Bush.
Except for this attack?
And nice touch with the "Democrat" Party schtick, AlphaDawg. Does Rush have to manually rewind you each time like cassette or can he just set you on record and repeat?
Toolie wrote:And nice touch with the "Democrat" Party schtick, AlphaDawg. Does Rush have to manually rewind you each time like cassette or can he just set you on record and repeat?
Welcome back, my brother from another mother! Sit down and stay for a while, we could use the entertainment.
I don't need El Rushbo to tell me how to think or talk, thank you very much. I just find it funny that Democratics get their panties in a bunch over something so insignificant.
Also, according to the esteemed Wikipedia, El Rushbo is hardly the first one to use that term: Democrat Party
Aside from the fact that "Democrat Party" sounds kind of stupid, I don't get why using that phrase is so offensive. I am actually rather suprised that there's an entire wikipedia article on it. It seems like a huge overreaction.
Edit: What I mean to say is, it seems the only reason people get offended by it is because they know it's supposed to be offensive. Whereas I would just laugh if I heard that because it makes the person saying it sound retarded.
Beldaran wrote:So basically you're too pessimistic to vote for someone who advocates freedom because you don't think they can deliver, so you'll just vote for someone who is obsessed with war because you know they can deliver.
Actually I haven't decided who to vote for (and as I pointed out, I'm not even completely sure I'm registered -- I filled out some online form but never got any feedback, thanks government!) but that sounds like a pretty good plan. Military tech is pretty awesome. I just wish we'd pick a fight with someone that has a navy; battleships are pretty much the most natural extension of our righteous might on the planet and I love those pictures of the full broadsides that make the ocean cave in.
That aside, I highly doubt anyone with hopes of being elected is going to have "bring us into new wars" on their platform. Basically my voting flowchart follows what I predict the rest of the country will do: vote Democrat unless the Republican candidate puts a gun to my head. My only modification is I'm not sure I want to vote for Hillary; she's shown a spirit that I don't think is proper. If it comes down to Republicans vs. Hillary I'll probably let other Americans -- I mean, the electoral college delegates decide for me.