This cant happen soon enough...

[Lyion]

Most of your post is rubbish invented in your own mind. Sorry if I ignore your personal categorizations from virtual reality land.

You shrilly call me a fanatical supporter, and yet I disagree and post often about huge mistakes the W administration makes time and again. I've always been against Rumsfeld as Secdef, and have from day one posted this and feel he was a huge screwup. I have issues with many things W has done, but have things I agree with, also.

You, on the other side, are 100% partisan and have nothing but pure vitriol and propaganda to post. You claim to think for yourself and yet over and over post nothing but media matters propaganda points without any semblance of rational discourse whatsoever.

I freely admit I lean right, but try to see all sides of issues. Show me one non left person on this board who feels you are at all objective, Arlos. I'll show you several who feel I am.

You are simply a hyper-partisan anti-Bush scream machine.

[Arlos]

Sorry, but the list of actions supported by Bush & Co type Authoritarian conservatives vs Goldwater-style conservatives comes straight from John Dean and his discussions with Goldwater himself. Hmmm, I think I'll believe Barry Goldwater over what a Goldwater conservative believes than I will you. Funny, that. You can look it up yourself, they are on pages 70-72 of the aforementioned Dean book.

Your record of support is clear as to which of those groups you support. All any observer has to do is look through your posting history and see which you support. Merely on the question of security vs personal freedom alone your record is crystal clear, with the recent discussion of the national ID being only the most recent example, with your support for the illegal warrentless wiretapping of US citizens being yet another. We can see yet another in your charictarization of any judge declaring something you happen to agree with as an "activist judge", yet fully supporting stocking the bench with hardline conservatives instead of nonpartisans.

You also fail to notice that when the Republicans have done something I agreed with, I stood up and gave them props for it. Like when they actually, briefly, seemed to acquire a backbone and refused to give in to presidental browbeating and actually passed McCain's anti-torture amendments. A later example was when they seemed, for a time at least, to actually be opposing the president's desire to unilaterally take away the right of habeus corpus from anyone he deemed an "enemy combatant". You show me other actions this president or the republicans have taken that I agree with, and I'll happily give them kudos for it. The problem is, they so rarely do so, I can forgive you not noticing it when it happens.

Furthermore, yet again you accuse me of quoting points from some liberal website, which I find highly amusing, given that it's only about the 50th time you've done it, and I still don't read any of them. Meanwhile, you openly (and frequently) post articles from magazines, blogs or newspapers that are universally so far right wing that they'd refer to Goldwater as a liberal. So, I post articles from main stream sites, you from rabidly partisan ones, and *I* am the one who can't engage in rational discourse? Oh, that IS comedic, especially given that YOU are the one who has in the past edited my posts when it made you look bad. I still have the PMs from you discussing it.

Face it, you suck up to Bush so much you are in danger of ending up with your face in a permanent pucker. I am sure it helps you sleep at night to know you're in bed with people like Chuck Colson, eh?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

You claim to agree with the GOP sometimes. Yet, the only time is when a vocal few are voicing dissatisfaction with the President, or when there is some sort of Pro DNC infighting by the GOP. It's part of your agenda and I'm afraid it doesn't make you objective, but reinforces my point.

My posts have been on both sides of the fence. At times I support The President. At other times I think he's made mistakes. This is something you have never done. You have two modes. Bush hate, and extreme Bush hate.

I don't accuse you of anything. I merely state what is a fact:

You are simply a hyper-partisan anti-Bush scream machine.

[Lueyen]

president's desire to unilaterally take away the right of habeus corpus from anyone he deemed an "enemy combatant".

That statement is false, the actual text of the legislation provides two criteria for forbiding judicial review of a writ of habeus corpus one of which is the subjective label of enemy combatant, the other being the non subjective status of being an alien of the United States.

Now we've had a long discussion regarding the importance of allowing for some judicial body to review writs, but your statement paints a false picture, a myth perpetuated by those who's disdain for Bush is so great that attacks on him need not even be truthful anymore.

Lyion, Minda, and myself are probably the most "conservative" posters here, and while we often defend actions made by the Bush Administration, there are still times when we take issue with policy or action. When is the last time you stated something possitive about the Bush Administration Arlos?

You are probably the most polarized person here. Don't misconstrue that as an attack, because I wouldn't have it any other way. Frankly any issue raised here where everyone is pretty much in uniform agreement are the issues that scare me.

[Tossica]

You are simply a hyper-partisan anti-Bush scream machine.

And you are simply a walking advertisement for Fox News with your "bipartisan", "fair and balanced", "moderate conservative" BS Lyion. You are a Bush loving conservative and you know it. You throw a few questionably moderate viewpoints out there every once in a while to make yourself appear to be giving weight to both sides of the argument but in all honesty, you would vote for Bush again in a heartbeat if you thought it would keep anyone with an actual moderate or even slightly leftist platform out of office. You love the corporate fellating, the tax breaks and the faux moral "Christian" bullshit he mutters just like every other so called conservative these days.

"Fuck everything else as long as he hates fags, loves the lord and gives me my money come tax time!" "Go Bush!"

[Harrison]

You guys aren't capable of taking a step back to look at things objectively, ever.

It's always a partisan bitch-fest the instant you post. It stifles the ability to hold an actual conversation here. It's actually quite old.

[Tikker]

I'll show you several who feel I am.

start naming names then
Lyion and objective don't really go together

[Martrae]

You guys aren't capable of taking a step back to look at things objectively, ever.

It's always a partisan bitch-fest the instant you post. It stifles the ability to hold an actual conversation here. It's actually quite old.

Amen

[Lyion]

You guys aren't capable of taking a step back to look at things objectively, ever.

It's always a partisan bitch-fest the instant you post. It stifles the ability to hold an actual conversation here. It's actually quite old.

Yup, it's the same old song and dance. It's why this forum generally sucks so hard.

Funny, the people responding seem to all suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No big surprise, but it'd be nice to get a real discussion now and then without the propaganda patrol.

[Arlos]

When is the last time you stated something possitive about the Bush Administration Arlos?

Show me when they did something I agree with, and I'll say something positive about them.

State we need to do more for alternate fuels? Great, complete agreement, but where's the plan to back up the throwaway statement? More importantly, where's he suggest the funding come from?

Basically, I am completely anti-Bush because hit entire administration has been dedicated to actions and positions I am completely against.

Slashing environmental protections.
Gathering imperal-level powers to the executive branch.
Unilaterally ignoring the will of the legislative branch by means of signing statements
Being (at least on Cheney's part) adamantly pro-torture.
Unilaterally engaging in an imperialist war of naked aggression.
Using fear as a weapon to increase their own power and keep themselves and friends in office.
Intefering in the Terry Schiavo situation
Being anti-stem cell research
Being anti-abortion
Being anti-science
Renditions of people to countries where they are tortured
Guantanamo bay
The military tribunals
The erosion of personal liberties in the name of "security"


Those're just actions of the Bush administration itself, and not even a comprehensive list. Add in how the Republicans comported themselves in the House of Representatives (effectively doing everything in their power to completely cut the Democrats out of the loop, spurring and being at the root of the bitter partisan divide, failing to act as an even remote check on the power of the executive branch, etc.)....

Funny, I don't see much of anything whatsoever that I can support there.

As I have said innumerable times, I AM behind us going to Afghanistan, but conversely I feel we bungled HOW we went.

So again, I ask: What has Bush done that I SHOULD be supportive of him for? You point out something he's done that's consistent with my values and beliefs, and sure, I'll applaud him for it. To date, I'm not aware of much of anything whatsoever...

You also fail to note the fact that I've bitched about the Democrats when they've done stuff I don't like as well. I bitched particularly bitterly when they were part of giving Bush the authorization to go to this debacle of a war.

-Arlos

[Agrajag]

it is most definately IS a fact. there are no WMD's never was. this is about OIL and don't fool yourself into thinking its about anything else.

11 years ago Saddam was told to allow U.N. inspectors into factories to verify there were no WMDs present. If he didn't, we would take appropriate action. 11 years later we made good on our promise. That is the reason for the war. Anything other is media rubbish and you have fallen for it.

[Evermore]

the only rubbish here is what you are posting. Convienent how you leave out that Saddam would not allow the inspectors in. it looked to me at the time he was buying time to stash the weapons. get your facts straight and stop leaving out the pertainant information. THere was an article reciently on how this information was "fudged". I will look for it and post the link.

[Zanchief]

You guys aren't capable of taking a step back to look at things objectively, ever.

It's always a partisan bitch-fest the instant you post. It stifles the ability to hold an actual conversation here. It's actually quite old.

Oh please Finny, your a flaming conservative and always have been. You're about as objective as Michael Moore.

I also notice that it isn't the moderates that are screaming for bipartisanship, it's the conservatives. Mostly because the vast majority of people who post on this board are left of centre, and they at least have the balls to admit it, but it's true that discussions are hard to come by in these parts, but where that line of thinking ends is that this is solely the fault of Arlos, Evermore and the rest of the pinko hippy liberals.

I have a thought for you, Lyion. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe Bush just really is that bad? That maybe his blunders are so catastrophically bad that the Liberal outrage is justified? Objectivity is all well in good, but there's a time where you just have to look at the situation in front of you and admit that your prize pony just happens to be a lame retarded donkey (no pun intended).

There are moderate people on this board. Atenson, Gidan, Mop, Lueyen.

You don't need to mention how I’m not objective, I admit it. You don't, Martae doesn't and Finawin Doesn't. The only difference is that I'm not kidding myself.

[Lyion]

I know your views and reasonings and you aren't posting propaganda, Zan,just your opinion. That is when you aren't baiting. That's the difference. I try and do the same, and post things from a wide variety of sources. I post both anti and pro Bush pieces. If Arlos posts something regarding W it's 100% certain to be anti. That is the difference.

I don't get far left field people screaming how I'm a far right person or something, when I'm more liberal than half the so called left of center people here. I support the Iraq war, and feel it was needed at the time. Most people know my views and what I support on just about every topic and issue, except a few like Toss who posts from emotion and is also suffering from BDS and sees things through a tunnel. Others likewise don't care and immediately go batshit when someone disagrees with them.

Zan, the simple fact is there are two kinds of people. One kind reads a variety of sources and makes their own opinion about the good or bad in every situation. The other reads one kind of source and has a predetermined opinion. Unfortunately, the second group likes to accuse the first of being like they are, and since they have no actual, real objectivity it's impossible to debate anything with them, which makes threads like these degenerate so rapidly.

[Zanchief]

The fact that you still support the war after insurmountable evidence that it's a complete and utter disaster is the reason I think you're not as moderate as you claim.

[Evermore]

You guys aren't capable of taking a step back to look at things objectively, ever.

It's always a partisan bitch-fest the instant you post. It stifles the ability to hold an actual conversation here. It's actually quite old.

Oh please Finny, your a flaming conservative and always have been. You're about as objective as Michael Moore.

I also notice that it isn't the moderates that are screaming for bipartisanship, it's the conservatives. Mostly because the vast majority of people who post on this board are left of centre, and they at least have the balls to admit it, but it's true that discussions are hard to come by in these parts, but where that line of thinking ends is that this is solely the fault of Arlos, Evermore and the rest of the pinko hippy liberals.

I have a thought for you, Lyion. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe Bush just really is that bad? That maybe his blunders are so catastrophically bad that the Liberal outrage is justified? Objectivity is all well in good, but there's a time where you just have to look at the situation in front of you and admit that your prize pony just happens to be a lame retarded donkey (no pun intended).

There are moderate people on this board. Atenson, Gidan, Mop, Lueyen.

You don't need to mention how I’m not objective, I admit it. You don't, Martae doesn't and Finawin Doesn't. The only difference is that I'm not kidding myself.

here here.


I have gone a bit crazy in my anti-bush stance and yes, opprotunities for good discussions have went with them. Zanchief hit the nail on the head here "Did it ever cross your mind that maybe Bush just really is that bad? That maybe his blunders are so catastrophically bad that the Liberal outrage is justified? ". Imo, bush is that bad. Frankly, I cannot see one thing in bush's whole presidency that can be deemed as being good.

I will digress and revisit his "accomplishments". if anyone would like to OBJECTIVELY present what they feel Bush has done that has been a positive in his presidency, please do. this is not an invitation for fag grammar/spelling comments or for some internet badass to try and start a flame war. if thats all you have to offer then dont bother. this is to gather in 1 spot the pros and cons and OBJECTIVELY discuss with out having to search all over the board for all the posts.

Basically lets start over and discuss with out all the bullshit

[Evermore]

The fact that you still support the war after insurmountable evidence that it's a complete and utter disaster is the reason I think you're not as moderate as you claim.

my biggest problems with the war

1. Bush has proven he has no clue how to run it and completely ignores those who do.
2. the costs are out of hand both financially and in lives on both sides.
3. he trying to fight an idology with guns and that just isnt possible.
4. this was never the solution in the first place.

there are others but this is the crux of it

[Lyion]

1. Bush has proven he has no clue how to run it and completely ignores those who do.

Bush never ran the war, anymore than Clinton ran any military operations, or Reagan did.

Bush put the war in the hands of Rumsfeld, which I have repeatedly said time and again was a huge mistake. The moment major combat operations ended Rumsfeld should have been removed from running the show and the State Department should have taken over.

2. the costs are out of hand both financially and in lives on both sides.

War is expensive and the casualties for a 'war' are actually not high. The propaganda level unfortunately is. The strategies are the problem, however they seem to be adjusted. I still am unhappy with putting 'diplomatic' military leaders over there to run the show versus the state department, and wish that decision was different.

3. he trying to fight an idology with guns and that just isnt possible.

I somewhat agree, and it's why State, and not Defense should have been running the show since 2004.

4. this was never the solution in the first place.

Perhaps, but regime change was a priority and eventually we'd have to try to enact change there. Only time will tell if this was the right solution or a complete disaster. I'm hopeful the surge will help quell Baghdad and that we'll be able to start moving towards less US troops, and those solely used as embedded advisors.

[kaharthemad]

last I checked Congress has the ability to vote to cut funding for the war. Frankly instead of this pussy way of doing it. This does nothing but sound like a bunch of limp wristed faggots that cant stand up and do what is in their constitutional right to do. Vote for funding cut.

I don't think the Dems of today have the testicular fortitude to do this. Instead they write up non binding resolutions and whine. However the dont have the SACK to do what they think needs to be done.

If congress believes so strongly about this then cut the funding.

[Reynaldo]

3. he trying to fight an idology with guns and that just isnt possible.

That's pretty much when I stopped supporting the war. It's like having 100,000 Arloses vs. 100,000 Mindias with guns and the belief that killing each other is ok. You're never going to find a happy medium no matter how many "Aces of Spades" you take out. So at that point it's just a black hole of resources, money and lives.

I guess the bottom line is I always felt safer with Bush as president because I know he's gonig to do SOMETHING to defend the country. It might not always be the right thing, but it's something. With someone like Gore in office after 9/11, I can't be certain he wouldn't be off doing oral with a spotted owl instead of gearing up to protect me or trying to get those responsible.

[Zanchief]

I guess the bottom line is I always felt safer with Bush as president because I know he's gonig to do SOMETHING to defend the country. It might not always be the right thing, but it's something. With someone like Gore in office after 9/11, I can't be certain he wouldn't be off doing oral with a spotted owl instead of gearing up to protect me or trying to get those responsible.

That's exactly the BS republicans tried to sell people when Gore ran, and it's the reason you're in that fucked up war.

I'm not so sure 9-11 would have even happened had Gore won (by a margin greater then could have been stolen from him), but I'm damn sure Gore would have been in Afghanistan quicker then Bush was, and he wouldn't have trumped up this whole Iraq thing.

The worst part is, Republicans are going to do the same sell job about safety in the next election and people ar going to buy it all over again.

[Lyion]

I'm not so sure 9-11 would have even happened had Gore won (by a margin greater then could have been stolen from him), but I'm damn sure Gore would have been in Afghanistan quicker then Bush was, and he wouldn't have trumped up this whole Iraq thing.

The War in Afghanistan started in October 2001. I guess you think Gore would have invaded on September 12th.

9/11 would have happened regardless of who was elected President. It was put in motion long before the election was finished. It was being planned and setup during Gore's tenure.

Gore was Veep for 8 years and did little to slow down Al Qaeda and could have had an impact during the 90s when 9/11 was being formulated. I doubt a GOP President would have done anything diferently, but the blame rests on all our governments shoulders from the last two administrations.

[Zanchief]

Except Clinton made it clear to Bush that Bin Laden was an imminent threat. Republicans, being the rational people they were, decided to ignore all advice from the previous administration and completely ignore the threat.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks he might have wanted it to happen (maybe not as bad as it was, but I don't think even Bin Laden had planned for things to go that bad). He wasted absolutely no time trying to create ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even when all his intelligence people were telling him their wasn't, he told them to make one up.

Gore would have, at the very least, been aware of the imminent threat and would have taken it seriously. Bush did nothing of the sort. The argument that the US is safer when a Republican is in office is a complete load of crap. It's just a sell job for e-tough guys like Finny who want a perceived hard ass to satisfy their latent homosexual desires.

[Lyion]

Except Clinton and his national security team let Bin Laden walk free multiple times when they could have nabbed him Zan. That is a fact.

Sudan offered Bin Laden up, but Clinton and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger both didn't take the offer. Clintons team also cancelled a hit on Bin Laden, that was moments away from being complete.

Perhaps that is why Berger has spent so much time shredding top secret documents that would really shed a lot more light on these events.

I'll put blame on the Bush administration for not acting sooner, but Clinton and Gore could have wholly prevented 9/11.

[Evermore]

last I checked Congress has the ability to vote to cut funding for the war. Frankly instead of this pussy way of doing it. This does nothing but sound like a bunch of limp wristed faggots that cant stand up and do what is in their constitutional right to do. Vote for funding cut.

I don't think the Dems of today have the testicular fortitude to do this. Instead they write up non binding resolutions and whine. However the dont have the SACK to do what they think needs to be done.

If congress believes so strongly about this then cut the funding.

there is one fundamental issue with this. Only the troops will suffer.