Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
It's Not The War You Hate  
User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

It's not the War that you hate. It's President Bush you hate. You hate the fact that he won and Gore lost. He is the permanent salt in your permanent wound. You resent the fact that he has no use for gays, the uneducated, the Politically Correct, and those addicted to Government assistance like heroin. You're nostalgic about the '90's, a time of peace, prosperity, and endless promise. You're bitter about your present. You're leary about your future. Bush represents all of this animosity you feel. If Gore was in the Oval Office running this exact same war, he would have 200% of your support. You would not support Bush if he told you that the Earth was round.

Thank you.

[Edited 2003-03-22 17:06:46]

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

(Begin Sarcasm)
But Gore wouldn't have led this war. Tanks would have been outlawed under an expanded Kyoto Protocal anyhow. The US would have repented and admitted that it is indeed inferior to the cultural and intellectual richness that is Europe. We'd all being wearing berets and singing in the streets, which would be devoid of evil automobiles. Saddam would have disarmed on his own because, well, Gore talked to him at a Miami resort and, well, they really hit it off. Plus, ole Saddam is just that sort of guy. The legacy of meaninglessness and symbolism over substance of The Great Leader, His Eminence Billy Jeff Clinton, would be carried forth like a torch. The middle class would continue to pay for those who do not chose to work, and the wealthy, bastards as they are, would be taxed into oblivion and sent into exile. The world would be perfect. All further elections would then be set aside, and decided by a bunch of party hacks obsessed with chads, and then referred for litigation when they do not produce the desired results. One could only dream.......
(End Sarcasm)




Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Amen Cerulean, alot of what you say is so true , if gore or Clinton was running the show right now, first we wouldnt be doing anything right now here in Iraq or in Afghanistan ( if we were i would support him 100% as i do support bush). But sadly to most of the Anti-war bunch on here it is so obvious its 95% just anti-bush.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

(Restart Sarcasm)
Forgot to mention, there is a great possibility that DC would be shut down, as it contains too much for Americans to be proud of, and the new capital would be located in either Los Angeles or San Francisco...the Hollwood lobby is duking it out with the Gay and Lesbain Alliance/PETA/NARAL alliance for the final choice. Arab terrorists would once again be free to exercise their rights to give us what we deserve, unhindered by that pesky Tom Ridge guy.
(End Sarcasm)



Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

Well guys, Gore is NOT running our country. Why is it so many conservatives love the "If Gore or Clinton were..." scenario? Get over it. Clinton is no longer in office, Gore did not win the 2000 election. Period. End of story. MOVE ON.

I don't hate Bush. Hate is a strong word to use. I dislike his policies and backward ideas, and I don't agree with the regressive trends he's brought to our country. The results are pretty plain to see. Also, I think he does not command respect very well, is not well-spoken, and is catastrophically ignorant as to how the rest of the world works.

Cerulean, you make a few valid points. "You resent the fact that he has no use for gays..." Yeah, that affects me. The president of this country needs to consider the rights of everyone, not just Christian heterosexuals. "...the uneducated...and those addicted to Government assistance like heroin." I'm not one to advocate keeping people dependent on hand-outs, but cutting them off entirely won't solve the problem. It's hard to say what the solution to this problem would be - empowering them to get an education and get jobs is a good start.

"You're nostalgic about the '90's, a time of peace, prosperity, and endless promise." Who isn't? Those were excellent years we had, and I would like to see our economy stabilise, and prosperity return to our country.

As for peace...what peace can there be if the Bush administration seems bent on finding reasons to wage war? What's been missing from their policies and communications has been the ability to enlist or enroll other countries' governments in supporting and assisting in the current conflict. Diplomacy failed, not so much because all measures were exhausted, but because the wrong approach was taken. "Either you're with us or you're against us" has alienated many of our former allies, and bullying other countries into submission has only caused them to dig in their heels and resist. It's hard to say how "things might have gone otherwise..." We are where we are, and there's no going back. But I think Bush's attitudes have created alot of problems that could have been avoided.

So, I don't hate Bush. I've realised over the past few days that having animosity towards him and his administration serves no purpose. I can't and won't agree with much of what they do, and I hope 2004 brings a new government with better policies and attitudes.


User currently offlineCerulean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

"Either you're with us or you're against us" has alienated many of our former allies, and bullying other countries into submission has only caused them to dig in their heels and resist.

I believe that you have hit the Jackpot Key Point there Mr.96M.

Obviously Mr Bush has not had any schooling in psychology and People Skills. Human nature, being what it is, especially when dealing with males, rightly or wrongly, is going to say that the minute you try and take a dictatorial attitude, the person you are up against will turn against you like a junkyard dog. The legitimacy of the issue at hand suddenly becomes a very distant second. It very quickly escalates into an old fashioned ego contest. (this explains both foreign policy and drive by shootings)

To tell you the truth, I do not blame the rest of the world for turning against us. Italy, for example, had little or nothig to do with 9/11. They can say "geez that's too bad..." to the US.

But why should they be forced to choose sides?

As a crusty old male, if someone tried to extort me like that, I too would tell him to shove it and sidle up to "the enemy.


User currently offlineDavid B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

At least the 2004 elections are comming up. I say vote for a new president.


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

You hate the fact that he won and Gore lost.

Democracy: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

"Popular representation". If that was true, Gore would be in the Whitehouse. The way US elections go, you should just forego all the expensive crap and flip a coin....


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

I tend to agree with you Cerulean.

However, I think there is a big part of this country that does not fit that description and has been very uneasy about the war. This war is unprecedented in our history and takes us into uncharted waters. The doctrine of preemption is very risk. I think the skepticism voiced by such conservatives as Brent Scowcroft and Norman Schwarzkop demonstrates what I am talking about.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

I'm with En on this one (picked that up from HM--like it?) I agree; the doctrine of preemption is what gives me the most concern about this war. But, for me, it's like this: (and it might be weak, but it's all I have to go on right now)

It's my opinion that GWB would not have taken such a huge political risk if he were not sure that Hussien's regime had supported Al-Queda or other terrorist organizations. So, all I can do is support the military, which includes the Commander in Chief.

Now, if it is proven that Hussien's regime has links to Al-Queda or other terrorist organizations, then I would say that this preemptive war is fully justified (because, if that were the case, then it isn't really a preemptive war--Iraq would, in effect, have drawn first blood on 9/11.)

If it is proven that Hussien's regime did not support terrorists (a long shot), then there's nothing I can do other than simply vote a different way in November 2004. (And if that is the case, in all honesty, having a new regime in Iraq still wouldn't bother me--I would regret that it was done preemptively, but still...)

And that's how I see it. I suppose we will all find out sooner or later.

And either way, I'm not going to join some silly demonstration. I don't want to marginalize myself like that.

Oh, and one more thing: "It's President Bush you hate. You hate the fact that he won and Gore lost. He is the permanent salt in your permanent wound."

I think this factor definitely plays a role. You guys can whine about Gore for as long as you want. It will not change the fact that Bush is president.

'Speed



[Edited 2003-03-22 18:51:30]

User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

"Popular representation". If that was true, Gore would be in the Whitehouse. The way US elections go, you should just forego all the expensive crap and flip a coin....

"Popular representation" does not necessarily mean "popular vote". It means an electoral system by which the voice of the people can be heard. The specific method by which that is carried out is not implied. Also, please consider that we have a Republic, not a straight democracy - which explains the electoral system we have now.

The Electoral College system has stood in this country for well over 200 years without major problems until the 2000 election. All of a sudden, the Democrats get snitty about it and call it a travesty because they don't like the outcome. Well, sorry, but those were the rules we were playing with before the game began. Gore lost fair and square. And even he doesn't complain about it anymore - he got on with his life (and just might surprise everyone by winning the office in the end, say 2008 or 2012).

I do think the Electoral College system could stand some reforms, but I believe the general principle to be sound. It's what's natural in a republican (small "r") government.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

You're right Cerulean, it's about hating Bush.

Kinda like all the whiney bitching we heard from you 'angry white men' about Clinton for 8 years?

Here's to "regime change" in 04. Course if that happens, I don't think a court case about a blowjob is gonna suffice for you people.


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

N202PA, Bush election is not the first one where a US president is elected even if he has less votes than the other candidate.
But I think it is the first time you have suche a difference (around 500,000 votes)
Don't you think it is time to think about a revision of the process?
200 years ago, you didn't have so many States. A lot of things have changed. We are flying every day. An American has walked on the moon...
This time, Republicans are happy, because Bush has been elected. But maybe for the nex election, it will be exactly the opposite. Maybe Bush will have more votes, but a Democrat will be in the WHite House...
I note that you are in favor of some changes in the system. But do you really think it is something this administration will do?
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Teva - To be prefectly frank there is no reason to change the system. The reason for that is no president as ever won the true majority of people. They may have won the majority of voters, but not the majority of people in the US. About 50% of the population actually votes in any general election. And because of our electoral system, the candidates actually have to pay attention to specific states over the inner city. The inner cities have all the population and under a direct voting system, no one would ever give a flying sh*t about Nebraska. They aren't worth anything in pure people. However, in Calirfornia, there are 54 electoral votes. If 15 people voted, whoever got 8 or mote votes would get 54 electorates, 20% of the total they need to become president. Because of this, majority/minority means nothing because you can never actually get a "majority" of people.

-Nick


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

'Speed, (Also a HM original I believe)

I like it.

I agree with your reasoning about Bush betting the farm on this war because of a sincere conviction. You make an interesting point about the Iraq-terror connection. Although it seems non-existent now, I think we are about to find out more.

I read that after East Germany collapsed and Stasi files were opened up, they discovered that they were supporting the IRA, Carlos the Jackal, and some other terrorists. Prior to that no one really suspected East German involvement in those organizations. Those seemingly bald assertions made by the Bush Administration may turn out to be very true. I would not be surprised.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

If it is proven that Hussien's regime did not support terrorists

I know you're smarter than to presume that after a thorough sweep of every nook and cranny in Iraq, a failure to find substantial terror links is going to be announced by anyone prosecuting this war.

There is terrorism in Iraq (we found that out this morning with the car bomb that killed the journalist and a few others). There is al Qaeda in Iraq. According to Tom Ridge, there's al Qaeda in the US.

The real question here is what to do we do about it? Bush doctrine says we 'shock and awe' the threat, wherever it may be found. I don't disagree with the notion of making that a tactical possibility.

But making it permanent, primary foreign policy is nothing short of insane. By doing so, we light the conflagration that Osama was having wet dreams about on September 10th, 2001. We make it happen.

Aside: My latest thoughts....the cakewalk south is behind em, the menacing snakepit of Baghdad in front of our advancing forces. It's time to imagine this war minus Saddam. We're farther along in the playbook but that doesn't mean there still isn't 50 or 60,000 well fed Saddam fanatics who know their lives aren't worth a sheckle if they surrender in a city and country that wants payback on em. Keep an eye on the stand off in Basra as a an indicator of our plans once we reach Baghdad.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

"I know you're smarter than to presume that after a thorough sweep of every nook and cranny in Iraq, a failure to find substantial terror links is going to be announced by anyone prosecuting this war."

You're right, Heavy. I am smarter than that (in my never-to-be-humble opinion). Along with that, I'm pretty much assuming that if terrorist links are proven, then we will definitely hear about it.

'Speed



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Say It In The Language(s) You Know... posted Mon Jan 30 2006 23:21:12 by Pe@rson
It's Almost 2 Weeks, Do You Still Want The War? posted Sat Sep 22 2001 03:26:21 by Jm-airbus320
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys
It’s Not Against The Law To Have Sex With A Corpse posted Thu Sep 28 2006 20:50:14 by AAFLT1871
Hybrid Owners - Not Getting The MPG's You Hoped? posted Sun May 14 2006 21:54:54 by Boeing Nut
Flight 93 The Movie, You Gonna See It? posted Fri Feb 3 2006 19:04:16 by FXramper
What Is The One Thing You Hate Most About Your Job posted Thu Feb 2 2006 19:59:38 by VSLover
Trouble With Comcast Internet? It's Not Just You.. posted Thu Apr 14 2005 07:05:54 by F9Widebody
Pe@rson, You Made It To The Top! posted Sat Mar 19 2005 06:21:21 by Mrniji
Choclo: Where Do You Find It In The US? posted Tue Jan 18 2005 00:13:13 by MaverickM11