Suppported by most liberals in California.[/quote]
Not in my lifetime.[/quote]
Exactly. Historical comparisons fall apart when they do not acknowledge the changes in civil rights expectations and legislation that have occured in the past 50 years. Yes, I’m sure it would have been easy to imprison homosexuals in California during WWII as well and you likely would have gotten a majority to agree with you. Try that today.
As for the torture, again, it is a different world, though even during WWII it was not the norm for western countries to torture. In any case, since then we have created clear laws governing everyone’s behavior. The Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, and the various international treaties and conventions that cover the care of prisoners. So, arguing that Lincoln abused prisoners is not only disingenuous but moot. He was not restricted by US law, as far as I know, from doing so. Bush most certainly was.
Jane Mayers book is only confirming what has already been persuasive established. Everyone in the Bush admin knew what they were doing was wrong and illegal, but did it anyway.
It’s bizarre that conservatives keep pushing the line they do. They sound more and more like Chinese apologists. The west is no better than the east so why do we have the right to criticize?
Suppported by most liberals in California.[/quote]
Not in my lifetime.[/quote]
Exactly. Historical comparisons fall apart when they do not acknowledge the changes in civil rights expectations and legislation that have occured in the past 50 years. Yes, I’m sure it would have been easy to imprison homosexuals in California during WWII as well and you likely would have gotten a majority to agree with you. Try that today.
As for the torture, again, it is a different world, though even during WWII it was not the norm for western countries to torture. In any case, since then we have created clear laws governing everyone’s behavior. The Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, and the various international treaties and conventions that cover the care of prisoners. So, arguing that Lincoln abused prisoners is not only disingenuous but moot. He was not restricted by US law, as far as I know, from doing so. Bush most certainly was.
Jane Mayers book is only confirming what has already been persuasive established. Everyone in the Bush admin knew what they were doing was wrong and illegal, but did it anyway.
It’s bizarre that conservatives keep pushing the line they do. They sound more and more like Chinese apologists. The west is no better than the east so why do we have the right to criticize?[/quote]
Uniform Code of Military Justice. And not all conservatives are reactionary cretins. I’m arguably among the most socially and politically conservative posters in the fray here and I can tell the difference between the truth and a lie and between right and wrong.
And yes, not all conservatives have lost their heads going down on Bush, but far far too many have. It deserves explication as such people ideologically would be opposed to any other president doing what Bush has.
As a liberal who initially supported the war against Iraq (despite not liking Bush very much at all) I can’t understand how people can never cross the partisan line even when the partisan position goes contrary to all their beliefs.
[quote=“Muzha Man”] . . . And yes, not all conservatives have lost their heads going down on Bush, but far far too many have. It deserves explication as such people ideologically would be opposed to any other president doing what Bush has.
As a liberal who initially supported the war against Iraq (despite not liking Bush very much at all) I can’t understand how people can never cross the partisan line even when the partisan position goes contrary to all their beliefs.[/quote]
Today is akin to what happened to the Republican Party during the Red Scare days of the early 1950’s. Many lost their bearings and gave into scare mongering and demagoguery. Unfortunately we’ve forgotten the lessons of that era.
Indeed. It’s part of the hypocrisy of the neocons: if the 2000 vote had gone the other way and President Gore had done exactly the things that Bush has done in the War on Terror, they would be screaming with outrage. But since it’s Bush, it’s OK to them.
And I’m always receptive to milk & cookies.[/quote]
Spook, you got it all wrong. We haven’t had a terrorist attack on the US since 911. So the means are justified. A few eggs may get broken, but that’s life. One for the many, you know. This is war. Casualties exist in a non-perfect world. But hey, better us than them.
And you’re just not appreciative. Everyday, men and women put their lives at stake for the likes of you and I and Bush. So we can sleep better at night without fearing for bombs dropping on our heads or doors getting banged down at night.
The only problem is… Base Details.
Is it true or not? As far as I’ve seen you condemn the acts of torture by individual soldiers but say nothing against the Bush admin which authorized them, pretending that there is still no evidence that this was anything other than “rogue” soldiers.
You know I really would like to hear the occassional expression of outrage on this issue from those on the other side who supposedly share my values. Instead I hear qualifications, obfuscations, justifications, or simply willful blindness. This shouldn’t be a topic for games and online one-upmanship. Nor should it be difficult for people who pride themselves on saying what they believe to actually say what they believe.
OMG… I’m listening to Bush doing a Q&A after his speech about Fannie Mae, etc.
He’s not really answering questions. You can tell he’s just reading from his notes to summarize certain points already made. Now I understand, that is either a mark of a good debater (because you’re avoiding the question and turning it into an opportunity to emphasize what you want) or indicates someone who is unable to answer.
Someone asked if banks are safe for Americans… besides reiterating a point (and you can see he’s reading or referring to something on the podium), his only answer on the banks is what any idiot knows: That the fed insures deposits up to 100K… and he repeats that 3x, says it backwards and forwards.
And the funny thing is, he looks exasperated and doesn’t want to be there. and he’s stuttering and stammering, because it seems he has to look at his notes…
OK, he’s not a complete idiot, but seems to me that he’s being coached (which in itself is not surprising, any president would be prepped) to an extent that seems like he doesn’t understand certain issues, because he just throws out a few taglines.
I dunno, I suppose I would have to see a lot more samples, but it’s not exactly confidence-inspiring. But he does seem convinced and firm that he’s right. There’s no doubt about that. It’s like he wants to say “I told you so, we should have drilled, we wouldn’t be in the same place now.”
I’ve never gotten the feeling that George Bush is particularly interested in North America or its problems. We’re pretty much on our own for the time being.
Indeed. It’s part of the hypocrisy of the neocons: if the 2000 vote had gone the other way and President Gore had done exactly the things that Bush has done in the War on Terror, they would be screaming with outrage. But since it’s Bush, it’s OK to them.[/quote]
True enough. As I told you the other day, John Yoo, yes, that Yoo, wrote a scathing article in the 90s criticizing Clinton for being imperialistic and heedlessly expanding executive power. This is of course the same man who would argue that President Bush could not be constrained in any way from doing what he wanted to execute the war on terror.
He’s certainly negligent in his job as president, which is to solve the problems that the country faces. He seems to think that his job is to cause problems.
He’s certainly negligent in his job as president, which is to solve the problems that the country faces. He seems to think that his job is to cause problems.[/quote]
That’s just basic conservative philosophy. Every man for himself. (And his women.)
He’s certainly negligent in his job as president, which is to solve the problems that the country faces. He seems to think that his job is to cause problems.[/quote]
That’s just basic conservative philosophy. Every man for himself. (And his women.)[/quote]
We conservatives believe in limited government but not absentee government.
Exactly. The “every man for himself” folks are the hardcore libertarians and anarchists, but there is no question that true conservatives prefer a president of much more limited power.
Personally, I would like to see a president who would diligently and efficiently do the job of enforcing the nation’s laws. Beyond that, it would be nice if they would just keep quiet and stay out of the way. I would certainly never want a president who feels that it was his/her job description to “solve the problems that the country faces.” They tend to have enough difficulty just doing the much more limited job that they are actually elected for without corruption and incompetence.
