President Bush is a Weenie!

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
"Bring 'em on." -George W. Bush

Yeah. Bring 'em on. They're only American's. We got a bunch more.

Yeah, that was dumb of him to say. I'm sure Clinton would've used the same term.

Stupid non-presidential weenie.

 

[vat_man]

Danoff, I'm going to have to take you to task over what strikes me as unprovoked namecalling and bashing of people who dare to take opposing opinions, to wit:

The Bush administration has been doing a fantastic job with Iraq when it hasn't decided to pander to whining nay-saying idiots.

...don't want to hear facts, they want to bash the president because it's fun. They're not going to listen to a string of facts that prove them incorrect....Don't even try with facts.

The public opinion and support on this war has been pathetic.

Jesus you're dense mile.

Goddam impatient ADD people can't wait any time at all for anything can you?

Holier than thou when it's convenient eh? I didn't learn not to start a bunch of unwarranted name-calling from you. If you'll recall, when you started your rant about me back then it was me who would not get dragged in. I called you dense because you are being dense and I have evidence. My evidence is that you refuse to address my posts. You didn't have evidence to back up your name-calling fits.

You have a pattern of abusing, even 'by proxy' where you use generalisation about people expressing dissenting views (see quotes 1 through 3). I contend that you have displayed no respect for the concept that people have differing points of view, and that you are so convinced of your 'rightness' that you use it as a weapon to inflict your opinions on others, and that this is exacerabated when people actually dispute your opinions. What was happening in this thread was a discussion - it is notable that after your contribution it took the appearance of a slanging match.

I weep no tears for Saddam - my concerns lie with the path the US elected to take to war, and how that path has affected the 'post Iraq' scenario. As long as Iraqi resistance continues to result in the death of US troops, CNN and Fox News will show the pictures, and this will put increasing pressure on the Bush administration. I hate to think of the consequences for Bush if this continues for another six months.

...and living on the other side of the planet, yeah, I'm very concerned about North Korea. I think you'll find the IEAE has declared North Korea in breach on UN nuclear regulatory safeguards and referred the matter to the UN Security Council.

 

[Danoff]

You have a pattern of abusing, even 'by proxy' where you use generalisation about people expressing dissenting views (see quotes 1 through 3). I contend that you have displayed no respect for the concept that people have differing points of view, and that you are so convinced of your 'rightness' that you use it as a weapon to inflict your opinions on others, and that this is exacerabated when people actually dispute your opinions. What was happening in this thread was a discussion - it is notable that after your contribution it took the appearance of a slanging match.

I weep no tears for Saddam - my concerns lie with the path the US elected to take to war, and how that path has affected the 'post Iraq' scenario. As long as Iraqi resistance continues to result in the death of US troops, CNN and Fox News will show the pictures, and this will put increasing pressure on the Bush administration. I hate to think of the consequences for Bush if this continues for another six months.

...and living on the other side of the planet, yeah, I'm very concerned about North Korea. I think you'll find the IEAE has declared North Korea in breach on UN nuclear regulatory safeguards and referred the matter to the UN Security Council.

Vat_man, that was an excellent post. Thank you for paying me some respect by making yourself clear. I’ve been screaming for examples since I started posting here. I’ve even mentioned that the examples I was asking for were there, but that I didn’t want to argue the matter to myself. This post is going to go down as one of my favorite posts on this message board simply because it was well engineered, and eloquent.


And now I get to respond hoping that I will see a pattern of the same care and thought from you in your responses afterward.

You are correct in mentioning that I have a pattern of abuse ‘by proxy’. Very astute, and I’m glad that you picked up on the subtle difference between

The Bush administration has been doing a fantastic job with Iraq when it hasn't decided to pander to whining nay-saying idiots.

and calling someone a name directly like…

Jesus you're dense mile.

Very different. Still a slam but a direct one. When I slam people directly I try to go easy on them by calling them “dense” or some other vague derogatory term that isn’t likely to do too much psychological damage. In generalization I allow myself to have a little more fun.

That’s my pattern of abuse.

I have to admit that I took this thread down a personal avenue and I did it accidentally. It happened because the president was getting personally attacked and I had an emotional reaction. The reason I had an emotional reaction is because after having evaluated the facts, I believe the facts are on his side. I don’t like to see anyone personally attacked (unprovoked), especially when they have the facts on their side. Of course I didn’t take the time to understand my own reaction, I just reacted. The result was a little mud slinging, but I don’t think it dirtied up this thread too much. The thread started out dirty with the following (examples):

President Bush is a Weenie

The Bush administration's war, originally milked to the bone for popularity

That one was really assumptive and slanderous. Basically it claims that bush is killing people to get re-elected. It accuses the president of being a murderer (and a bad one as murderers go).

but I didn't think naivety was going to be an element in managing a post-war Iraq scenario.

Weak, I know, but still claiming stupidity.

US stew in its own juices for a while.

The implications are bad. Sentence isn’t too offensive by itself.

As I expected the lack of WMD's has gone off the boil (fobbed off on to the CIA - where does the buck stop again?)

You knew they weren’t there huh? Better intelligence than the cia? Where does the buck stop? Claiming president bush is getting lackeys to take the fall? That claims an awful lot about his character.

what do those guys have to do to get attention? Nuke Tokyo?

Claiming that the administration is ignoring Japanese lives for it’s own entertainment?

Which is the context here, that bush waged a war because he is entertained by Iraqi deaths. That’s just about the worst thing you can say about someone.

does any informed person actually believe he is to blame for this idiotic Bush administration screw-up?

why can't President Bush take responsibility himself?

assumptive and claims that the president can’t take responsibility.

further would prove the war, or some of it, was for political gain

there's no way he's going into another country first without literally seeing what he claims they are in posession of.

Claims that the president has screwed up and is covering it up. I figure you’re probably over there reading these and thinking that they’re not personal attacks, but if you think about the context and the implications you’ll realize that these are extremely terrible personal attacks. Claims of murder and theft and lying about it all to cover it up.

Yeah, right - our foreign policy's so pro-US at the moment that if you guys bombed Germany and France we'd probably back you.

nice generality of your own there about the American people.

But Bush said it was over - he wouldn't lie to us, would he? Haven't you had two wars this decade already?

I really don't think that the Bush administration cares about what the US or world population think. This won't change until the run-up to the election, when suddenly the US people will be the focus of the Bush administration. God I hate politicians.

In the UK, the Blair government is being lambasted for the whole WMD thing. Basically the press and the Opposition parties are calling Blair a liar. Or at the very least, someone who is distorting the truth even more so than he does normally.

Yesterday, figures were released that say that the Blair cabinet employs 67 people whose sole job it is to 'spin' news stories. These people were collectively paid just under £6m last year. Nice work if you've the morals of an alley cat.

I believe Bush lied to America regarding the Iraq war. I think he knew much of his intelligence was dubious at worst, and old news at best. He needed a clincher to justify it. The imaginary nukes did the trick. And the way he has passed the buck off on the CIA makes me sick. It's like pointing and saying "he did it." I don't think Bush is trustworthy.

The list goes on. I’m realizing that I’m about to double the length of this thread with this post. My claim is that I did not change the atmosphere of this post by introducing a few personal (and general) attacks. Now, if we can all leave that alone and stick to the facts….

 

[Danoff]

Do you actually think the amount dying per day matters? Come on. They're piling up. This is getting serious. The fact that you so casually shrug off the deaths of hundreds of soldiers really puts into perspective your viewpoint on the whole issue for me.

(1) To prevent another 911? Or worse? Think about how much worse it can get. The point is that in any war we should expect casualties - At least in the thousands, which they are not even close to. The price is paid in human lives, what can possibly justify one human life??? The saving of two human lives? (2) America must be strong about it’s treaties and sanctions or we will have to go to war every time we have a problem. (3) Iraq was not paying attention to our foreign policy, the only result was war. If north korea will pay attention to our foreign policy (which at this point to be fair we’d have to give them another 8 years right?), then we can hopefully avoid a war.

I weep no tears for Saddam - my concerns lie with the path the US elected to take to war, and how that path has affected the 'post Iraq' scenario. As long as Iraqi resistance continues to result in the death of US troops, CNN and Fox News will show the pictures, and this will put increasing pressure on the Bush administration. I hate to think of the consequences for Bush if this continues for another six months.

(4) The post war scenario was always an issue. We (and least a lot of us) knew we were going to lose lots of lives even after we held iraq. The thing I’m sick of is that the press seems to be claiming that each one is unexpected and unacceptable. My response to each one is “I KNOW, THIS IS WAR!”. It’s the occupation of a country. (5) I knew this when we got into this whole mess, did you?

Why worry about the consequences for Bush? He’s not killing our troops. Worry about the consequences for those iraqi’s. Don’t forget that it is the Iraqis who are killing our troops and they’re doing it to rid their country of an invasion force who has every right to be there as a result of saddam’s foreign policy. (6) Our presence in their country is justified, so their attacks on our soldiers are not.

(7) Get it? Bush is not killing our troops!

...and living on the other side of the planet, yeah, I'm very concerned about North Korea. I think you'll find the IEAE has declared North Korea in breach on UN nuclear regulatory safeguards and referred the matter to the UN Security Council.

(8) We are not yet justified in invading North Korea. The diplomatic process has not been proven to be exhausted.

You know what, whatever. I’ve said it all before. I feel like I’m talking to a wall. But then, so do you. I have tried to address your claims. Now all I can hope is that I can get the same level of clarity from those who would argue with my claims. If you would argue with me, please do so by addressing the numbered statements… or we will get nowhere.

 

[Danoff]

Nobody likes me You guys always ignore me.

The Today show (or was it good morning america) was funny this morning. They showed a war scene in Iraq right before a clip of Donnie Rumsfeld smiling at a joke... obviously good objective journalism.