Bush Bashing - "Not Just for Joking Anymore"

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Mr. Snakey, May 28, 2006.

  1. Mr. Snakey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    24,702
    Likes Received:
    25
    :smile: I feel bad for bush and tony 911 happend and the whole landscape changedNo other us president or prim minester has ever had such hard problems to deal with.I saw live on tv people jumping out of windows to there death! I saw the towers go down. I think we bash our leaders a little to much.
     
  2. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    I know, the events of 9/11 and 7/7 and Madrid were awful (strange how the last two seem to get 'forgotten' :rolleyes: ). But if they did even a fraction of what they're suspected of (before and after) I don't think we bash them anywhere near enough.

    The steady erosion of personal freedoms at their hands on grounds that are dubious at best and transparently Orwellian at worst has irrevocably destroyed what credibility they may have had, at least in my eyes.

    But this is a comic thread.....:biggrin1:
     
  3. Mr. Snakey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    24,702
    Likes Received:
    25
    :smile: Your right! Me personally if they want to listen in on my phone conversations I dont care. I also think its healthy for people who dont like it and speak out about it.It keeps them in check!Im into polotics . Listen to talk radio.In america tony blair is loved .So was thatcher!We look at it this way .England is our friend. This is your leader . I kind of feel i dont have the right to say anything really.I love england !!! One day im going to visit your country!
     
  4. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    You'll indulge me I hope uncut when I tell you that I think Bush rather "came into his own" at ground zero. He was in his element and indeed he finally had his reason to do battle.:rolleyes:

    I'll bash only when I think bashing's due.
     
  5. Mr. Snakey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    24,702
    Likes Received:
    25
    :smile: Im not happy with him either! I voted for him too! I think the senate and congress are a joke
     
  6. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, going back to Prescott Bush, and following through GHW, down to Dubya and Jebya, if you discuss them honestly, then you are, by definition, bashing. The good thing is that, like a tuxedo, it never goes out of style.
     
  7. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5


    The astonishing thing is that Dubya is so bad that I long for GHW.
    GHW was simply mediocre and had no vision.
    Dubya's vision is abundant, medieval, and malignant.
    Not what you want.
     
  8. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Though fortunately, for you (or, indeed us all), now term limited .:smile:
     
  9. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    You must be joking! Where do you think dubya and jebya LEARNED how to be so evil? From daddy, who learned it from grampa. Really, read a few articles about prescott bush, then a few biographical articles about GHW. Trust me, the "evil incarnate" gene is indeed passed down, one generation at a time. The one big difference is, although I don't think the current george is stupid, I do think that barbara and ghw must have been drinking kefir and smoking some opium with prescott's buddies (google it, see who prescott's foreign associates were...) while dubya was gestating. He's not quite as bright as the rest of the clan, but still not stupid.

    For those of you who may not have heard this one:

    Donald Rumsfeld had just briefed the President, telling Bush that 3 Brazilian solders had been killed in Iraq the night before. To everyone's amazement, all the color drained from Bush's face, then he collapsed into his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears. Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many IS a brazilian?"
     
  10. RideRocket

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alexandria (VA, US)
    This isn't directed at dong20, but for everyone. I keep hearing everyone complain how their personal freedoms have been taken away and curtailed. But can anyone honestly give a specific example of how they've been affected?

    I'm sure several people will say, "they're listening in on my phone calls." How do you know? Can you give specific examples?

    I think everyone would agree that there is a trade-off between personal privacy and national security. You and I will never know about the untold terrorist attacks that are prevented. We'll only know about the ones that are successful.
     
  11. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Whether one has been affected personally is irrelevant...Ignoring or understating what's happening unless it affects us personally? Sounds a bit selfish to me and, more importantly by then it may be too late.:eek:

    These are some examples off the top; actual and attempted:

    Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:

    Right to protest (at all) within 1km of Parliament and other 'designated' areas removed.

    Criminal Justice and Police Bill

    Indefinite storage of DNA and fingerprints (on acquittal or dropping of charges etc they were previously destroyed) including those of juveniles.

    Child curfew acts remove the decision about whether their own children (10-16) can be out after a certain time from parents and place it the hands of local authorities.:confused:

    Reviews of detention conditions and periods for suspects being delegated to junior police officers and can be done in part by video.


    Terrorism Act 2006

    Anti-terror Control Order scheme ruled incompatable with the convention on human rights and breach of right to a fair trial.

    Crime of Glorification of terrorism can mean whatever is required to silence dissent against anti terrorism law.

    The new offences of encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications are extremely broadly drafted. They do not require any intention to incite others to commit criminal acts!!

    Under the Act a passionate expression might be interpreted as recklessness. Since the London bombings in July 2005 there has been considerable speculation as to how comments made by Muslim clerics can be interpreted for example.

    Concerns over criminalising opposition to Zimbabwe, North Korea or any other repressive regime are not properly mitigated; the side effect of which means for example, a North Korean who has advocated the overthrow of the regime while resident there, who then flees for his life might, if arriving in the UK as a refugee, be liable for prosecution.

    General

    'Removal' of right to silence. One can still say nothing but that's now taken as 'evidence of guilt'.

    Attempted removal of automatic right to Jury Trial in 'either way' cases. That right was enacted in the Magna Carta of 1215.

    Identity cards, which will have little or no impact on terrorism and a proposed national identity system for who knows what true purpose.

    Extended detention without charge under terrorism legislation was attempted but defeated (for now).

    Former policy of enforced deportation to Zimbabwe not enforced but still active I believe.

    The only things I agree with are :
    • Any Legislation should be as effective as possible up to the point it intrudes unreasonably into the lives of those who elected the ones enacting and enforcing such legislation on their behalf. i.e. it is for citizens to decide how far their Government intrudes into their lives not Government itself. History is replete with examples of what happens when Government power goes unchecked.
    • This goes beyond terrorism which, I would say is to a large degree self inficted by our Governments foreign policies and overstated to create the very climate of fear they need to persue their agenda. Note: Their agenda not yours (I assume?) and certainly not mine.
    • If we stand by; saying and doing nothing, we run the very real risk of destroying the very values we are seeking to protect. One day we may wake up and find our worst fears have come true, we are living in an Orwellian novel and wonder; "how the hell did we let this happen...."??
    Translating the above into reality is the hard part of course....This is toooo heavy for this thread, sounds like a topic on it's own.:tongue:
     
  12. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Are you saying the sky isn't falling? And I thought I held the distinction of being the lone idiot on this board.

    Anyway, I kinda like the cowboy but I still have a sense of humor.

    As far as being affected goes, I have to take my shoes off at the airport now. Goddamn motherfucking security nazis!
     
  13. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    @ Ride: You're right, how would we know if our phone was being tapped? Since it is apparently happening to millions of Americans, there's a good chance those numbers include some of us who dissent. The fact that it is difficult to know or prove that you're the target of surveillance does not mean that you aren't. The recent wiretapping revelations should have a chilling effect on everyone who cares about free speech and privacy. I'd be interested to know how tolerant conservatives would be if the Clinton administration had been doing this.


    @ Shelby: The problem is that if I'm right and you're wrong about the direction this country is going, it won't be any comfort to me to say "I told you so." By that time it will be too late.
     
  14. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5


    Well, call me naive, but I never sensed evil in GHW. Prescott had some business dealings that certainly don't pass muster -- but whatever I've read about GHW that paints him as a focus of evil, sounds to me very poorly argued and paranoid.
    There was George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, for example, freely available on the net, that is the worst piece of research and argumentation I've ever encountered.
    Remember, GHW opposed his son's incursion into Iraq.
    He did not have the stupid certainly of Dubya.
    He did not have the messianic sense of personal mission.
    He was nowhere near as dangerous, at least in my view.
    That said, I don't know everything ... fo' sho'.
     
  15. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Hey, I'm all down with Pres. Clinton. He's a moderate dem not a far left loon. But for all we know covert wiretapping may in fact have taken place during his administration. Quite likely it has under every administration since the technology became available.

    You and I just see things differently. No problem with that. Maybe I'm blind, maybe you're seeing too much. Anyway, I feel lucky and blessed for having been born in the United States. (y'all can go ahead and puke now)
     
  16. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    It does not have to affect me directly and personally (at least not yet) for me to be outraged at the suppression of laws to convenience the government. Ask Judith Miller if she has been affected. Whenever there is a protest at World Bank or a number of other organizations here, the "authorities" close off large blocks of public streets and sidewalks, and require anyone who gets nearby to show ID and proof of employment within the "clear zone." Requiring ID to walk on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK? Imprisoning US citizens, incommunicado, for years, without charges or access to an attorney? Secret trials held by secret tribunals? Some of the wiretaps (not just call records, but actual wiretaps) have been shown to target groups that, while known NOT to be terrorism-affiliated, are still a thorn in the administration's paw. A stupid administration would simply try to suppress all civil rights, all at once. A very cunning and dangerous administration will slowly and systematically strip them away, all the while whining "national security"... until the gullible and unsuspecting masses suddenly find themselves once again in the Third Reich.

    And yes, there is often some trade-off between security and liberty. But the citizen who simply rolls over and refuses to question his government's actions is nothing more than a fool.
     
  17. RideRocket

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alexandria (VA, US)
    I guess there are two of us now! :smile: A village with two idiots...

    The sky is not falling. What it boils down to is how to balance personal freedom and liberty with the safety and security of our nation. It's a give and take relationship between these two issue. I personally don't have any qualms giving up some of my 'freedoms' to insure that another terrorist attack doesn't occur.

    Collecting data on phone numbers, websites, etc isn't necessarily an invasion of your privacy. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what's the concern? I'm sure our government does/has done many things unbeknownst to the general public - regardless of political affiliation.
     
  18. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Ride, to me that line of thinking is very dangerous and antithetical to my understanding of the intention of our Bill of Rights. I'm not going to pretend to be a political scientist, but to me that basically invalidates any right to privacy.

    And I honestly can't believe that surveillance of millions of Americans is necessary to protect us from terrorism. A net that broad has to be intended to do more than catch a handful of terrorist cells.

    You guys are far from the only conservatives on this site. Wanna see my list? :wink:
     
  19. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    LOL....not true, idiots everywhere, incl me...:smile:

    Maybe not falling but it's in need of support. Of course it's about the balance of personal liberty against the need to maintain order and security but who's decison is it to set that balance, you as a citizen or unelected officials and conglomorates with who knows what agenda?

    OK....some hypothetical examples:

    A friend calls; 3 a.m. next morning there's a knock at both your doors because that call was about a website that contained a single image of child pornography. They discovered it by accident and didn't know what to do about it and wanted advice, you said ignore it. Oops the call was taped, didn't you know?

    You travel to the Middle east and pick up a magazine at the airport and put it your bag and forget, Customs find and it's got references to Islamic Extremism in an unritical sense, and of course by having it you're now passing terrorist literature.

    You call another friend and they tell you they're gay....but they're in the Armed forces...oh, well, not any more.

    You say it's ok to give up freedoms because you may not be doing anything wrong, but of course that's your defintion of what is or isn't wrong.

    Do you see anything 'wrong' in the above examples? probably not but if our Government does, and I would argue that it does, well, you're going to be wondering how you will look in orange.

    My point: Which freedoms are you willing to give up, at what point do you say; Enough?
     
  20. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Moderator's Note:

    At the request of the Original Poster (actually Dong20), I moved most of this thread from the "Funny Stuff" section since it's clearly moved from (arguably) humorous political cartoons into more serious political discussion and debate.

    Carry on!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted