View Single Post
Old 06-17-2004, 07:04 AM   #24
Noxrepere
 
Noxrepere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say fascist)
Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as:
Quote:
a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc...
In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism?



Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these.

By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.
So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone.

Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board. People from both sides can look at either word as negative or positive based on their beliefs. Some one who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton.
Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker Fire the Liar.
Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired?

Quote:
Originally posted by The_One It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will.
I’m not totally sure, but by your wording it sounds like your “liberal” represents America’s “conservative” and your “conservative” would likewise represent America’s “liberal”. If so, that’s another example of the interchangeability of the terms based on what both sides believe should and should not be changed.

On the topic of “Bush Bashing”:

Quote:
Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth.
People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other?



In response to the articles:

The first link has nothing to do with President Bush. It just says that some clerical errors were made in that report that need correcting. It should also be noted that the number that is mentioned as needing correcting in this quote:

Quote:
The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president.
is the 2003 figure. I haven’t read the whole report, but from this quote there was a very noticeable and significant decline from 2001 to 2002. (Down 148 to be precise.) The purpose of that article wasn’t about any decline in terrorism. It was just reporting the clerical errors that admittedly slipped through.

The second seems to make the assumption that because these people were appointed to high level jobs under Republican presidents that they were/are Republican themselves. A president can appoint someone that they disagree with politically, or otherwise, to a high level position simply because that person was the best for the job.

As an example of this here is a quote from that article:

Quote:
Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton
I don’t know whether she is Republican or Democrat but she did serve under two separate presidents of opposing parties.

Others are admittedly democrats and therefore can simply be making an attempt to make their political statement. The article only briefly mentions at the very end what they are basing their complaints on and doesn’t really site any specific examples and their ramifications and how much of an effect they really have on American security. I don’t know their reasons specifically, but I think it’s interesting that the article spent a large amount of space establishing that many of these people served under Republican presidents when a)if they are military they really didn’t have a choice and b) they could have been appointed to their position based on the merit of their qualifications.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush?
You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin.
I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they? Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines.

What specific loyalties are you referencing between President Bush and his “pals”?

Also, how does a quote about terrorism have anything to do with said “pals”?

Quote:
Originally posted by ET Warrior On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this
26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush.

Quote:
Originally posted by ET Warrior Fire the Liar.
Likewise, what specifically do you believe that he lied about?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kain Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to.
How are either of those articles directly related to Bush?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kain Hey, at least I wouldn't need baby brother to rob my opponent of the election.
How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed? (Not to get off topic or anything, but it was brought up.)



The title of this thread is even presumptuous in saying that both these articles are absolute proof of anything.

Even the Democrat who challenged the report said that he accepts that it was unintentional.

Quote:
"He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. [With Colin Powell]
And again, the second isn’t really proof of anything either.

Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it”.
Noxrepere is offline   you may: quote & reply,