quote:

---

Originally posted by flowergirl41:
JusticeConservativism- you really need to find a way to better spend your time. How much time did you spend analyzing my essay? Are you really that concerned with making it better? Also- do you actually get out and do things to support your views? And your critique- you're the naive one if you blindly believe and accept what you are told by right-wing conservatives.

---

Actually, it didn't take a lot of time, I just decided to wait and see how this thread would turn it. It took something like 15-25 minutes to fully respond to everything you wrote. You brought up a few good points, but a lot of it was either not provable, didn't have anything to back it up, or was just kind of rambling to be honest.

When it comes to spending my time, I'd have to say I'm pretty busy actually. I might write and editorial or something occasionally, but I don't have the time to really organize anything. Also, contrary to what you might think, I'm not really some kind of Right-wing ideologue, ditto head, or whatever else you call stereotypical conservatives (in fact, I’m not really a free-market neo-Conservative at all). I just think it's paranoid and simple to the point of ridiculousness to assume that Iraq was for Oil/Bush lied/Bush is the sole reason many people hate America/etc.

That doesn’t mean I support everything Bush does. I disagree with him on numerous issues, particularly on the environment, trade, immigration, drugs, affirmative action, and (to an extent) Gay Marriage & Abortion (not pro life enough!). I mean, my screen name was partially intended to be a play on Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism”* and his mispronunciations.

As for being concerned with "making it better": Actually, I am. I like to see well-written, intelligent essays/posts, no matter what side they're coming from (You're talking to someone who's read things from Marxists before). What I don't like to see is writing that reads like it was stolen from MoveOn.org or Michael Savage. Which unfortunately is the feeling I got while reading a lot of your paper.

*Which implies that standard Conservatism isn't compassionate enough, much like his father's "Kinder, Gentler America" implied that Reagan's America wasn't... Well, isn't it obvious?

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on February 03, 2004 at 11:32 PM.]

JusticeConservativism- you really need to find a way to better spend your time. How much time did you spend analyzing my essay? Are you really that concerned with making it better? Also- do you actually get out and do things to support your views? And your critique- you're the naive one if you blindly believe and accept what you are told by right-wing conservatives.

Okay, a little disclaimer here. I have nothing against leftists, democrats, etc. I don’t even have anything against Flowergirl, misguided and uninformed as her essay makes her appear to be. The following is just my own sarcastic, rational reaction to her post and is actually meant as constructive criticism of it. Don’t flame me over it. I don't want to wake up with several hundred emails saying "Justice, u r a Basturd!!!111"

quote:

---

Originally posted by flowergirl41:
" Why is George W. Bush Such a Terrible President?
When George W. Bush took office four years ago, I never dreamed of the atrocities he would go on to commit."

Oh yes, liberating two countries from tyrants, attacking terrorists, and refusing to just negotiate/make token gestures were such horrible things.

"Since his inauguration, Bush has made countless mistakes and awful choices, including lying and manipulating information, passing unconstitutional bills, and going against the UN in a completely unnecessary venture known as the Iraq War. For these reasons, we should not vote for him in the upcoming Presidential Elections."

A little proof of his lies, reasons why you think he made such "awful choices" and why Iraq was so unnecessary a venture when the Clinton administration also came close to attacking it would be good. Seriously, you need to give more supporting details in order for your argument to be taking seriously. Otherwise, it just sounds like stale left-wing Bush bashing rhetoric.

"Who knows how much more damage he could do with another four years in office? In the words of Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, 'I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction.' Should a man like this have the power to drop a nuclear weapon and declare war, thus destroying thousands of innocent lives? My answer is a vehement no."

First off, what you're quoting is just one person, and the quote is more than a little over the top. Secondly, what indications have you seen that Bush is even thinking of using Nuclear Weapons? None, in fact he's gone up against thugs who try to develop WMDS. The Iranians and North Koreans on the other hand show no such hesitations towards Nuclear War if it suits them on the other hand.

"Bush was not even elected fairly."

That's debatable. The Electoral College decides the outcomes of elections though ultimately, and they voted for him. The Supreme Court even ruled in his favor. I'd have to say that's fair, at least given the way our American system works. Also, again provide specific details. Don't just spit out standard leftist lines.

"He’s also made the rest of the world angry with us. We have lost much more than just our personal freedoms and rights, we have lost the respect and admiration of other nations. Bush’s decisions in the name of America have undermined what we stand for as a country and given Americans a bad reputation worldwide."

Sorry, but if one leader was enough to anger the rest of the world, then it's likely those people would have been offended at us anyway. And if people can't separate the actions of a government from the actions of people, then they are simple-minded and thus not worth our time.

"President Bush has lowered taxes for higher-income citizens while increasing the military’s budget. Out of 191 countries, 130 have an American military presence."

Yes, but higher-income citizens also still pay a disproportioned amount of the budget, and the US is a world superpower with numerous enemies. That alone in my mind justifies at least some tax cuts and higher military spending.

"He has attacked and taken over two nations since coming into the White House."

Yes, and one of those nations supported terrorists who attacked us, the other was under an equally repressive government that had a history of attacking its neighbors and minorities/dissidents. This by itself is not a good reason for attacking the Bush administration.

"Bush has also passes the Patriot Act, a highly controversial piece of legislature that has the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) all over it."

The ACLU is a left-wing organization. It supports NAMBLA, hate groups, disruptive radical protesters, and other questionable organizations. Simply put, the ACLU is as controversial as the Patriot Act, if not more so.

"He has also completely disregarded the UN’s decision on going to war in Iraq."

Oh, you mean the same UN that had a repressive hell hole like Libya in charge of human rights, failed to enforce it's own resolutions, and was full of nations with economic interests/sympathies to the Ba'athist Regime (example: France & Russia)? That UN? Come on, at least explain why this is necessarily a bad thing.

"Even his election was uncertain. Some people say that Al Gore really won the 2000 presidential election, and only 54% of US citizens believe that Bush was legitimately elected to his post."

Yes, but as none of that is provable you shouldn't be using it to criticize Bush. I could say that the way Vincent Foster died during the Clinton years was suspicious, but that wouldn't really be a valid criticism.

"Bush has sent troops into two countries in the past two years, yet he tried to avoid being sent to war in Vietnam."

Yes, and Clinton tried to avoid being sent to Vietnam but he sent numerous men and women to many more nations than Bush did. What's your point, other than to imply that Bush is a warmongering hypocrite?

"We should not even consider re-electing this despicable crook."

Whoa, now you're really editorializing. Avoid words like "despicable", "crook", "scheme", etc. like the plague.

" Bush has virtually no finesse or tact. He lies and manipulates information, and sometimes lies by omission."

Again, where’s your proof! You keep on saying "Bush lied" but you don't back it up. You need some kind of source to verify what you're saying, otherwise it just looks like ranting.

"He hardly mentioned important issues like the Iraq invasion and the national debt in his State of the Union."

Err, yes he has. He has talked about the Iraq invasion numerous times. The national debt I'm sure he'll get to, because it's a major issue.

"He also does childish things like snubbing the French when they don’t agree with him."

Would you care to provide information on exactly what "childish things" he has done? And after the hypocritical stances the French government has taken (example: complaining about Unilateral action when they've done the same thing numerous times), I personally wouldn't talk to Chirac myself.

"I am thankful that some nations aren’t afraid to speak up when something is wrong. For example, after the French showed they didn’t support the Iraq War the Bush administration renamed the fries in the three House office building cafeterias 'Freedom Fries.' How ridiculous! It is wholly embarrassing to see the leader of our great nation getting petty revenge over something as trivial as the name of a food."

What are you talking about? Only a few members of congress proposed this. The Bush administration had nothing to do with it. Get your facts straight.

"France is to be admired for not compromising their values and for doing the right thing."

How naïve are you? They've been doing business with Iraq behind the scenes for years. The French had millions invested in oil over in Iraq, and they've been purported to have sold some weapons technology as well.

"However, now the French people are being made fun of here in America for the actions of their government. That is also wrong. The French people are not responsible for the actions of their government, and they do not deserve the disparaging and rude comments that are now being made about them."

I love the double standard here. So it's okay for the rest of the world to attack Americans because of their government's actions, but we can't do that to the French?

"Another example of Bush administration lies is the Jessica Lynch affair. It was claimed that Jessica Lynch was raped and injured, and a rescue operation had to be undertaken to rescue her from hospital. Supposedly there were guards around the hospital, and her rescuers had to shoot their way in. In fact, it was all a carefully planned act. Jessica was not guarded at all, and she had not been raped. It was all a ploy to gain sympathy and support for the troops in Iraq."

Again, you make these statements but you DON'T BACK THEM UP!

"Another way to manipulate our minds is the Homeland Security Advisory which lists the current threat level. This alert is totally meaningless. It does not help us in any way to prepare for future terrorist attacks, it just makes people worry."

The people working at the FBI, Dept. Homeland Sec., INS, etc. would all beg to differ with you on this.

"Bush has passed unconstitutional and controversial laws, incarcerated seven hundred people from around the world in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and violated the Geneva Convention."

Actually, he hasn't. Those people are pretty much all non-citizens. The standard laws technically don't apply. Ever hear of legal "loopholes?"

"Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act, a law that violates the constitution and allows our own government to spy on us.”

Any examples for how it violates the constitution in your “essay”? No? Didn’t think so. And spying is perfectly legal, if they have the proper warrants.

“Even its name is un-American. It implies that if you do not agree with the Patriot Act you are not a true patriot.”

Actually, it’s just an acronym. Silly paranoid leftists…

“In fact, the very essence of America allows one to have different views, to question authority while still loving your country.”

And when has the US government said otherwise? Never. Bush hasn’t come out against protesters.

“Lately there has been a surge of blind patriotism, which implies that anyone who disagrees with the government and the president is unpatriotic. Our country was founded by going against the government at that time and rebelling. When something is not just and fair we must disagree. We have to watch our government carefully, for corruption spreads quickly.”

And what the public does is Bush’s fault in what way? What’s next, are you going to blame him for terrorism itself? While we’re at it, this winter has been really cold. That must be his fault to.

“The Patriot Act allows the government to look at records on a citizen’s activities, such as library records, video rentals, drugstore paperwork, parking tickets, travel patterns, financial records, medical histories, Internet purchases, and any other activity that leaves a record.”

Yes, but this actually hasn’t happened yet. They have to ask congress and gain legal permission before doing so. That’s perfectly legal, and it’s been used when dealing with Drug Rings and other criminal organizations in the past.

“It also lets them conduct secret searches, when you don’t know that your house has been searched. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which states that a warrant is needed before a search can be conducted. The Patriot Act eliminates the need for a warrant. Also, secret searches limit your ability to protest the unfair searches.”

Actually, a warrant is still needed. The only difference is that that said warrant is easier to obtain because the probable cause part of the 4th amendment has been revised slightly, and they don’t have to tell you about it like you said. The later of course makes sense, because who wants criminals to know that they’re being watched?

“It allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens, such as the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, too.”

Which was perfectly legal too, since they’re NON CITIZENS! If they were citizens I’d have a problem with this, but they’re not.

“The Bush administration’s new immigration policies practice discrimination by only fingerprinting and photographing people from countries who need visas to visit.”

Oh god yes, what a tragedy. This is so unfair. Actually requiring people to be identified before traveling, so that we can spot potential criminals (you know, people who are innocent until proven guilty by said identification?).

“ This considerably lengthens the total time spent waiting in airports, thus creating a greater security threat.”

Err, why is this the case? Please provide an explanation for your statement. Otherwise, you confuse your reader.

“George W. Bush is the only American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to US-held prisoners of war. His tax cuts do not help our country. If anything, we should raise taxes to better fund schools and welfare programs. 88% of American citizens will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. Bush’s cabinet members are expected to save an average of $42,000 as a result of the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.”

This is actually a fairly reasonable argument. I suggest that you concentrate on this, rather than Bush lied/ Stole the election/ Is the reason people hate Americans/etc.

“Bush has fabricated intelligence to provide a reason for invading Iraq.”

Again, just a little proof would make your argument better. Seriously, get some supporting details…

“We still have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and a recent government information leak shows that Bush was planning this war the moment he took office. This war may have been a personal vendetta against Saddam as vindication for his father, Bush Senior, who oversaw Desert Storm. But the real reason? OIL! Operation Iraqi Liberation (the name the mission was going to be called before Washington realized what its first letters spelled) was for oil. Now we have a military presence in a poverty-stricken country rich with oil”

Thank you for stating the obvious. Now please state how this makes Bush a poor president, without making largely un-provable, poorly supported assumptions for why Bush acted the way he did. Also, do you honestly think we’d waste our time trying to get oil in Iraq provoking so many nations, when we could just as easily sponsor a coup in a country like Venezuela (which we import far more oil from than Iraq, and which is currently under the leadership of a pro-FARC [Colombian terrorists], leftist regime). Or we could easily overthrow the god-awful Saudi Regime. If Bush really wanted to play imperialist, I seriously doubt that he would pick a target which he had so much to lose by attacking. He’d be much more subtle, especially knowing how skilled his PR people are.

“Countless other nations have corrupt, cruel rulers and unfair governments, but we do not help them because they don’t have anything to offer us.”

Right. That’s why Bush is urging congress to send millions to Africa, despite prior fiascos like Somalian aid getting seized by Warlords, and Ethiopian aid getting diverted by Communists.

“For example, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf seized power in a coup. His citizens are sick and starving, hungry and poor. We do not remove him, however, because he serves our purposes. He supports us and gives us air space.”

Right, but we also supported the USSR because they helped us fight Nazi Germany. And more Latin American dictatorships than I’d care to mention. And plenty of other awful regimes. Come on, every president has pretty much tolerated at least one evil regime, simply because going to war would be unwise in the long run.

“Also Pakistan does not have resources valuable to us. Until they find oil there, that government is there to stay.”

Cute point, but you have no legitimate resources to back it up. Again, supporting details..

“We tolerated Saddam Hussein for 12 years before suddenly deciding he was a threat to us.”

Because during the 1980’s he was fighting Iran, and that would have been a fiasco. And during the 1990’s Bush and Clinton were leading the country, and they were generally jokes when it came to dealing with rogue tyrants.

“We even provided billions in aid to Saddam Hussein in 1982 for weapons to kill Iranians.”

Thank you for reiterating my point. And for turning this into a unfortunately not-well-supported Essay to a lecture on US foreign policy, without bringing up the context of why we supported someone like Saddam over a equally (if not more so) crazed tyrant like the Ayatollah Khomeni.

“Why didn’t we remove him in Desert Storm if he was so dangerous?”

Because the previous Bush was ineffectual and often considered to be a “wimp” as a president, hence one of the many reasons he lost his re-election bid to a relative unknown like Clinton

“We didn’t need to invade Iraq. Saddam would have kept to himself if we had not gone in.”

That’s debatable. Especially since Saddam had a prior history of starting wars with Iran, Kuwait, and nearly Israel. And since Saddam also had a prior history of WMD development during the 1980’s, 1990’s, and possibly up to now.

“Iraq is a poor country which is virtually no threat to us.”

Yes, Iraq was never called an imminent threat to us. The president even said that it wasn’t one, he said that we couldn’t take the chance of them becoming a future threat to us. Hence the reason this was called a pre-emptive war.

“They don’t have anything dangerous in Iraq, because Saddam uses all the money to build better palaces!”

Yes, which is one more reason why he was such a horrendous gangster of a leader and megalomaniac loose cannon.

“Bush keeps messing up in Iraq.”

Examples, please? One more time: Provide supporting details…

“Showing the bloody bodies of Saddam’s sons on national television was in very poor taste. It was religiously insensitive, and there was absolutely no need to display those grisly corpses here in America. The best display of character is not how you treat your betters, but how you treat your inferiors.”

Yes, I too think that we should treat absolutely disgusting, mass-murdering thugs like Saints. Especially after they sent photos and videos of mutilated corpses to the families of their victims, who were typically tortured as well in the worst ways imaginable. And after they along with the rest of their family turned Iraq into something out of a bad sci-fi story…. Who cares how we handled those a s s holes. They deserved everything they got. And how does Bush have control of this? He doesn’t, the army and press reported on them, and they were the ones who decided to run those photos.

“There is no concrete evidence linking Saddam with Al-Qaeda. The public was led to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”

No they weren’t. They were never told Iraq was involved in September 11th, only that Iraq had links to terrorists like Abdul Nidal, Palestinian Suicide Bombers, and possibly Al-Qaeda if certain memos are to be believed.

“In fact, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda orchestrated the attacks. He is the person who poses the greatest threat to us, but we still haven’t caught him!”


Thank you for your amazing revelation, which we were all so very unaware of.

“Why are we wasting our time, money, and lives in Iraq when Osama is loose?”

See above reasons.
“George W. Bush is a tyrant who must be removed. His actions, policies, and lies have twisted the image of our nation into something quite different. I know that something is wrong when the Constitution is cast aside, and the very framework of our great country is ripped apart. We must not stand for the lack of justice and fairness at this time. The loss of our freedoms and rights is unacceptable, and we must do something before it is too late. We must not vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming election! We must not give him a chance to invade other nations, kill more innocent civilians, and taint the news with his infernal, smug, smirk, for then we will only have ourselves to blame. We must remove Bush from power.”

Ah-huh, right. Let me guess: Go Howard Dean (no offense to MadPuffinKeeper).

---

Dubya (my sworn enemy) is reluctantly appointing a committe to investigate the pre-war intelligence he used to justify the war. Well isn't that fantastic - his a$$ is on the line, so of course HE gets to be the one to choose who decides what information will be released to the public. I'm willing to bet that the final report will use really broad terms (à la the disastrous State of the Union speech) to glaze over the incriminating details and also will not be released until after the elections. It's so infuriating to me that this man based his campaign on "restoring accountability to the White House" yet when his credibility comes under fire (For obvious reasons! Do the words "Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq" mean anything??) he scrambles to get his sympathizers to be resonsible for the "grand inquisition." Clinton's lies pertained to his personal life; W's lies led us into an unjustified war so he could finish what his father started and divy up the spoils between his friends in high places. WTF?!? It makes me so angry I don't know what to do with myself. Democracy is such a beautiful thing, my friends.

quote:

---

ok, just one point since i didn't make it very far

191 countries - 130 military presence.

where is that statistic, and does it mean anything more than embassies, because if that's so, then technically the u.s. has a military presence of tons of other countries.

---

Whoa. Evidently, you made it farther than I did.

just another note... go to www.impeachbush.org or www.reelectgore.com for more info

eractnodi... click on this link for my info- http://www.notinourname.net/war/state-union-20jan04.htm

ok, just one point since i didn't make it very far

191 countries - 130 military presence.

where is that statistic, and does it mean anything more than embassies, because if that's so, then technically the u.s. has a military presence of tons of other countries.

I hate skimming... this is depressing!!!! Oh, I'll read it later when I'm not watching Super Bowl...

Anyway, Go Bush!
-Sunset

this was an essay for school...there's too much to read? SKIM MY FRIENDS SKIM!

Holy crap... to much to read. Sorry.

*hands foxy a box of Kleenex*
-Sunset

*cries* too much to read!!!

much luv

~*FOXY*~

Couldn't have said it better myself, Gemini.

There are other threads on this. There was absolutely no need to write a novel about it.