Alright, the poll was meant to be funny.

Seriously though, we are divided into two very distinct factions here:
1.) those who worship Bush, and
2.) those who do not.

The majority of you are Bush idolators. You love Mars and you want to go there with Bush so you can find Saddam's WMD's!

No, seriously again. What redeeming quality does the president have that all you neocons (and retrocons) like about him? What is it that makes you Bush-men or Bush-women?

Explain your idolatry directed at our Pres.

K. Other reasons.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Alright, the poll was meant to be funny.

Seriously though, we are divided into two very distinct factions here:
1.) those who worship Bush, and
2.) those who do not.

The majority of you are Bush idolators. You love Mars and you want to go there with Bush so you can find Saddam's WMD's!

No, seriously again. What redeeming quality does the president have that all you neocons (and retrocons) like about him? What is it that makes you Bush-men or Bush-women?

Explain your idolatry directed at our Pres.

i like some of Bush's ideas and i dislike many others. In some ways he shares our Libertarian philosiphies.

Why I like Bush:
1) Helping us pull out of our recession
2) Type of man you can rally around after a crisis (9/11 for him like Pearl Harbor for FDR).
3) Refuses to sit back and do nothing when the US is attacked and our interests are at stake.
4) He's a Christian and for the most parts demonstrates this.
5) He actually works at solving a problem (may not always work, but attempts to solve it), as opposed to sitting back and hoping things work out in the end like Clinton did with Osama.
6) He shares similar views on many policies as I do.

Why I dislike Bush:
1) Too lenient on his "anti-abortion" policies. Said one thing, did another. Starting to change a little.
2) Immigration "reform" that doesn't solve the problem but encourages it.
3) Mars? Now? Why?

Obviously the likes outweigh the dislikes.

he's not al gore, :ownd:

"Other reasons?"

Okay, this is a thread where Dio was hoping to start a discussion on those "other" reasons.

Maybe you would care to join the discussion? Oh, laconic one?

"Libertarian."

Bush is right next to Hitler (literally) on the political compass. He's an authoritarian president--as authoritarian as we've had. There's NOTHING about his policies that are libertarian.

So, what do you mean, again?

"Bush kicks arse and ain't skeered."

Yeah, there's a real reason to like a guy. He fails on his watch (notice 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was in office) and then spins it into a manly-man win-win? Whatever. All he's done in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is be sure Al-Queder recruits more new terrorists so that we have more 9/11's in the future.

If your house keeps catching on fire, you don't bomb the fire station. You try and figure out what the CAUSES are in the first place.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Yeah, there's a real reason to like a guy. He fails on his watch (notice 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was in office) and then spins it into a manly-man win-win? Whatever. All he's done in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is be sure Al-Queder recruits more new terrorists so that we have more 9/11's in the future.

If your house keeps catching on fire, you don't bomb the fire station. You try and figure out what the CAUSES are in the first place.

1993 WTC bombing w/ 6 killed 1000 injured.
1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia with 5 military personel killed
1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudia Arabia with 19 killed and 200 injured
1998 US embassies bombed in Africa with 224 killed and 5,000 injured
2000 Bombing of USS Cole with 17 killed and 39 injured

All of these attacks were under Clinton by Al Qaida. Each time Clinton "promised" he would track down those responsible. 9/11 is the result of his failure to do so, not a break down by the Bush Administration. He had barely been in office for over 7 months.

We know who is responsible. And we are waging a war against them. But the war is more than one against Al Qaida. We are waging the war on terror on the battle field (Afghanistan and Iraq) and at the diplomatic table(N. Korea).

joebordenrebel Wrote:"Other reasons?"

Okay, this is a thread where Dio was hoping to start a discussion on those "other" reasons.

Maybe you would care to join the discussion? Oh, laconic one?

"Libertarian."

Bush is right next to Hitler (literally) on the political compass. He's an authoritarian president--as authoritarian as we've had. There's NOTHING about his policies that are libertarian.

So, what do you mean, again?

"Bush kicks arse and ain't skeered."

Yeah, there's a real reason to like a guy. He fails on his watch (notice 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was in office) and then spins it into a manly-man win-win? Whatever. All he's done in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is be sure Al-Queder recruits more new terrorists so that we have more 9/11's in the future.

If your house keeps catching on fire, you don't bomb the fire station. You try and figure out what the CAUSES are in the first place.

actually my friend, i being the Libertarian here, know what my party believes. Bush has done a couple things that are pretty Libertarian.
1) he recreated the HSA's which are a great idea and the Libertarian's have been pushing from them. I'm surprised nobody on this board has talked about them.
2) Bush is trying to privatize SS, which is pretty much what we want to do to SS.
3) he's against affirmative action
4) in Texas i'm pretty sure people can carry guns without a license, which is what we want.

Comparing a post Pearl Harbor US morale to a post 9/11 US morale is absolutely ridiculous.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Comparing a post Pearl Harbor US morale to a post 9/11 US morale is absolutely ridiculous.

i disagree. I think they're definitely comparable.

T. Monay--

So, you hold Clinton responsible for the terrorist actions that occured on his watch (not that I'm a big Slick Willy lover. That guy was a Con wolf in sheep's clothing if ever there was one) and yet you NEATLY, in an AMAZING (in its absolute lack of rational thinking) twist of debating, take the largest and most horrific death count by far and lay it at Clinton's feet, too?

George Bush had seven months (or wasn't it 9?). You're acting like he had seven days.

On top of that, Bush and the FBI were warned, over and over, by numerous governments and contacts. Of all that has been documented.

So, really, what else you got?

Swooshy--

If you were a libertarian (with a little "l") then you'd know what *I* was talking about (as an anarchist, I'm also a libertarian).

He's policing the world for no good reason.

He supplementing the military-industrial complex (a welfare for the super-rich and those who kill), which in no way, shape or form is following the dictates of a laissez-faire economic system.

He's expanding the role of government by militarizing security at airports, creating a national army to invade America (!) and attempting to influence abortion rights (definitely a no-no to those who want to government to keep to themselves).

And where exactly does the Mars space program fit into Libertarian ideology? At a time when real wages have dropped 21% in the past three years?

Maybe you should try reading more about libertarianism and spend less time parroting Neal Boortz.

And by the way, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have very little in common.

A nation attacking us is fundamentally different than a criminal act involving 19 guys and some lax airport security.

Do you see that? Or shall I draw you a picture?

flyingswoosh Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Comparing a post Pearl Harbor US morale to a post 9/11 US morale is absolutely ridiculous.

i disagree. I think they're definitely comparable.

1) 40% of the country still hated Bush after 9/11. 90% of the country loved FDR after Pearl Harbor.
2) Japan attacked us during wartime... Our military was mobilizing (don't believe that BS your history class has fed you) for a global war.
3) Pearl Harbor was a huge attack by members of a military.
4) Pearl Harbor was the attack of a country on another country, not extremists on a country.
5) Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base. 9/11 was an attack on a business building.

I could name more if you want.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Swooshy--

If you were a libertarian (with a little "l") then you'd know what *I* was talking about (as an anarchist, I'm also a libertarian).

He's policing the world for no good reason.

He supplementing the military-industrial complex (a welfare for the super-rich and those who kill), which in no way, shape or form is following the dictates of a laissez-faire economic system.

He's expanding the role of government by militarizing security at airports, creating a national army to invade America (!) and attempting to influence abortion rights (definitely a no-no to those who want to government to keep to themselves).

And where exactly does the Mars space program fit into Libertarian ideology? At a time when real wages have dropped 21% in the past three years?

Maybe you should try reading more about libertarianism and spend less time parroting Neal Boortz.

And by the way, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have very little in common.

A nation attacking us is fundamentally different than a criminal act involving 19 guys and some lax airport security.

Do you see that? Or shall I draw you a picture?

ok, mr.genius here we go.
1) i would hardly say an anarchist is a libertarian. conisdering anarchists want no government.
2) i understand that he's done many things that are against libertarian ideology, and i said he had. or maybe in your haste to criticize you didn't see that i wrote Bush has done many things i disagree with. he has expanded the government too much, and the patriot act definitely violates my civil liberties, which i mention a lot, and for some reason you've overseen that.
3) i read a lot about libertarianism, from their newsletter to various websites. And fyi i never listen to neal boortz, so don't be an a-hole an say that i listen to someone that i don't.

All you've done in your whole post is repeat what i said, but with more detail. I said he's done a few things in a libertarian way and many things in a pro-government way. Way to go!

nate jonesacc Wrote:Comparing a post Pearl Harbor US morale to a post 9/11 US morale is absolutely ridiculous.

Both were massive strikes on the US that were coordinated and premeditated by enemies of the US. Both resulted in a massive patriotic movement in the country. Both resulted in rallying behind their president. Both resulted in a war against the aggressors.

Yes, there are a lot of similarities between the two.

joebordenrebel Wrote:T. Monay--

So, you hold Clinton responsible for the terrorist actions that occured on his watch (not that I'm a big Slick Willy lover. That guy was a Con wolf in sheep's clothing if ever there was one) and yet you NEATLY, in an AMAZING (in its absolute lack of rational thinking) twist of debating, take the largest and most horrific death count by far and lay it at Clinton's feet, too?

George Bush had seven months (or wasn't it 9?). You're acting like he had seven days.

On top of that, Bush and the FBI were warned, over and over, by numerous governments and contacts. Of all that has been documented.

So, really, what else you got?

Who was on watch and was attacked multiple times and still did nothing about bin Laden? Who was responsible for allowing Osama to continue planning attacks on the US? If anyone receives the bulk of the blame for 9/11 (and the blame can go to many people) it should go to Clinton's administration. The Sudanese government offered Osama to the US multiple times, but Clinton and Gore still refused the offer.

You speak with 20/20 hindsight. If Bush had invaded Afghanistan in June of 2001 with the "information" that Osama was planning a massive strike on the US, would you have bashed him still? Most likely, knowing you. Knowing you, you'd probably want them to attack and have the US do nothing about it. It would have been like the months leading up to Iraq. What was the most pressing situation? The economy. No one wanted to wage war at that time.

Show me the documents. And I'll show you people that just want a bunch of publicity.

Nate and T-Monay,

First of all, FDR was still hugely unpopular even after the war began. Republicans referred to him as "that man" in the White House. FDR was as hated by half the country as Clinton was, and GW for that matter. Half the country didn't like any of these guys. Then again, half the country doesn't vote, or a little under half the country's eligible voters don't participate, so fock em!

Nate, your 3 and 5 are entirely unanalyzed given the context.

In the context the discussion takes place, the Al Quayder terrorists think they are part of a military organization as does Hammas, and Hezbolllah, even domestic terrorists consider themselves soldiers, i.e Christian Identity.

It is quite easy to argue that Al Quayder and other international terrorists orgs. are part of an extensive, yet fractured military. There attack took the precision and org. conducive of military planning.

While Pearl Harbor was extensively valued by the Japanese as a military target, the Pentagon was certainly a military target and the World Trade Center represented an important symbol to the terrorists, as being a symbol of U.S. military and cultural hegemony. Like the Japanese focused on the symbol of U.S. strength in the South Pacific, so too do terrorists consider New York City and the WTC as a similar symbol.

Hey, Swooshy, if you're condescending to me again, I think I'm gonna cry! :cry:

"1) i would hardly say an anarchist is a libertarian. conisdering anarchists want no government."

Anarchists fall in the same realm as "Libertarian partyers" because we both want freedom from government. We differ, however, in how we see that being played out. Anarchists believe people are smart enough to govern themselves. LP's think hierarchy ought to be preserved in the business world but deconstructed when it comes to government (except for their sacred cows like the military-industrial complex, of course).

If you'd like to see where you really fall, visit http://www.politicalcompass.org.

Otherwise, please stop discussing things that are over your head, son.

jbr, I took your test out of curiosity. It says I am to the left (which I have a hard time believing, but hey, whatever, I believe what I believe b/c I believe it, not b/c it is right or left). And it also says I am pretty high on the Authoritarian side. I can see that. How did you score?

joebordenrebel Wrote:Hey, Swooshy, if you're condescending to me again, I think I'm gonna cry! :cry:

"1) i would hardly say an anarchist is a libertarian. conisdering anarchists want no government."

Anarchists fall in the same realm as "Libertarian partyers" because we both want freedom from government. We differ, however, in how we see that being played out. Anarchists believe people are smart enough to govern themselves. LP's think hierarchy ought to be preserved in the business world but deconstructed when it comes to government (except for their sacred cows like the military-industrial complex, of course).

If you'd like to see where you really fall, visit http://www.politicalcompass.org.

Otherwise, please stop discussing things that are over your head, son.

i've taken the test before and frankly i think the 'agree' 'strongly agree' thing is a little too vague. the libertarian website has 'the world's smallest political quiz' and it's pretty good.

things over my head? what exactly do you mean?

this quiz is pretty good.
<a href='http://yobbo.drivelwarehouse.com/quiz/graph.php' target='_blank'>http://yobbo.drivelwarehouse.com/quiz/graph.php</a>

my dot was in the bottom right corner= liberal democracy, which is libertarian

this one is really good.
<a href='http://www.politopia.com/done.php3' target='_blank'>http://www.politopia.com/done.php3</a>

i was right next to ayn rand.