Why I hate George W. Bush
Politics August 26th, 2003 |Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views? No, not really. […] …the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.” […] When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
<
p>— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
[See also: You’ve got to be kidding me | It’s only a matter of time | On the ‘net, everyone knows you’re a liar | Bare your bum at Bush! | Exploring Bush’s global ineptitude ]
October 10th, 2003 at 4:33 am
here here
October 10th, 2003 at 11:47 am
I hate George Bush too, and I think your site is excellent.
November 7th, 2003 at 5:40 pm
He’s a liar and a murderer. Sending young men and women to Iraq knowing that they face certain death; and for what reason? He has sat in front of the television camera and lied to the American public. How can he be trusted?
And he’s such a good Christian
December 2nd, 2003 at 4:19 pm
I hate (also detest, loath, deplore, revile and despise) George W. Bush because his persona is the smiling, vacuous and innocuous symbol of a movement rooted in mendacity, short-sightedness, venality and macho oppression. He stands for the new fascism, where reason, compassion, social justice and empathy are things to be sneered at, as the nation prostrates itself before the new altar of expediency. In the neo-con world it is truly dog eat dog, and people either fuck or get fucked. Anyone who would have it otherwise, or merely argue that laws and governments are intended to make it otherwise, is jeered as weak (i.e. a fuckee, not a fucker like the “alpha male” neo-cons, the self appointed fuckers of the world) and simple-minded. Ad hominem attack is their form of debate. They appeal to the basest motives of their audience (impoverish your neighbor before he gets yours) while blinding them to their own oppression. They indulge in lies piled on lies on lies. Cynical, classist manipulators with nothing but contempt for the people whose trust they fraudulently solicit and then betray, they have mastered the art of dressing up divisive appeals to selfishness and greed in nobler looking clothing. Naturally, like all scoundrels, they are fond of using lecturing other people over what to do in their bedrooms, or in their homes - while ignoring the most basic commands of religion regarding social responsibility. My God, I hate all of them, each and every one of the cynical lying bastards who put, and keep, Bush where he is, and drag us all down, betraying what I once believed in as the noble american experiment.
December 6th, 2003 at 3:07 pm
I hate him too, fucking hate him, and I don’t even live in the same country! I hate from a distance, projecting it over thousands of miles into his black, black, evil little chimp-man heart. I can’t believe that such a retard has been allowed to take control of the most powerful nation in the world. Everything he’s touched he’s broken in his whole life, he should’ve been drowned at birth, the shit. He’s fucking retarded, the fucking fuck.
January 9th, 2004 at 4:28 am
Nice to see some intelligent comments (sarcasm intended)
January 12th, 2004 at 12:22 am
i agree whole heartedly. we need to get more people voting, so we can vote against him.
January 12th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
I really see no grounded arguements here. This is just liberals ripping on Bush for doing the inevitable. War, unfortunately, has been around for as long as humans have, for it is a part of human nature. To know and hate human nature is a better target of your rage; what you do is hate a single human for the consequences of a collective human nature. Don’t hate the player hate the game.
January 12th, 2004 at 8:12 pm
no grounded arugments is right. the earlier comments should check some broadcasts from larry king either in early 2003 or late 2002 when he had Bill Clinton on. he gave Clinton an open shot at Bush about the Iraq thing, and instead of blasting him, he said “when we left office we knew he had WMD” “we couldn’t find them”. it was the one time I had respect for him. He was an effective president, but he conducted himself poorly with bad decisions concerning his private activites. You spend your whole life to get the ultimate job of running the country and you waste it on petty affairs. So instead of being remembered for the job you did, you are MORE remembered for the sex scandals etc…. but I digress… Clinton said, “we had the same intelligence that every president has had before and after” “it is not an easy job” I would start to think that most of you probably agree with professor Dewdney on his theory than to believe that this threat should have been handled before. consider this, Clinton KNEW about al queda. HOW? remember the USS Cole? or how about 1993 attempted bombing of the WTC? They failed to act then and as a result we got 9/11. Boy, think how many lives could have been spared had Clinton and Gore decided to start a campaign to get osama bin laden? They kept tabs on him then too. That is neither here nor there and is certainly in the past. Maybe the best thing Bush could’ve done was wait until he got osama, THEN iraq. But Saddam definately needed to go. When he goes on trial, he must face is accusers. Those whom he murdered and there surviving relatives. I could eat my words “if” O’niell is NOT a disgruntled ex-employee with an ax to grind with his accusations about Bush from day one want to go after saddam. but for now it is just heresay and the best way to boost sales on a book and make money. DATED FACT: the plot to dive planes into the WTC was uncovered in 1995 or 1996, purely by accident when two al-queda members started a fire in their hotel room while making loads of bombs with timers etc… was on CNN this past sunday- Aaron Brown ” Seeds of Terror” check it out before you go flying off the handle…. And remember, Bad officials are elected by the good citizens who do not vote! FACT: difference between Democrats and Republicans is this- Democrats will always vote PARTY no matter what! Republicans will support their party, but will not vote party if they feel that their “guy” is not a good choice! We get the best government when we change it every four years, that goes for state, federal and local!! That way the corruption can’t set in!!!CAPICE?
January 13th, 2004 at 12:07 am
Actually, RobSix, if you take a look at O’Neil’s new book that’s out, it’s suggested that the Hawks like Wolfowitz have been planning since the election in 2000 (since George Sr’s administration lost, probably) that they needed to go back in and finish the war. While I agree that SH was a Bad Man (tm), and war is sometimes a necessary evil, I’m very hard pressed to understand why we had to be in both Afgahnistan and Iraq at the same time, for the same reason (preemptory strikes), when at least part of the reason was that Bush Sr’s administration team was still smarting from not being able to finish the job in ‘92. It was unnecesary then, and the only necessity for going into Iraq this time was to get our hands on Iraqi oil (one of the largest reserves in the Mid East).
I understand that it’s hard to find biological weapons if they don’t want to be found, but given the tack we’re currently taking with North Korea, Libya and Iran, I’m to believe that war with Iraq was the only solution? Or that our nations’ Black Ops teams couldn’t do a better job of counter-terror when they’re not in a war, and free to assasinate anyone they can get away with?
And if it was about dictatorships and human rights oppression, what are we doing about Somalia, Burundi, Indonesia, Palestine, Morocco, and on and on… Maybe even the folks leading our own troops need a refresher course?
One final bit—if you didn’t bother reading the original article that lead up to this discussion, then you just missed all of the grounded arguments that the others were commenting on. OTOH, I gotta agree, Reb needs a few more words in his vocabulary.
Hm.
January 13th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
I fail to see your reasoning for why we are in Iraq. We have not seized any oil yet and as you can see the prices of oil in America have not dropped significantly becuase of it. The government can only store some 700 billion barrels in reserve, a number that has not increased during the war. The only war for oil was fought in the early nineties when Saddam invaded Kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the agreed OPEC standard. Thats blood for oil, my friend. Going to war with Iraq was unavoidable because Saddam would never have stepped down from power without a fight, though he should have never come to power. I believe the United states offered for him to resign before we started bombing Baghdad. War is a necessary evil and one that won’t go away, until everyone across the world acts with the same social selflessness. Bush may have wanted to finish a Family vendetta but his approval ratings have risen with the capture of Saddam. As for the grounded arguements that you mention in the original article, geoff rips on bush for having contempt for america and contempt for life. This arguement is ludacris.
“In the end, it comes down to the simple issue of character.” - geoff He may not be an agreeable character by your parents standards but this does not condemn him. (focus on his actions)
January 15th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
I Fucking hate GW Bush Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
January 15th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
I Fucking hate GW Bush Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
January 15th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
Its ok Matt. You’re entitled to your opinion, would you like to explain why exactly you think that George Bush is letting this country down right now? Maybe we can spark some intelligent conversation out of you yet.
January 15th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
this says it all those are my reasons for disliking him…
January 21st, 2004 at 12:48 am
I love my country but I hate George Bush and here’s why.
George Bush is a puppet and Karl Rowe is the puppetmaster. Bush is a quasi-charismatic talking head spewing the neo-con party line. These ultra-right wing power-mongers, who have been planning their rape and pilage of American coffers and social security reserves since Bush I, all the while disguising themselves as good christians, seek to circumvent the democratic process to force their agenda on America while making their friends in the oil & gas industry richer than their wildest dreams.
The US had the world’s sympathy following 9/11 and Bush squandered. Was it greed, corruption or just plain ol’ vanity, George? Regardless of the recent O’neil bombshell, it seems more than plausible that the Bush II admin was plotting the SH overthrow from the get-go to defend the good names of Reagan/Bush. Rememeber them? They were the good Americans that brought us Iran/Contra as well as supplying Saddam’s regime with WMD. Many years from now, when we’re still mired in mid-eastern politics, the Clinton doctrine of non- or minimal interference is going to look very smart because NO ONE WINS WARS OVER RELIGION OR IDEOLOGY. Look at the Jews and Palestinians as a case in point.
Back to why I hate Bush, though. A couple good concrete examples of the subversive neo-con plotting include the most recent Judicial Appt that was implemented during the congressional break and the re-districting fights in TX and CO. What is so wrong with ultizing the democratic process to seek what an admin wants to achieve? The problem, so it would seem from the Bush Admin, is that the system of checks and balances, won’t allow such extreme policies to be enacted And for good reason. It’s one of the key mechanisms our founding fathers sought to include in our government for just such cases.
Even though I hate George Bush, I find great comfort in knowing that each day when I awake from my restful slumber, I know that George Sr and George Jr are one day closer to death. And in death, they will meet the god they profess to worship and he will pass judgement upon them … and it won’t be pretty.
January 21st, 2004 at 7:14 pm
I hate this little asshole more than anybody. When thinking about Bush I literally get nauseous. It also pains me to think that this mediocre family will some day shit out another President. What I don’t understand, is how come the name Bush gives you political legitimacy? His dad was a lousy President. This current sack of shit will be rated one of the worst of all-time. If there is a hell, this fucker is going there. Because I gotta believe that God has a special place for those that quote the bible constantly, but never practice one concept in it.
January 21st, 2004 at 7:35 pm
What do you guys think of these Quotes?
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
The previous adminstrations did know about the WMD that everyone bitchs about, except that during the eight years that they did nothing Saddam was able to remove and possibly sell them off. Applaud Bush for taking some action.
January 24th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Ok Rob six you have proved two things, 1) lots of people were wrong about Whether saddam had WMDs as NONE have been found even now a year after the invasion, and 2) President Clinton, was smart enough not to act on intellegence he could not validate. Lets also not forget that when the congress passed the resolution allowing bush to attack that they (along with the american people) were under the faulty impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the american people based on claims such as WMDs, attempts to aquire uranium etc. All of these claims now clearly amount to a flaming sack of shit. What the iraq war really did was deflect attention and recources from afghanistan and al-Queda, comprimise the position of the UN, and effectivly undermine international sympathy that came about from the attacks of 9/11, and in short make the world a great deal less safe. Further more we now have the daunting task of establishing a democracy in a society where theocratic dictators are the norm and where people’s mindsets have been shaped by life times of oppression; you can bet if we fail this objective al-Queda will be crawling all over Iraq. It is a bit disheartening that the administration who is controlling this process is now down playing it in favor of thier braindead initiative to send people to mars during the biggest budget deficit in history. A deficit that I might add came after a budget surpluss on Clintons watch . In light of all of this I think it has been shown that it is your argument and not Geoff’s that is ludacris. How could a president who is concerned about peoples livers wage unnecessary war, at the expense of the real problems at hand and our international support, and at the same time piss away billoins of dollars to trasition a buget surplus into the biggest deficit in history. How can a man who went awol from the National Guard during vietnam presume to have the authority to send young men to thier deaths in the name of a personal vendetta? To make matters worse he is actually trying to decrease thier benefits. Face it rob you are more partisan than anyone on this site because while you can site obscure points and quotes to your favor the OVERWHELMING BODY of evidence refutes them all. Bush is scum, he is a dangerous, incompetent, self interested, warmongering, alcoholic, greedy, hypocritical, puppet of an imbecile. Have fun refuting that one.
January 25th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
GWB rules keep the spics outta office. C me on Smasckdown this week yall
January 25th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
Is Garrison for real? I guess I couldn’t tell with hois lilly white hood on.
January 26th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
Hurin- The fact that there were no WMD’s found in Iraq is exactly the point of this war. Unfortunately, they weren’t confiscated so they are out there somewhere. Thats where President Clinton’s lack of action got us. You must admit that the government, with all its information gathering resources knows a little more than you do. Maybe if you tapped that source then you would see the real “overwhelming body of evidence”. Until you do, rest assured that there is one less nation out there that poses a threat to your loved ones. Please let me know what this body of evidence is that you speak of.
January 27th, 2004 at 5:02 pm
Robsix- The fact that no WMDs were found has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they actually exist/have existed. Maybe you are familiar with David Kay the Bush administration appointed CIA weapons inspector that recently stepped down? In his report as related by the new york times yesterday he found evidence of little capacity for the actual production of WMDs within Iraq, stating that most of the programs had been abandoned after Bush Sr.’s gulf war. Kay also painted a picture of a Saddam Hussein who was loosing touch with reality and being duped by his scientists into financing phoney Bio/Chem weapons programs, the funding of which were then funneled into different avenues that would make the scientists money. Finally there is the issue of the nuclear program; which Mr. Kay said could have been a fledgling at best, nowhere near what would be nesessary to produce bombs. The fact is these are not new findings, since the end of the war there have been people in Iraq looking for weapons and evidence of thier production and so far I beleive noone has even found more than this. To cite Kay’s report once more saddam had nothing in the way of actual deployable weapons on the night of the invasion . It is true I do not know everything that is to be known about the intellegence that was used to sell this war, however plenty of information is available to the public concerning it, and not the least of it is comming from the mouths of those who were or are working for the CIA. Furthermore if solid evidence was available substantiate the Bush Administration’s claims then why hasn’t it been released? It sure would releive a lot of criticizm from those who beleive we had no substantial cause for the war. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this intelegence does in fact exist but is sitting in some top secret file at Langley. So if this information exists what would the line of reasoning be for not releasing it? Could it be that W and the CIA are working together conspiracy style to see who is “patriotic” enough not to question anything the government does? If you want to convince people who have better than, say, half a brain, that Iraq was more than a negligable threat to the USA then you need evidence of your own. Thus far you have produced three quotes, and no findings. OK, your turn. Convince me, I dare you.
January 27th, 2004 at 8:59 pm
So wait…the best one of you can come up with is a commercial?
Or…I Fucking Hate GWB?
The liberal side to this argument could mount substantial competition to those running for the democratic nomination in 2004. Unfortunately, that isn’t saying very much for either of you…
January 27th, 2004 at 9:31 pm
Not a COMMERCIAL dumbass, A NEWSPAPER. which i might add is the best you could do without access to government primary sources. Its funny to hear conservatives who spent eight years cringing at Clinton’s sex life try to refute a valid argument about real problems.
January 28th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
I’m sorry Hurin ( who names their kid that anyway?), but you fail to see the point of the whole exercise. These qoutes that you blast go to show that a lot of people, including David Kay, thought that there were weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq. Now that there are no longer weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq does not mean that there have not been weapons there. Still, you have not presented an overwhelming body of evidence, and the definition of evidence is now going to be defined for you: Physical fact. Here are some physical facts that he was not a negligable threat. Saddam committed genocide on his own people (the kurds). He also invaded kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the opec standard. This is your evidence. If you can’t agree with that then its fine but you’re going to have to live with it, and with Bush.
January 28th, 2004 at 4:27 pm
Rob, though I am unable to produce physical evidence in the form of data collected by weapons inspectors, secondary sources such as newspapers in such cases as this may function as evidence provided that they are a factual representation of the findings documented in primary sources. This puts us on the same playing feild for finding evidence concerning the existance of WMDs (unless you know where to find the primary sources in which case please enlighten me to their location). If I am not mistaken most of the prewar intellegence was derived from spy satelites which could pick out certain suspicious activities that resembled weapons manufacture, however due to saddam specifics were not available. Under Kay’s inspection it was shown that these sights (mobile labs, flatbed trucks etc.) were really being used for bizzare activities such as manufacturing rocket fuel, a testement to Saddam’s growing senility. The fact is for better or worse the mixed reliance on UN inspectors and satelites, that formed much of the pre-war intelegence, was not adequite to accurately depict whether or not weapons were being manufactured. I fully understand that Saddam was a murderous bastard and do not doubt that he harbored Ill will toward the US. The major problem in my mind is that 1) the US attacked before sufficient evidence was compiled and certain claims made by the Bush administration were cleary illogical (There is no way in hell Iraq was enriching uranium purchased from niger with their resources)and 2) There was no UN resolution backing the US invasion, a move that not only damaged the apparent potency of the UN but also caused hostilities to form between the US and some of its allies. WMDs be damned, if the UN had been behind our country in Iraq I might be more sympathetic toward your point of view. This unilateral action is precisely why we have few friends in the global community these days. Another issue was and is the more imminent threat of al-Queda. Saddam is caught however bin-Laden remains at large, and guess which one was definitly a party to the last major attack on American soil. By attacking Iraq we spread our resources thin and allowed al-Queda more time to regroup, while crucially undercutting the rebuilding of afghanistan. Today we are already beggining to see the re-immergence of taliban fighters in rural afghanistan, and at very least this is a threat to there new government. The US position is pinned down in two places, and either one could become a haven for anti US sentiment and terrorist organizations. Sorry I know not all of this is about WMD, but I really feel we have been hung up on a relatively minor point for to long considering all the other exciting stipulations attatched to the Iraq blunder. While this might not constitute the “overwhelming body” promised (I conceived of the phrase to hastily it seems), I beleve it is substantial at least. As for whether I will have to live with Bush for more than another year that remains to be seen, it may be that not as many people agree with you as you think.
January 28th, 2004 at 8:21 pm
Hurin- First let me thank you for such a cordial response and let me, secondly, apologize for targeting your name in the previous response, it was immature and unnecessary. Though you may disagree with this statement it is still true. This war has been great for the economy, something we can both smile at. The keynesian economics of big deficit spending will someday payoff in spades. The rolling deficit will only be added to a large debt that never needs to be paid. Contrary to popular belief that debt will not really ever be paid off in full. Do you like what Bush has done for the economy.
January 28th, 2004 at 9:46 pm
Isn’t the current economic theory that the individual president doesn’t have any control over the immediate economy, and that the actions taken today are only felt approx. 8 years later? I seem to remember that number being thrown around in the last election, proving that Clinton/Gore didn’t provide the economic boost of the late 90’s. (FWIW, I think the Y2K bug created the spending and investment in technology. The Internet came about at such speed because big business and telco was upgrading all of their systems.)
OTOH, the tech bust was coming no matter what anyone says, and this recovery of the tech stocks is a natural pendulum reaction. There’s no reason Amazon’s stock should ever have been over $100/share. Plus, IT budgets were busted on Y2K solutions (so big business wasn’t investing in 2000/2001 — 3 years later, when tech systems are fully depriciated and ready to be replaced, IT folks are spending again…) and a number of other factors weigh in here. I don’t think that GWB’s economic theory (Which Greenspan Himself refused to endorse) is working like you think it is.
Rather, it’s making a lot of rich people richer, and since times are tough, rather than spending their money, the rich are packing it away for a rainy day.
I hardly think that the Estate Tax breaks are doing anyone any good in terms of getting lower health care or prescription drug costs. That’s the problem with GWB’s deficit spending. He’s going into deficit, giving up income, without realocating wealth in any inteligent manner, and creating unfunded mandates on the states like Homeland Security — btw, I’m not totally bagging on DHS, just that it’s up to the States to pay for DHS, and provide the services for DHS, and every upgrade in threat condition costs real money that has to be diverted from Head Start or any of a dozen other services that were funded before DHS came out of thin air.
Oh, and GWB is spending at a rate several times larger than any president previously has.
Taxes pay for society, and that’s a good thing. We can’t have society without paying for it. And personally, I hate the inconveniences, but I like having running water, stable utilities and roads, not to mention standardized immunizations, public health initiatives, housing and rehabilitation for criminals, homeless, and runaways, etc. Taxes pay for all of that, and when we vote to cut taxes, we vote to cut projects. The ability to pre-emptively strike and travel to Mars should be just as equally impacted as Head Start and Medicare, but it’s not under GWB. He cuts taxes, then increases spending on his unfounded, unproven pet projects, and lies to the public to make it happen, e.g., Nigerian Uranium.
That’s just not fiscally responsible.
January 28th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
Cps- I think reallocating wealth is the key phrase there. What is wealth? And who are you to determine what happens with someone else’s money? This is a fundamental issue. Conservatives do not want their money taken through taxes. We all should know that the most deaths happen at the first of the month becuase thats when welfare checks come out. What does that say about reallocating wealth? Did you know that there are certain Blockbusters that accept food stamps? Thats where some of the money goes… Reallocation of wealth does not work in this respect, economically.
January 30th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
OK. Ok. You all have very good points. I love a good political debate. I will try to make some valid points in regards to this discussion. Try not to flame me too hard. I will not say that I hate George W. I did not vote for him and I wouldn’t vote for him now either. After 9/11 he got such a huge amount of praise for being strong for America. Dah. I mean did he really have a choice? What else could he have done? Gone on national TV and say, “Holy CRAP! Now it is time to panic!” or “They finally beat us, lets surrender and do as they tell us!” Neither were an option. Being a herois only applicable if the person has a choice. GW did not. Next comes the whole “prior knowledge” idea. I cannot stand the man but lets think through this rationally. If he had reliable working knowledge he WOULD have stopped the attacks. I mean come on. WHat would he gain by not stopping them. He is a redneck dunderhead, not a cold hearted man capeable of treason. That just isn’t thinking that is productive. I do not believe that we should have been in Iraq or Kuwait in the 90’s. I know that the whole thing is about oil. Both Bushes come from Texas and they both have very strong interests in oil. Hello? See a connection? As for the war thing. My husband fought in the Persian Gulf, My father Vietnam, my grandfather WWII and my greatgrandfather in WWI. I know about war. I know that it is such a horrible, sad and tremendous thing that it should be avoided at all costs. Just because UN inspectors were not allowed into buildings doesn’t mean that we should declare war on someone. OK so we got Saddam out of office. Big Deal. Werent we supposed to be focusing on Bin Laden? Remember him? We were making no progress in finding him so geez maybe we can find some success in another war.
You can’t just start bombing the hell out of a country just because you don’t like the leader. Its none of our business. 9/11 would have never happened if we just minded our oum business. OK America is a wonderful country but just because Iraq doesnt do things the way we do they are evil. I know of the attrocities that Saddam committed against the people of his country but he is not in America. We see these pieces of news footage and we are supposed to swoon when we see a “reformed” country and its citizens stuffing their vootes into a ballot box. We breath this sigh of relief. AHHHHH look they are all democratic now. The way EVERYONE should be. JUST LIKE US. The whole manifest destiny bull. Can’t stand it.
Next, I do not like Bush because of his space exploration comments. He is going to pump BILLIONS of dollars in to space exploration. Ummmm, WHY? I mean it is great for the nerds to know how much Tang a lab rat can eat when at zero gravity! Hey lets not use the money on schools to in turn boost whole generations. Lets not give it to the Fostor care program that is dismal at best. Lets use it instead to look at some martian rocks. The whole idea just baffles me. Well that is it for now. I have a ton more to say on BUSH but it is way past my bed time.
February 1st, 2004 at 12:15 pm
Good comments tweedle, just wanted ot add a couple things to the space exploration comments. As it turns out I am a nerd myself (a Bio/Chem) major and the other day in a physics class I am taking we were talking about the possible benefits of such a mission. My professir , a Ph.D. in geophysics, made the assertion that there are really minimal benefits to sending a manned mission to mars, as a probe can take pictures, do chemical soil analysis and really any other such research one might desire, at a fraction of the price. His main point was that many more valuable projects could be funded for the cost of such an endeavor. My take is that Bush wants to show the Chinese up since they have recently been involved in certain space exploration initiatives.
February 1st, 2004 at 9:41 pm
Just wanted to Respond to Rob six’s comment on the reallocation of wealth too while I amm at it. Weather or not taxation is convinient for citizens it is a necessary evil americans first realized this under the articles of confederation some 200 years ago, Under the articles the central government could not tax and was utterly powerless as a result, as it had no money to do anything. This system failed miserably within several years of its creation and led to the draft of the constitution we now have in place. As for the comment about the deaths of the first day of the month I am not familiar with such a finding and I have to beleive if it is true a better statistical corellation could be made to explain it than the issuance of welfare checks. It is undeniable that someone has to pay for government programs be they education or defense, and I can think of noone better to do it than those who have the most moneyand are pretty much assured a comfortable lifestyle, like the Bush family for instance. Of course from what we have seen with the bush handling of the economy they obviously do not se it that way.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:39 pm
Guys, GWB is a good president, we all have our views, and we need to support our president no matter who it is i didnt like clinton but i still supported him because he was America’s president. So stop dissing and start supporiting throwing blame around really doesnt fix anything just move with the flow and hope for better luck next time. I bet half of you guys dont even vote. Now thats not saying much about your opinions.
February 2nd, 2004 at 8:06 pm
So by this logic if say, Adolf Hitler came to power in America you would say to support him because he is our president. It is by a persons actions and not office that they are held accountable. Not saying that GWB compares to hitler, but it is dangerous not to question authority. Besides what better way to get people voting than political discussion, I know that I am planning to vote.
February 3rd, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Hurin- There is nothing wrong with taxation, it is the reallocation of wealth that is a problem. Secondly you should volunteering in an emergency room for a couple months. You will see then the correllation.
February 3rd, 2004 at 6:06 pm
Rob, part of the reason I am dubious of this correlation is that I cannot see any sort of causal relationship between the issuance of a welfare check, and the death of the person to whom this check was issued. It would be easier to see such problems arising in a situation such as rent being due at the beginning of the month, and people shooting themselves due to the destitution caused by loosing a home, or turning to violent crime in order to see that the payment gets in. I am also not sure what kind of deaths you are talking about, as a lot of different things can kill a person, and certain ones could be more plausably linked to welfare checks than others. Please let me know what kind of scenario you are implying.
February 4th, 2004 at 10:40 pm
I’m implying that the lower class blows their welfare checks on alcohol and drugs when they first recieve the money. This is easily seen in the emergency roon during the first few days of the month. My dad told me this, as he interned in the ER for several months.
February 6th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
I cannot agree with Bush’s proposal to send a manned mission to the moon again. It seems trivial and very unimportant to say the least. I figure he maybe trying to spur some space exploration, just like JFK did in the early sixties, but I don’t see short term gains coming from it. Another thing that really miffs me about Bush’s Space policy is the stranding of the Hubble telescope, a mission that has recently been the only redeeming feature of the american space program. Hopefully, he will replace it with a better space telescope, seeing how Hubble has been the best telescope ever built he is truly doing a disservice to humankind.
With that out of the way, I turn to the comments of Tweedle (Dum.) I still fail to see how people can relate the war in Iraq with the copious amounts of oil over there. So far there has been no decrease in the price of oil in the united states and no companies have been shoed into the Iraq oil fields. I admit that there will be sometime in the future when capitalist Oil companies will move into Iraq and set up shop in conquest of profit but I see this as an overwhelmingly positive influence on the the Iraqi people. Firstly, their economy will be supported by the oil that comes from the ground, seeing as how that is the only commodity that grows in the desert, through the addition of jobs and global interest into the region. The people who gain the most are the Iraqi’s not the republicans from Texas.
As for the war, I think you fail to see the correllation between Humans and war. Your family has served proudly and selflessly to defend your great nation/community as many billions of humans have done over the past several thousand years. I’m sure that to have a generation in your family that didn’t fight in a war would be almost alien. Humans and war go hand in hand. It is unfortunate but true. This cannot be argued. I would rather have the wars fought for the indepedence of the people of earth than to see the reach of a tyrannical Saddam (and his type) be extended across this great planet.
February 6th, 2004 at 10:42 pm
As far as a negative job growth for GWB, all I have to say is that he came in during the “dot-com” bubble burst. So many people got laid off that any growth that has moved to offset the balance is minute in comparison. If he is reelected people will see the biggest growth following a major economy bust since Roosevelt in in the thirties.
February 8th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
Might I add that I was pretty lit when I wrote about Roosevelt (we all those moments.) That graph was so random. I would like to also say that the selection of presidents in that graphs was pretty skewed. I would like to see a graph for every president in history.
February 8th, 2004 at 10:22 pm
It may be that the bush tax cuts will cause some momentary economic growth, however at the rate that bush is spending it wont take people long to realize that the economy is seriously out of whack. I am no economist, however I have noticed that usually when a president cuts taxes he also cuts spending, or if he is going to spend like there is no tomorrow he appoints the taxpayers to pay for his excess. Bush wants it both ways, he is prepaired to give all the money collected through tax away, and still spend with the most fiscally liberal of the democrats. to quote Kristoff of the times “I have seen this before: in Argentina”; point being that just because the U.S. is a rich and powerful country dosnt make it immune to a debt crisis. I have also recently learned that the IMF has warned the US that its current economic practices are a threat to the world economy. Yes, we will probably get some kind of spike from Bush’s economy; tweak something that much and drastic things are bound to happen, but like the economic crack cocain that it is it will last five minutes and leave us bottomed out. By the way Rob, welfare isnt prefect but Id like to see you come up with a better system for helping out the underprivelaged in our country. If you were powerless and jobless and sleeping in a gutter you would probably be on some pretty hard drugs yourself. Having volunteered for an organization that distributed food to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, I am familiar with the desperation (at least from an observers point of view) that is the life of many recipeints of welfare and other social programs. To suggest that eliminating programs such as this would help them, is to piss on those who have hardest in our nation.
February 12th, 2004 at 1:34 pm
I just learned that lightweights like me have expert support in our contradiction of the “economic benefit” of the bush tax cuts; today a collum in the opinion section of the New York times summarized the feelings of Alan Greenspan on such matters. Greenspan warned of the Long and short term dangers of the gigantic deficite, and related that his support of the tax cuts when first announced was contingent upon Bush’s ability to listen to his advice and make them temporary. To access the full text of the article go to this adress . So much for Roosevelt, Bush’s fiscal dealings look downright Hooverish to me.
February 12th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
Sorry I cannot paste the address so here is the article which i will render under the protection of the fair use doctrine.
Alan Greenspan has cleared up any questions about whether a half-trillion-dollar deficit is a danger to the American economy, and whether the huge Bush tax cuts are part of the problem. Testifying before Congress yesterday in that polite, jargon-riddled way of his, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted the Bush administration and its allies, who have been dismissing the significance of deficits. Mr. Greenspan also complained about “diminished restraint” on discretionary spending — perhaps an indication that he has lost some faith in the conservative credo that cutting revenue is the best way to control spending.
Mr. Greenspan’s warning that the “outsized federal demands on national saving” will appreciably raise long-term interest rates is the stuff of Econ 101 orthodoxy: if the government gobbles up too much credit, it drives up the cost of capital for the rest of us. But apologists for the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policies like to write off such thinking.
Mr. Greenspan’s overall outlook on the economy is quite bullish, but the most striking thing about his testimony was that he did not confine his warnings about federal deficits to the long term. He said they threatened his short-term rosy scenario.
Listening to Mr. Greenspan testify is more interesting in the context of what we now know about the early Bush administration. According to a recent account by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Mr. Greenspan backed the tax cuts because of a mistaken belief that he and Mr. O’Neill would be powerful enough to convince the White House and Congress that the reductions should be temporary. The notion was to include a trigger mechanism that would revoke the cuts in the event of budgetary conditions like the ones the nation is now facing. We know now, and presumably Mr. Greenspan understands as well, that this is an administration whose commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthy is not subject to any respect for sound financial management.
Given the relatively meager slice of federal spending that can be substantially cut and the alarmingly meager federal receipts, as a percentage of the economy, there is only one responsible way for Congress to heed Mr. Greenspan’s warnings about those spiraling deficits. Instead of debating whether some of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, it’s time to consider rolling some of them back.
February 12th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
THe name of that article is “Mr Greenspan weighs in” and it appears in the feb. 12 issue of the opinion section of the Online New York times
February 12th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Sorry folks, the birth of my daughter caused me to lose track of this thread briefly.
Rob, my orignal statement on “redistribution of wealth” was based on my recolection of my High School econ class… That was more than a few years ago, but I thought that the term “wealth” was the generic term for monies generated by an economic system, not a term of “someone else’s cash.” “Redistribution of wealth” then, was the idea that a country has expenses, which must be paid for by the population, and if the country has no national resources to sell and generate its own wealth, then the people must provide for the services they use. Our country has chosen to privatize the natural resources, and tax the products that those private industries provide. As there are more products and wealth to tax, there should be more income for the country to continue to do with as it needs to to support the welfare of it’s people.
That definately means that the wealthy end up paying for the burdens of those who can not pay for themselves. It’s proven time and time again in the private sector. My health care premiums are astronomical, but is that fair? Prior to the birth of my child, I’ve been to the doctor once in the last 3 years. I should be able to pay for my one visit, not averaging out the cost of everyone covered by the insurance plan, and charging everyone equally. OTOH, I’m sure as hell glad I don’t have to pay the costs of childbirth out of pocket. This year, the insurance company is going to have to get recompensated by someone else, as I’m using my full allotment plus some.
That’s how redistribution of wealth works. The fact that some may fraudulently abuse the system is a statistical drop in the bucket (compared to the number of poeple that really need help) that is compensated for by the system. A correctly designed system should be able to take that into account.
My point was (as Hurin has pointed directly to) that nobody in their right mind thinks that tax cuts coupled with extensive spending increases are going to fix the economy. Look back to Bush Sr’s “No New Taxes” speech and later reversal. Tax cutting only works if you stop spending as well. Neither Bush seems to grasp that statement, as far as I can tell.
I am further outraged by the Bush Administration because while the war in Iraq was misguided by bad interpretation of evidence, I also believe that as a country that supports court systems, rule of law, and evidence of guilt before judgment for ourselves, GWB (and most Republicans I’ve met) does not give any quarter to a foreign sovreign nation.
The US is well on its way to becoming the next United Kingdom—a washed-up, former imperial power that is the lapdog of the next powerhouse. As soon as China’s (or whomever’s) economy kicks it into high gear, rather than having the support of the rest of the world, the weight of our economic folies, and lack of respect for the UN-WTO-IMF, (and other leading world bodies) are going to crush the US into fiscal and social dependency that is unbearable to our collective egos.
Clinton may not have been the best person or President, but at least we were working towards sharing the burden of saving the planet with the rest of the world, and there was some respect for the inteligence an capabilities of foreign nationals.
February 13th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Yeah, I second that, third that one, and fourth and fith that one and this one… NOW GO OUT AND REGISTER AS A DEMOCRAT AND VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY! Life is not going to be easy, it never is, but anyone, ANYONE is better that this fool. The Bush crew is killing this nation, its tragic! No more, vote his sorry ass out of office, please!
February 14th, 2004 at 10:46 am
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
February 14th, 2004 at 10:46 am
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
February 14th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
Rob, you paint the poor of this nation with to broad a brush. there are many disadvantaged people in this nation who are born into families too poor to put them through college , and generally unable to turn the situations that suround their lifes around. Conversely, what has George W Bush ever done to earn the weath that he has to fall back on? If you said absolutely fucking nothing that would be correct. The bush fortune is based on two things, Oil, and illicit trading with Nazi germany which Prescott Bush engaged in during WWII. Still convinced that the afluence one gains in life is directly tied to thier choices? In spite of all the other economic stipulations resulting from bushes half baked economic plans your only retort is based on this faulty picture of the lazy vagrant drug addicted poor, stealing from the hard working and deserving rich. It all boils down to self interest, on your part and on the part of bush, but let me ask you this, what millionare\billionare has ever had to lower thier standard of living even to that of the average american because of federal income tax? I really doesnt happen. Furthermore welfare is not nearly as well funded as other programs such as the millitary, dept of homeland security, etc. Do you also beleive that those programs should be cut so that the wealthy can hoard thier money? Do you beleive that the middle class would be better off dealing with these tax burdens? Finally I wanted to portray my disgust with someone who repeatedly spits on the poor for being lazy and using drugs, yet admits to getting “lit” and apparently (if my understanding is correct) grew up in the privelaged household of a doctor. I can say I share both of these latter traits, however I feel that my social privalage should be used to help others of a lower standing, and I dont spit on those who use drugs, given that I myself have engaged in such activities.
February 15th, 2004 at 11:50 am
Rob,
When I read the last response (as I am in the habit of doing when surfing these types of websites), posted on February 14th 2004 by Hurin, I expected someone of Hurin’s caliber as an opponent. How wrong was I? Your incoherent article underlines your ignorance of society. You are not a good representation of rich people (I know you’re rich because only rich people think the way you do!) For example, your article said:
“who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?”
Well this is charming isn’t it? I’ll address this issue as briefly as I can. Did it ever occur to you that some people are born into poverty and have no choice in life? Did it ever occur to you that the neighborhoods in which poor people live provide no basic forms of education, welfare, training, leisure, etc (at least nothing similar to what you have experienced)? Did it ever occur to you that some people live differently from you and hence don’t think the same way as you? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people do drugs? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people make the wrong decisions? And thus, did it ever occur to you that some people are poor because they want to (i.e. some people choose a low paid salary because they like what they do and cannot afford the same commodities as yourself)? Consequently, did it ever occur to you that not everyone is an opportunist like you and most rich people? Did it ever occur to you that most poor people haven’t been raised in a comfortable, loving environment like yourself? Did it ever occur to you that poor people haven’t got the same options as you and can’t achieve the same social status as you?
You seem to have no idea of how the world works. Away from your relaxed lifestyle there are people who live harder more difficult lives than you. I do not doubt, for one second, that if you were placed in that same situation you would break down. And by the way, these poor druggies are the people that pick up your trash, clean your streets, maintain public buildings not to mention businesses. Without them society would collapse, just remember that. What would happen if the trash men went on strike, hey? (And don’t say the army would do it!)
Hurin,
It is a pleasure to read your article and reassuring to know someone likeminded on asite like this. This site isn’t anything like the other mindless hate sites I have come across; I may become a regular visitor…
February 16th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
Bill-
Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)
My sense of the globe is fine and what makes it such is the reason that I do this. I’m here writing this stuff because I feel that I need to argue to, firstly, work on my writing and secondly to truly become aware politically. I’m here because I want to learn. I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone. There you go Bill. That’s all I have to say to you.
I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances. Still, I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.
February 17th, 2004 at 8:45 am
Rob
I couldn’t help reading your last article and I thought I’d give you some help. Not because I am trying to discredit your work (in fact, I agree with most of what you said), but because you said you were trying to improve you’re writing, and I thought I would help. Though I’m no Shakespeare myself, I do know a bit about spelling, punctuation and grammar. You said:
“Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)”
You could have said
Thanks for the stereotype man; you can sure call a rich, uneducated person out because they are the only ones that think like I do. (This shows the exposure, you, as a grown man, have to the world… touché).
February 17th, 2004 at 9:08 am
Yes thank you. I’m extremely afraid of comma splices so don’t use commas like they should be used. Thank you
February 17th, 2004 at 9:31 am
Rob
Well, it seems that I stand justified on the first paragraph. I am sorry for being stereotypical and acknowledge that I was a bit aggressive in my response, again, sorry.
The second paragraph was a bit unclear but I think I realize what you are trying to say. I am here for the same reason, that is, I am here to learn too (you see I am not a man, but someone still in full time education). Nonetheless, that shouldn’t make my opinion of the world any less credible. In the paragraph you said,
“I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone”
Here, I could go through your entire article and pick holes in it, down to every word (as you probably could do with mine), but I’m not. This one sentence annoys me insofar as you are implying you only listen to people you have previously spoken to. I recognize I was a bit harsh with my first article and that may consequently lead you to ignoring me in the future but that does not make my opinion any less probable.
I know your response was not a reply insofar as it was more a general criticism of my opinions (and it included no direct criticisms of my article) but I would like to address the last issue you mentioned in the third paragraph. Call it a matter of principles, if you may. You said,
“I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.”
Well how do you suppose we, the people who are not living in terminal poverty, tell the people who are that we can no longer feed/support them? Maybe I misread your article but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying than that is a very spiteful remark. I can understand that people shouldn’t have the ‘luxury’ of a free living, but, how then, do you suppose the people who depend on ‘charity’ carry on living?
Surely, it is the society that has driven them to poverty (“one mans riches is another mans rags” serves as a nice case in point). Your suggestion may work as a guarantee that people would feel obliged to work (and if they didn’t they would gain no free handouts) but it falls short when considering the people who are confined to poverty today. These people, Rob, cannot get employed. Would you disregard them just because they have the misfortune of being born into a poor family with no great prospects ahead of them in life?
My point being: You, just like me, could be born into a poor neighborhood. Can’t you see that this would drastically affect you life chances? Presuming you have inherited your wealth, is it not your duty, and others like you, to help people in less well-off backgrounds? Walt Disney was born extremely poor; he did not make the ‘poor decisions’ in life. What I’m saying is just because one person is poor that does not make them any worse a person than you. (Even more so if you have inherited your wealth.)
Keep up the writing and you’ll get there. I respectfully await your response, not that I expect one!
February 17th, 2004 at 10:39 am
Rob, you say that you critique of welfare is based on the economics of the situation, however I can see only a minimal basis for this assesment. It is true that welfare is not the most efficient program, and that it is prone to fraudulent claims, however I fail to see how this condemns it as a whole. Welfare is in a continual state of reform, and with the right set of changes it may well become more efficient. The fact however is and remains that not only has the program been relatively small in the scope of past government spending, but recently George W. Bush has slashed social spending even further in order to curb deficites, and to minimal gain. The deficite is still projected to be over $500 Billion, and the fault of this lies on the tax cuts which drastically lower the government intake, while spending for more beefy programs, such as defense remains largely the same. Among the really greivios issues here is also what defense spending has been recently allocated to: in the face of the unconventional terrorist threat, president bush has chosen to allocate large amounts of the defense budget to buying such weapons as new bombers tanks and other conventional weapons useful for a conventional war, but useless against small groups of terrorists. He has also proposed a regan style missle defense which is still unfeasable with current technology. This kind of mis-allocation of funds is what needs to go, not welfare.
Off the topic, one way you could improve the strength of your points, would be to resist the temptation to include statements that distract from the points you wish to make with your response. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
“I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances.”
when I read this passage I was so confused by your references to tripping and playing with monkeys that the point I think you meant to emphasise, about realizing that poor people may be the product of thier circumstances, was fundamentally comprimised. Rather than that point sticking in my mind I was contemplating whether you were serious about the monkeys, or what you might have meant by that part of the statement. Also bear in mind that such statements can undermine your credibility as they make you appear less serious.
P.S. Bill, thank you for your flattering assesment of my response, I look forward to seeing more commentary from you should you choose to return.
February 18th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
Bill-
Your chatisement spurned a new wave of thinking within me. I realized just how spiteful I sounded. I want to apologize for saying what i have said about poor people, for they don’t all use drugs and abuse the welfare system. Though I still feel strongly about welfare reform I know that welfare is in fact a good thing.
The line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys is a direct quote of hansel from Zoolander (right before the walkoff). It was meant to confuse, and well entertain if you were in on the joke.
Alright back to work.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:01 pm
ah, that makes much more sense; I thought you were saying it in earnest and it totally threw me.
February 19th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
All politics aside, I think GW Bush is just pure evil and that his family raised him that way. Any man that sends our men and women off to die in a war that never should have taken place has to be an evil man. The Italian military intel that found the false documents about nukes in Iraq disproved them in a matter of minutes. How could our government claim not to have known that they were false documents? If you believe the NSA didn’t know they were false documents, you’re certifiable. Oh, and just a note there are documents in the Italian government’s hands stateing that the nuke documents were proven false by a Google.com search. It’s disgusting what you’re being led to believe America and you eat it up!
PS Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If you don’t know this by now you’re really brainwashed.
I just want to say, the thing that pisses me off most, Military families are barely given enough pay to survive. Now the administration is talking about takeing away vital overtime pay? If you support GW Bush it’s obvious you don’t give a sh-t about our men and women in uniform. The current administration has done nothing but make the life of our Vets more difficult. Want to call yourselves Patriots, stop supporting the sick campaign Bush has against our military! He’ll gladly sacrifice our friends and family but he won’t spend any money to keep VA Hospitals open, secure overtime pay for soldiers or give families who have lost loved ones the restitution worthy of their sacrifice. It’s really disgusting. And you should be as pissed off as the military families are! At some point military families aren’t going to stand for the crap they’ve had to deal with for over thirty years plus! I’m not sure what it’s going to take but I’m sure they’re going to get pissed off enough to do something about the straights they are in. GW Bush is a purely evil man and I’m going to stand by that, no matter what you have to say. Oh, and to you folks that believe this bullshine, if America were in Iraq for humanitarian reasons America would have been in China, Africa, Cuba and a host of other countries before we ever went to Iraq. Always remember, those chemical weapons Saddam used on the Curds were the ones the US gave him. WAKE UP America and stop happily eating the sh-t you’re being fed!
February 20th, 2004 at 11:48 am
Rob-
First of all, thank you for your response; I cannot say I expected it. (Again, this website, and the people who visit it, surprises me!)
Secondly, the line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys entertained me even though I didn’t have the slightest idea what you were saying! In fact, when you mentioned ‘acid’ and ‘spider monkeys’, I was considering if you were referring to psychedelic drugs, and was in the process of rebutting the statement “I was tripping acid” because over here, in Britain, we call it “tripping on acid”. But of course, I stopped myself short, remembering different countries have different terminology relating to things of that sort!
Moving on, it’s great that you have managed to start thinking in a different way. If you still feel strongly about issues such as welfare, then research into arguments that support your theory. It is also helpful to research into arguments that oppose your theory; you can then readily point out the fallacies of differing arguments, if any! Find a subject that you have great interest in, and instead of regarding researching as chore; you will find learning invigorating and interesting.
It is recommended when learning, to be as open minded as possible (this sounds easy but in practice I find it very, very hard). If you want a general knowledge, find books that you can easily read, and not just ones that you are personally interested in, read the daily newspapers and intellectual magazines. That is the path to general knowledge. If you want a more specific knowledge, the same resources apply but I find the Internet more interesting and practical.
You mentioned wanting to become politically aware, I recommend an Australian journalist, John Pilger. He is my main source on ‘political’ issues and a writer/director that comes highly recommended; please read some of his articles/books. He has directed documentaries and written thousands of articles on the state of the world today. He is impartial and (I believe) the best journalist in the world. He bases all his beliefs on evidence. Not like most novelists, Pilger uses sources (and if you are going to read one of his books, you will see no less than three footnotes on every page!). I am in the process of checking out all the sources of his most recent book “The New Rulers of the World”. So far they all check out! I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK. Anyone else who happens to be reading this, make an effort to read his work.
Hurin-
It’s a pleasure and I shall return. I think you shall enjoy the next article if you haven’t read it already.
K-
I cannot say that I disagree with most of what you said. I hate GW Bush, that’s why I’m on a website entitled “Why I hate George Bush”.
I know that weapons have been sold to Saddam by America. I also know the CIA funded the Taliban. I also know that 50,000 conscript Iraqi soldiers were carbonized when marching home AFTER the end of the first Gulf War. Hell, I even know that 567,000 innocent children were killed as a direct result of the sanctions put in place by the British and American government from the end of the first Gulf war to march 2003 in Iraq. If you refuse to believe this, (as a lot of people are in the habit of doing) type in “UNICEF (that stands for: United Nations Children’s Fund), sanctions, Iraqi children” into a search engine and you should find the information you are looking for. If that’s not enough to swat you, you shouldn’t trust anyone, because UNICEF is an organization funded and approved by the U.S. and the U.K. (To make it more clear than it needs to be, these are the same governments that emplaced the sanctions)
Back to Bush’s, I also know that while GW Bush is preaching freedom and ‘trying’ to generate a culture of liberty, he is disallowing prisoner’s fundamental human rights. Guantanamo Bay is even in breach of the Magna Carter, not to mention article 6 of America’s constitution. Here, I could write all day long about the way the Bush family illegally made money through oil, the real reason why Bush senior attacked Somalia (made into a film called “Black Hawk Down”) and a hell of a lot of other things but I can’t be bothered! You come across as a like-minded individual so you’ll probably agree with me anyway.
However, one thing I am not K, is a patriot. You may call me a ‘weenie’ but I am in no position to support my country, or any other, when they behave in the way in which they do. I believe you’re right when you say the government mistreats its soldiers. That’s why half of all homeless people in Britain are said to be homeless! But Bush, just like Hitler, has to respect his army. You see, without them, he is nothing. But saying this, out of all the stupid things GW Bush has done, I don’t think he will accomplish that one! I think it’s a shame really!
Just in case you, and everyone else, think I have gone mad (with rantings of children’s deaths and homeless people), I will be posting some history on Iraq later just to prove all my wild accusations!
February 20th, 2004 at 11:58 am
Just as I promised, here is an article written by a former U.S. attorney General. Ramsey Clark. It illustrates the history of Iraq from the start of the 20th century. Please read this with an open mind as most people who do read this refuse to believe it. The fact of the matter is, this is fact, if it wasn’t, Ramsey Clark would be jailed for treason and up to his eyeballs in lawsuits! Iraq has been a target of U.S. covert actions since at least 1958, when a popular revolution led by Abdel Kassem overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, which was installed by Britain in 1921. In 1960, the new government helped found the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to resist Western oil monopolies.1 The CIA plotted Kassem’s assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a military plan, called “Canonbone,” to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil fields.2 In 1963, Kassem and thousands of supporters were massacred in a CIA-backed coup. In 1968, the Baathist Party came to power. In 1972, it nationalized the U.S./U.K.-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company under the slogan “Arab oil for the Arabs.” After a meeting with President Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, the CIA urged Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to rebel against the Iraqi government. The U.S. promised to back them all the way. The House Select Committee on Intelligence Pike Report described it as a “cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations.”3 The Shah funnelled U.S.-supplied arms to the Kurds.4 The Pike Report stated that neither the Shah “nor the President and Kissinger desired victory for [the Kurds]. They hoped the insurgents would [maintain] a level of hostilities to sap the resources of [Iraq].”5 In 1975, Iraq agreed to share the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with Iran. Support for the Kurds was terminated. The fate of Kurds left behind did not concern the U.S. As Kissinger said “Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work.”6 In 1979, the Iranian people to overthrew the shah’s despotic regime. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski then publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.7 In 1980, the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence reports that Iran would quickly collapse in the face of an Iraqi advance. At the urging of U.S.-backed Arab rulers in Kuwait, Egypt and elsewhere, Saddam Hussein unleashed a war with Iran in which hundreds of thousands died.8 The attack served U.S. interests by weakening Iran, where U.S. embassy personnel were still kept hostage. The U.S. did not want either side to win. “We wanted to avoid victory by both sides,” a Reagan official told the New York Times.9 Kissinger was more blunt: “I hope they kill each other” and “too bad they both can’t lose.”10 Iraq could not have sustained the eight year war without massive assistance, direct and indirect, from the U.S.S.R., Eastern bloc countries, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, the U.S., U.K., France, and West Germany. The Pentagon and CIA provided Iraq with satellite and AWACS intelligence on Iranian forces.11 The U.S. sent CIA and Special Forces to train Iraqi commandos and the U.S. helped funnel billions of dollars worth of arms to Iraq.12 Egypt, a major recipient of U.S. military aid, sent troops, tanks and heavy artillery to Iraq.13 In 1980, the military dictatorship in Turkey - a major recipient of U.S. military aid - sent troops to fight rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan, freeing Iraq’s army to concentrate on fighting Iran. The U.S.-supported regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also supported Iraq’s war effort. Kuwait’s contributed over $30 billion. The U.S. sold over $20 billion worth of arms to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states during this period and allowed Saudi Arabia to transfer large quantities of U.S. arms to Iraq during the war. In 1984, the U.S. became Iraq’s principal trading partner by increasing its purchases of Iraqi oil while encouraging Europe and Japan to do likewise.14 The Reagan administration increased intelligence-sharing with Iraq. Vice President Bush, the State Department and the CIA lobbied for large-scale financing of U.S. exports to Iraq.15 In 1986, the U.S. sent a CIA team to advise the Iraqi military.16 But the U.S. was supporting both sides. In 1983, U.S. and Turkish generals were preparing to re-implement the 1958 “Cannonbone” plan.17 Until 1986, the U.S. funnelled arms to Iran through Oliver North, Israel and Pakistan.18 In 1985, Oliver North told Iranian officials that the U.S. would try to engineer the overthrow of Hussein.19 In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the war on Iraq’s side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf. Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers. The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms. In 1987, Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA’s coup in Iran. When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21 In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22 In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23 In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR’s disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources. The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention. To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait. In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait seized 900 square miles of Iraq’s Rumaila oil field. Using U.S. drilling technology, Kuwait was also stealing oil that was indisputably inside Iraq. When Iraqi troops amassed on the border, Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office to clarify the U.S. position. Glaspie assured him: “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.”24
Footnotes: 1. Middle East Economic Survey, May 12, 1961. 2. New Statesman, July 15, 1983. 3. Gerard Chaliand and Ismet Seriff Vanly, People Without A Country, 1980, 184. 4. Will Safire, New York Times, Feb.12, 1976. 5. See Chaliand and Vanly. 6. See Chaliand and Vanly 7. Christopher Hitchens, Harper’s Magazine, Jan.1991, 70. 8. Dilip Hiro, The Longest War, 1991. 9. S. Hersh, New York Times, Jan.26, 1992, 1. 10. Shahram Chubinl and Charles Trip, Iran and Iraq at War, 1988, 207. 11. The Christic Institute, “Covert Operations, the Persian Gulf War and the New World Order.” 12. The Economist, May 6, 1982. 13. Francis Boyle, “International Crisis and Neutrality: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward the Iraq-Iran War,” in Neutrality: Changing Concepts and Practices, 1986. 14. Leslie Gelb, “Bush’s Iraqi Blunder,” New York Times, May 4, 1992 15. “‘Nightline’ on the Bush-Iraq Connection,” in Israel and Palestine Political Report, June 1991, 5. 16. Toward 2000, Mar.16, 1991. 17. Far Eastern Economic Review, Dec.19, 1991. 18. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Appendix A: vol. 1, Tape 12, 1500. 19. Fred Halliday, Arabia Without Sultans: A Political Survey of Instability in the Arab World, 1975. 20. Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for Control of Iran, 1979. 21. William Webster, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Jan.23, 1990, 60. 22. Norman Schwarzkopf, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Feb.8, 1990, 577-579. 23. U.S. Army, “A Strategic Force for the 1990s and Beyond,” Jan.1990, 1-17. 24. Stewart M. Powell, San Fransisco Examiner, Sept. 24, 1990, A12.
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:14 am
Uh yeah, looks like the “overwhelming body of evidence” against invading Iraq that I talked about in the Iraq debate has just surfaced. Wow I had heard a great deal of those things from various sources but the sheer ugliness of the facts when all stated together is kind of mindblowing. What I want to know is why none of this history is never mentioned when it is inconvenient for the Bush administration. It seems like these people are thriving on the ignorance of a huge chunk of america.
February 24th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
George W. Bush is nothing but an overgrown frat boy who got lucky. Let’s hope to God that this time the voting system won’t fail us miserably. I still cannot believe that he got away with going AWOL.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:31 pm
George W. Bush was never lucky. The only luck he had was his daddy and his daddy’s oil buddies who were happy to do Bush Sr. favors as long as Bush Jr. was their puppet. Bush Sr. has always been around to pull all the strings for Bush Jr. That’s the only way he managed to get into the White House. People thought Clinton was a corrupt, unprincipled, slimely politician, but I’m afraid the Bushes have that market covered.
February 24th, 2004 at 9:34 pm
Arg! My hand twitched and I accidently double-posted! Damn my sleep-deprived motor skills! Feel free to delete and make look less stupid
February 25th, 2004 at 4:20 am
Hurin- Thankyou for the response, it’s a shame i haven’t heard from Rob too. I’m in the process of writing an article in response to what you said. It will probably arrive in the next few days.
February 25th, 2004 at 5:15 am
Hurin-
I had a spare 5 minutes and I thought I might tell you another fact to further substantiate my Iraqi children claim. You’re gona love this, the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it for the maintaining of economic sanctions. She replied, and I quote,
“we think the price is worth it”
It may not come as a surprise that she no longer has her job. But seriously, this is an illustration of the sheer ignorance of politicians today. I recently found out she has won an award for her ‘tenacity’ in her career.
Type in Madeline Albright, sanctions, comments, Iraqi children to any search engine
February 25th, 2004 at 5:38 am
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:
“Liberal Democrats claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!” LET’S NOT FORGET THAT EVER ONE SUPPORTED THIS WAR BECAUSE OF 9-11.
February 25th, 2004 at 10:51 am
Edward (and anyone else who might have seen the letter that Edward posted):
I strongly suggest you visit Making Light: Disinformation, where a number of people are in the process of taking apart that letter and exposing it for the well-written piece of misleading propaganda that it is.
Some samples:
There’s a lot more there in the thread I linked to. End result, this letter purporting to “clear things up” is just one more piece of slickly produced propaganda.
February 25th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Edward,
Ditto to what Woody said above. And in addition to that, there is one minor piece of clarification I would like to add: The war in Iraq was not in response to 9/11. It was in response to Bush’s misguided belief that Saddam was producing the much touted WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). There is no doubt that Saddam was a terrible dictator that sucked the life out of his people, the wealth out of his country and ordered human rights atrocities. The sanctions that were imposed upon Iraq for over a decade didn’t help either. But in the end, were we, as a nation, justified in invading Iraq? Well, Bush told the people of the United States that it was suspected that Saddam and his gov’t were hiding WMD’s and nearly a year after the U.S. invasion there are still NO WMD’s to be found. Bush, due to public pressure I imagine, has even admitted that he must’ve been wrong.
The real deal with this whole war thing is not about the imaginary WMD’s - it’s about securing the U.S.’s interests in Mid-East oil. It also helps that the Bush family has close ties to the Saudi royal family AND to Osama Bin Laden’s family living in Saudi Arabia. The only interest W. has is his own. What makes him the worst president is that he has put his own interests before the country he is supposed to be leading. And he hasn’t even done a very good job at hiding his connections and failings because he knows he’s got the power through his father and political ties.
All this information is actually rather easy to find if you’ve got some time on your hands. Don’t swallow what the media and the Whitehouse tries to spoonfeed the public. The information is all there in public record just waiting to be put together like a great puzzle. Do a little digging and you’ll find a goldmine.
February 25th, 2004 at 1:02 pm
I hate “president” George W. Bush. He literally stole the election.(People with names that SOUNDED like felons were not aloud to vote.Unless, of course, you had the money to fix it) I am 12 years old, but even I can plainly see that Bush is a lying hypocrit. He invaded Iraq, claiming that they were a threat to the US.It really scares me to think about a country on the other side of the world in the middle of the desert that does not have any nuclear weapons. He claims that it was still the right thing to do, because Iraq was lead by Saddam, a cruel leader.I cannot argue this, but if he is going to “liberate” Iraq, then why doesn’t he liberate countries all over the world that need our help. Especially countries like Liberia or Haiti, nations that we, The US, set up. Bush has passed a countless number of bills that astonish me. Cutting funding of programs like UNICEF, giving tax cuts to rich people, not to those who need it most, and many, many more. He violated the U.N., and is basically well on his way to the demise of our country.If he is re-elected in 2004,things will get much worse. But what astounds me the most is that no one seems to care. The ignorance of Americans is amazing.You would think that Americans would look and see what was happening to thier own country, and try to look past what the goverment tells them but they don’t. Please, in the elections, don’t vote for Bush. I don’t care if Carey, Dean, or Edwards is elected, ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
February 25th, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Everyone here get a custom t-shirt that says ” Behold the sum of all our fears, Bush may be back for four more years”, and have a picture of bush under those words. I have one.
February 25th, 2004 at 4:45 pm
I think hatred is something that must be cautiously distributed. But I hate Bush. He is not my president. He was not elected by the public. He was elected by Scalia, Kennedy, Rehnquist and, most distressingly, O’Connor and Thomas. A woman and an African-American elected this stupid good ‘ole boy who cannot even spell his own name or score in the top 50% on the SAT. The highest office in this pathetic excuse for a democracy is occupied by someone dumber than more than half of the people who took the freakin’ SAT. I am so sickened to be an American under his watch that I have honestly considered moving to Europe. Maybe France. Maybe some place that does not think that you have to be a militant hawk in order to be a patriot. Excuse me, but I have to go throw up now.
February 26th, 2004 at 10:22 am
Twas the night before christmas
and all through the land
Florida was still counting there ballets by hand…….AGAIN!
Some were going for Bush
some were going for Gore
The supreme court was baffled
Ohh what a bore
While Nadar was still tring to get 5%
So the green party would be funded
and he could represent
Clinton was celebrating
thats all that we know
5 extra weeks in office
ho ho ho ho!!!
Then down in Tallahase
there arrose such a clatter
they stoped the hand counting
to see what was the matter
The supreme court declared
they would postpone the fight,
they would settle it all on monday night
But allas!
the supreme court did not keep their word
they settled it on tuesday
how absurd
The supreme courts vote
was 5 to 4
to elect cheating Bush
and ditch honest Al Gore
So Bush has won
and Gore had lost
but before Al Gore went off the wire
He said “Ill be back” as the election expired
February 26th, 2004 at 10:32 am
I think possibly the most disturbing thing about this administration is something you just said, that an unquestioning worship of the