|
loquacius posted:Remember, according to conservative ideology anything that provides the rich with more money conveniently gives you more freedom somehow! Well, you know what they say: Mo' money, mo' problems.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You could also elaborate on this unless it was a joke in which case "whoosh" on my part. I just think Bush is due for political rehabilitation and we might as well start hashing out the pro/con arguments before the mainstream media starts easing back into it. He's poking his head up more often as well, like for the LBJ commemoration coming up. He's getting set to burnish his legacy, and it's going to be important to make criticisms of him that are especially relevant to him, rather than to any other president put in his set of circumstances. I think the following criticisms of Bush are totally valid -"decisiveness" sometimes prevented him from gathering additional data -hired Donald Rumsfeld -totally tried to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court -a bunch of others But criticisms that he was inarticulate or unusually warlike don't really hold up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Radish posted:I especially like the part where rich people fighting the government legally is a check on tyranny. I'd love to know which court cases they've been fighting that increased my freedom as opposed to limiting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:I especially like the part where rich people fighting the government legally is a check on tyranny. I'd love to know which court cases they've been fighting that increased my freedom as opposed to limiting it. The rich support the rights of people against the federal government. Of course according to them, there is a minimum requirement of wealth and influence to be a "person" and as such there are only about a thousand "people" living in the United States. Everyone else, you, me, all of us, being peasants or serfs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But criticisms that he was inarticulate...don't really hold up. in·ar·tic·u·late adjective 1. unable to speak distinctly or express oneself clearly. http://youtu.be/Be6tunbRcs8
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I just think Bush is due for political rehabilitation and we might as well start hashing out the pro/con arguments before the mainstream media starts easing back into it. He's poking his head up more often as well, like for the LBJ commemoration coming up. He's getting set to burnish his legacy, and it's going to be important to make criticisms of him that are especially relevant to him, rather than to any other president put in his set of circumstances. Surprised you didn't include: -Took the country to war under unbelievably false pretenses which resulted in thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths at the loss of a massive amount of prestige and money. Or -Authorized torture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think the following criticisms of Bush are totally valid 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Sorry double post.
Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:in·ar·tic·u·late If you look at Bush as trying to express a specific political persona as well as (or even more than) a precisely worded message, he was very articulate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:When was the last time a President invaded another country with 100,000+ troops in order to enact regime change? Are you trying to be pedantic about the number of troops sent or are you just trolling?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
When was the last time a President invaded another country with 100,000+ troops in order to enact regime change? Or are you just trolling? The Warszawa posted:If you look at Bush as trying to express a specific political persona as well as (or even more than) a precisely worded message, he was very articulate. If you mean "articulate" as "can barely appear on TV without saying something extremely stupid or offensive" then man, he was articulate! You guys are giving W way too much credit, as if his cowboy persona was some sort of purposeful marketing strategy. It wasn't - he honestly believed (and still does) that he's a man's man and just because the rubes ate it up it doesn't make him the American Machiavelli. Fried Chicken posted:Are you trying to be pedantic about the number of troops sent or are you just trolling? Ok maybe you can tell me what constitutes a good quantifier for the term "warlike" ? Number of civilians killed during an administration? How does one million sound? Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:When was the last time a President invaded another country with 100,000+ troops in order to enact regime change? Uh if you impose the condition of 100,000+ troops, 1965 I guess? Otherwise 1989. And the "Bushisms" clip goes exactly to my point. Media were always on the lookout for gaffes, but Obama has produced any number of them. Oh what's that? The "57 states" thing was an obvious gotcha without substance? Well you don't loving say. The media decided "Bush as dumbass" was a story worth telling, and Bush was happy to go along with it. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
You think one verbal misstep in 7 years of national media coverage equals someone who has a 4 minute long "best of" video? Also bonus points for blaming the media. Might as well get in a few zingers about teleprompters while you're at it. Again - someone made the claim that Bush was "not especially warlike". What the gently caress metric do you propose since 100,000+ ground invasions is so against your delicate sensibilities?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
You can even watch the 57 states thing. Obama knows the number is wrong in the middle of saying the number! It's like when people say "there is" and then say a plural noun afterwards. They know they're wrong but it's silly to try to go back and change the first part of what you said. This is some Friedman-level false equivalencing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Who was your president from 2000-2008? Mine was Bush and he does not fit that description.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
menino posted:You can even watch the 57 states thing. Obama knows the number is wrong in the middle of saying the number! Yes, it's a baseless criticism! Just like it was of Bush. Understand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
The fact that he's willing to through in Panama (23 US casualties) as some sort of equivalence to Iraq is evidence enough he's just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, it's a baseless criticism! Just like it was of Bush. Understand? It's not a baseless criticism when a politician often says dumb things. It's not baseless for Bush nor is it for Dem politicians like Biden or Maxine Waters or whoever else you want to look at. The problem is for Obama the only example you have is "57 states" whereas for those other politicians I listed you could compile a page of quotes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
.
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:When was the last time a President invaded another country with 100,000+ troops in order to enact regime change? Bush is a blood gargling psychopathic war monger but that doesn't particularly distinguish him. Not does using false pretenses to do it. What does distinguish him is how his wars did not even have the real politik of advancing America's interests (and in fact Iraq was counter our interests given the prior establishment of an interest in Afghanistan) and the sheer incompetence with which he waged them and actively are the situation there worse (eg picking a diplomatic fight with Iran rather than accepting their aid)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's not a baseless criticism when a politician often says dumb things. It's not baseless for Bush nor is it for Dem politicians like Biden or Maxine Waters or whoever else you want to look at. The problem is for Obama the only example you have is "57 states" whereas for those other politicians I listed you could compile a page of quotes. "not unusually warlike" was the one that jumped out at me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The problem is for Obama the only example you have is "57 states" whereas for those other politicians I listed you could compile a page of quotes. I have more. Remember when he compared his bowling to the Special Olympics? Or when he switched the names of the posthumous and living Medal of Honor recipients? Ouch. I think either one of those would have stuck to Bush a little better. Fried Chicken posted:Bush is a blood gargling psychopathic war monger but that doesn't particularly distinguish him. Not does using false pretenses to do it. What does distinguish him is how his wars did not even have the real politik of advancing America's interests (and in fact Iraq was counter our interests given the prior establishment of an interest in Afghanistan) and the sheer incompetence with which he waged them and actively are the situation there worse (eg picking a diplomatic fight with Iran rather than accepting their aid) This is a good criticism of George W. Bush.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey moron, you asked this: And I answered you with and without your qualifier. Yeah, that you saw fit to answer without the qualifier was a lovely attempt by you to equate the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Panama - a comparison so laughable it doesn't even need to be discussed. We get it - you think Bush wasn't warlike. That's cool - you're just wrong and the lengths you're going to support your claim make you look really stupid. I mean please, go on and tell us how the invasion of Panama caused a million civilian deaths. I can't wait. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:"not unusually warlike" was the one that jumped out at me. "Not unusually warlike" for a sitting president of the United States of America, not "not unusually warlike" for an average person off the street. I mean, gently caress, even Carter violated sovereign territory with his cool toys. Of course that's not equivalent to Iraq, but using the military to gently caress with sovereign nations is something every American president going back over a hundred years has done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:"not unusually warlike" was the one that jumped out at me. There isn't a world leader who doesn't end up with blood on their hands. That's just the way of it. So no, Bush is not outstanding in that regard. The issue is how much of that was necessary as part of the means to achieve the end and if the end justified the means. And by that incredibly low standard he was spectacularly terrible. See the book in the op, Fiasco for a good summary of direct Iraq incompetence, never mind that Iraq in no way shape or form served the interests of anyone but war profiteers and accelerationists
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:"Not unusually warlike" for a sitting president of the United States of America, not "not unusually warlike" for an average person off the street. I mean, gently caress, even Carter violated sovereign territory with his cool toys. Of course that's not equivalent to Iraq, but using the military to gently caress with sovereign nations is something every American president going back over a hundred years has done. Faking evidence for WMDs just to have an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 then outing a CIA agent (whose job was tracking down loose nukes) because her husband was going to drop the dime seems a little more egregious than most of our recent administrations. VVVV And Cheney was the Vice President for which administration again? Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Bush didn't fake the intel, Cheney did. By that standard, Obama personally sold guns to the cartels.Unzip and Attack posted:Yeah, that you saw fit to answer without the qualifier was a lovely attempt by you to equate the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of Panama - a comparison so laughable it doesn't even need to be discussed. We get it - you think Bush wasn't warlike. That's cool - you're just wrong and the lengths you're going to support your claim make you look really stupid. I'm saying that your criteria was arbitrary. I could argue that impunity and disregard for international law in military interventions is as good a gauge of being warlike as deployment size. And no, Bush was not especially warlike, circumstances conspired to bring out the war president in him. Nixon and Reagan easily rate higher than him. The difference is that Bush was operating in a monopole world with unprecedented political capital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:"Not unusually warlike" for a sitting president of the United States of America, not "not unusually warlike" for an average person off the street. I mean, gently caress, even Carter violated sovereign territory with his cool toys. Of course that's not equivalent to Iraq, but using the military to gently caress with sovereign nations is something every American president going back over a hundred years has done. Yes but scale is important. As you say, Presidents always find a way to violate territorial sovereignty of other countries. This is true. The extent to which they do it matters, and to hear nimrods making these false comparisons is extremely annoying. SedanChair posted:
Ok genius how do you quantify these so we can make a comparison? Invasion size and civilian casualties aren't good for you, so give me some quantifiable data that works. How about the cost of all the elective military operations initiated by the administration? Or, you know, keep it vague so your comparisons seem less absurd. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I have more. Remember when he compared his bowling to the Special Olympics? Or when he switched the names of the posthumous and living Medal of Honor recipients? Ouch. I think either one of those would have stuck to Bush a little better. There's a pretty big difference between mixing up names and being unable to string a sentence together. e: I'll drop this if you can link one Bush speech of a few minutes length that can be qualified as good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPuY5hI96U Any number of sentences strung together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, it's a baseless criticism! Just like it was of Bush. Understand? How is it just like Bush? Give an explanation of the context behind Bush's major gaffes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Bush didn't fake the intel, Cheney did. By that standard, Obama personally sold guns to the cartels. OK, have it your way. I see the Iraq invasion as the desired result of the Bush administration. If you don't think he was in on any of the meetings to bring it about, you have a more charitable view of him than I ever could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Bush should have tried asking people to let him be clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But criticisms that he was inarticulate or unusually warlike don't really hold up. I'd be curious to hear your reasons why a criticism of his presidency for the Iraq War wouldn't hold up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:How big does the pile of skills have to be before you declare a leader "warlike"? I'm not really sure. I haven't seen a President with a "big pile of skills" in my lifetime. SedanChair posted:Media were always on the lookout for (Bush) gaffes... Oh for crying the gently caress out loud. OK. I think I may have you confused with a different poster at one time I considered reasonable but who then started posting dumb poo poo that gave me pause. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'd be curious to hear your reasons why a criticism of his presidency for the Iraq War wouldn't hold up. Saddam tried to kill his dad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Faking evidence for WMDs just to have an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 then outing a CIA agent (whose job was tracking down loose nukes) because her husband was going to drop the dime seems a little more egregious than most of our recent administrations. How far do you want to stretch "recent administrations"? Gulf of Tonkin is 50 years old come August
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm not really sure. I haven't seen a President with a "big pile of skills" in my lifetime. My iPhone still hasn't stopped correcting my cursing, I'm not surprised it flips skulls to skills
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:How far do you want to stretch "recent administrations"? Gulf of Tonkin is 50 years old come August Remember the Maine!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Rachel Maddow did a special recently that pretty much proved that we went to Iraq for oil and that they always planned to go to Iraq because of oil. But, we all basically knew that we went to Iraq for oil, so aside from the particulars of the scheme it wasn't exactly a mind-blowing revelation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:28
|
|
