Political temper tantrum (I suppose this is off topic)

Triathlon Forum
1

All right, I broke down, I read a couple of political post on this board. It really makes me frustrated. rant mode on (and don’t even think about flipping that off switch.) For those of you looking for a tri-thread, stop reading now!

First of all, Bush.
What is his job? President.
What does that involve?
Running the country.

What does Bush have to do with the war? Yes he wanted it, but then again so did Congress and Colin Powell, and a majority of Americans (the ones that vote specifically.)
Has he been covering things up? NO! Don’t even think about trying to feed me this Bull sh!+ that he’s covering things up. I’d say this has probably been the most publicly open campaign/term the nation has ever seen. Does he have secrets? Maybe, but if he does he’s sure notd about keeping them from the media.
Has he lied about anything? Not really, he said he believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We believed what he believed. Were we wrong, looks like it now.
Were we justified in going into Iraq? Absolutely. Day’s before we went in,Saddam around missles (pardon me, I can’t recall the name at the moment) that were clearly on the banned list of weapons. We’ve found numerous weapons he wasn’t supposed to have. Just none of mass destruction, in a court of law, it really wouldn’t matter. Saddam messed up.

The prisoners in Iraq. You know what, I’ll bet Bush was behind all of those orgy’s. Doesn’t he seem like the kinda guy to walk some one around with a hood and leash? Goodness, give me a freakin break! Why do people put Bush and the prisoners in the same sentence? (though I seem to have just managed fine.) Yes, someone’s head needs to roll (figuratively), but Bush had absolutely nothing to do with any of that in Iraq. Blame someone in the prisons in Iraq, not someone thousands of miles away who found out about the abuse right along with the rest of us on CNN.

I really don’t intend to post anymore on this, so here’s my final thought.
Stop trying to find a scape goat. You think there’s a problm,fine. That’s your right, but quit throwing sh!+ at a guy just so you can feel “good.” I don’t know about you, but I try to respect people for who they are, not for who someone thinks they are supposed to be.
This isn’t a pro-Bush or a pro-Kerry thread. Vote for whoever you think is best qualified for the job.
But stop being a “theworldisaperfectplacewejustneedtoruinthosewhoaren’t flower child.”
I’d encourage anyone who thinks they really need to psot something about the war to go out and read a real history book. No, not one of those “I read it in public school and the teacher said war is wrong” books. Go out and get a real honest-to-goodness history book documenting any war you want. Shock and suprise, guess what, bad things happened. The world is not a perfect place, and no war is’t perfect or feel good either. You sitting on the side lines slinging cr@p at whoever doesn’t help anyone.

Goodnite slowtwitch.

2

Ze Gopha,

Great post! Thanks for sharing what’s on your mind. I’m sure many agree with you, as I do.

What you failed to take into account is all the hatred and loathing that motivates many who are posting on off topic political threads. Post something that someone strongly disagrees with and who has an “agenda” and you better be prepared to be slandered in some way in the name of “openmindedness”, especially if their argument is weak. Hatred makes that okay. Remember when the racists attack people of color. Hatred makes it right. The ethnic “cleansing” in Bosnia? Hatred made it right. Remember when Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews? Hatred made it right.

Got to watch out for the hatred. Makes lots of otherwise unthinkable things, okay.

Good post, though.

3

Oh jeepers Ben,

There you go again with another slippery post. We all have agendas here, including gasp you. We all do our wee bits of slandering, either directly or indirectly, including gasp you. You might read your own post for a classic Wants2IgnoremyownHypocrisy example. Ooop! Don’t get your bile up Ben. Got to watch out for the hatred. I love you Ben. Why can’t you love me back?

I guess it isn’t slander to tell the truth is it? The truth is, Ben, you need to get off this board and get off your pony of righteousness, and get yourself a job. And if you open up that steel trap of a mind just a little bit, you might have more luck. But that is just a loving suggestion.

4

Why in the world would anyone call themselves “Commiegirl”? Do you not know that the Communists have murdered more than 100,000,000 human beings? That’s ten times are many as Hitler killed in the camps. Are you proud of this accomplishment? Want to continue the Communist record of success? Want to promote this cause? Or just think you need to break a few eggs to get to a Workers’ Paradise like the former USSR or Cuba?

5

commiegirl,

Thank you for all your “love/hatred”.

6

Wanna come over and swap some of my politics?

7

What you failed to take into account is all the hated and loathing that motivates many who are posting on off topic political threads. Post something that someone strongly disagrees with and who has an “agenda” and you better be prepared to be slandered in some way in the name of “openmindedness”, especially if their argument is weak. Hatred makes that okay. Remember when the racists attack people of color. Hatred makes it right. The ethnic “cleansing” in Bosnia? Hatred made it right. Remember when Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews? Hatred made it right.

Once again, Ben, I have to take exception to your method of argument.

If I disagree with the war in Iraq, or the means used to get us into it, or if I criticize the president, ipso facto, I am motivated by hatred and loathing? I’m likely to slander someone? Not only that, but my hatred is comparable to the sort that motivated ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or the Nazi atrocities?

Is this your idea of high-minded discourse?

8

“I’d say this has probably been the most publicly open campaign/term the nation has ever seen. Does he have secrets? Maybe, but if he does he’s sure notd about keeping them from the media.”

sorry, but i have to vehemently disagree with this. one common characterization i have seen from many sources is how tight fisted this administration is with information. it’s very secretive and keeps things very close to the vest. i have read ashcroft’s memo that was sent out to the executive agencies regarding the bush administration’s position on the freedom of information act. basically, the default position of the administration is “don’t disclose unless you have to”. it is a stark contrast from previous president’s positions which was to disclose first, hold back second. now one might argue that the terrorist threat requires a different stance towards disclosing information to the public. the problem with that argument is that this policy pre-dates 9/11…

9

ze gopha, ever since i first started posting on slowtwitch about a year ago, i’ve been thoroughly entertained by the posts of tibbsy, tom d, and yourself, among others. that’s why i’m going to do what i have always managed to avoid doing: reply in a political thread. i’m not doing it to start a flame war, but because i respect you, i’ll give this whole opining thing a shot.

first of all, i think you’re right on some points about the war in iraq. i think that it is necessary, justifiable, and part of the war on terror. i don’t think that it’s ONLY about oil, and i don’t think we would have been better served by not having gone into it in the first place.

i do, however, dislike bush. as much as i hate to say it, i think i’m a republican, or at least i have conservative opinions in some issues. i would’ve voted for mccain (sp?) in a heartbeat, and i will probably vote republican in 4 years. however, this year, i’ll be voting for kerry. i don’t like the way the administration aligned itself religiously, or what it’s done with the economy. but most of all, i don’t like the way bush handled the war in iraq.

why is the war justifiable? well, OF COURSE there were weapons of mass destruction. israel gave us solid intel in the weeks before the invasion that there were caravans upon caravans moving from iraq to syria. i’d bet my entire bank account (all $53.17 of it) that there are wmd galore in syria. and hussein was a huge supporter of terrorism, especially anti-israeli terrorism.

picture yourself as bush in early '03. you know that the wmd are in iraq, but are being moved to syria. you know that if you don’t invade iraq, these wmd will be used against you or israel in the near future. you know that the longer you wait before invading, the worse the odds are of finding the wmd. so you need to invade asap, but you can’t until the un lets you… or can you?

the thing is, though, the president is not just the commander in chief of the armed forces… he’s also a figurehead. and frankly, i think it’d have been better for the situation to have stagnated with saddam in power for a little longer, until the world was a little more convinced of saddam’s evildoing. if we’re going to act unilaterally, we need to be viewed by the world as benevolent, not arbitrary. we as a country have lost quite a bit of international standing as a result of this. the elected leaders of other countries know how pissed their people are at us, and to get reelected, it’s in their best interest to publicly color their actions with antiamerican sentiment, even if behind the scenes they work well with us. we’ve been hamstrung internationally.

more importantly, bush has polarized his people. i read somewhere that whereas we used to be a 45-45-10 country, with 10% of the vote up for grabs in november, we’re now a 40-40-20 country at best. how many other presidents have been so vigorously opposed? worst of all, everyone, including terrorists, know how precarious the political situation is here. when public opinion and the standing of the president can be so swayed by a car bomb or two, of course there are going to be terror attacks. this is partially the fault of sensationalist media (but i digress). mostly, it’s the fault of a lack of presidential charisma. no matter how smart bush and his administration may or may not be, when you come across as a bumbling idiot, that’s what counts.

let me summarize my argument: bush has done a good job tactically. he made some unpopular choices, but america needed them to be made. in spite of this, he’s been a bad president. i could quote various domestic policy statistics (economy, etc), but the driving force is his inability to lead the people, to come across as a uniting force - no charisma. being so divided, we look weak. in the jungle that is international affairs, the weak get exploited and attacked.

so that’s my rant. sorry for its length. feel free to argue against it, but that’s what i think.

10

why is the war justifiable? well, OF COURSE there were weapons of mass destruction. israel gave us solid intel in the weeks before the invasion that there were caravans upon caravans moving from iraq to syria. i’d bet my entire bank account (all $53.17 of it) that there are wmd galore in syria. and hussein was a huge supporter of terrorism, especially anti-israeli terrorism.

I read a helluva lot…especially when it comes to stuff like this…but I can’t recall ever seeing a report which said that there was solid intel that Iraq shipped WMD’s to Syria. Can you provide a story or link or some sort of reference for this? Muchos gracias.

11

vitus979,

I think I said, "post something that someone strongly disagrees with and (operative word) has an “agenda” and you better be prepared to be slandered in some way in the name of “openmindedness”, especially if their argument is weak.

  1. I did not identify you or even mean to.

  2. I did not indicate that disagreement qualified for slander.

  3. I did not accuse you of slandering anyone.

  4. I did not indicate that criticism of the President indicated hatred or loathing.

  5. I did not indicate that everyone who disagreed with the President was filled with hatred and loathing.

  6. I did not suggest that you were motivated by hatred or loathing.

  7. I did not compare you to a Nazi.

  8. I did not indicate or speculate that you had an “agenda” in addition to strongly disagreeing with anyone. Do you?

  9. I did not indicate that strong disagreement and an “agenda” automatically provokes slander, only that one should be prepared for same.

By the way, do you hate the President? Do you loath the President? For the reasons you indicated. I just thought you disagreed with the President as you indicated.

You seemed a little over reactive as though you were being singled out. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

13

I too would like to hear your thoughts on the mis-handling of the economy by Bush.

I eagerly await your response.

14

yes. i’m going to start looking for the stuff i read a year ago. seriously.

but first, i’ve gotta read what happened in the giro. exciting stuff, apparently.

gimme some time.

15

So who WERE you talking about in that particular post? You obviously meant it, so that shit you were flinging had to be aimed at somebody or you wouldn’t have posted it…

16

Ben, I doubt vitus was the only one who took exception to your post. I’ve read a lot of strong opinions on this forum, many I think are completely ridiculous (on both sides of the political spectrum) but I’ve never seen any “hatred” on the level of racial violence, ethnic cleansing, or Nazism. There are better ways of expressing your feelings that making these types of hyperbolic comparisons.

17

So who WERE you talking about in that particular post? You obviously meant it, so that shit you were flinging had to be aimed at somebody or you wouldn’t have posted it…

Exactly.

Ben, when you make these statements, who exactly are you talking about?

Wouldn’t it be better to respond to the actual argument that you disagree with than to characterize those who disagree with you as vessels of hatred and loathing?

18

http://debka.com/article.php?aid=482

i hope that link works, and that it’s good enough for you. i know it’s no ap or reuters, but it’s not exactly the weekly world news, either.

19

let me preface this by saying that i REALLY don’t want to get into this. i don’t know enough about this to make a coherent argument. i haven’t done enough research on it to be able to back up my claims, and i’d lose to you in an argument. nonetheless, i stand by what i said.

i don’t like the way the homosexual marriage issue has been handled, nor do i like the way bush is pandering to the religious right. i think the following two links are pretty good sources as far as how he’s done that (note: they are clearly biased, but they do bring some things to light)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=stam

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Bush_in_Africa/0,,2-7-1505_1386439,00.html

as far as the economy goes, i know next to nothing. one of the few things i do know is that we went from having a huge surplus to a huge debt. granted we had a war, and war is expensive. still, the huge swing from black to red strikes me, in my admitted economic naivety, as bad.

i hope these have helped clarify my position. like i said before, i really really really don’t want to delve too deeply into this, so please don’t make a big issue out of it. you will be disappointed by the lack of responses from my end.

20

I have been working for the federal government for 27 years, I have responded to numerous FOIA requests, and the policy on FOIA has been consistent for all of those 27 years. Where do you get your facts?

22

bush is very religious, i don’t think there is any argument there. further, i don’t think it’s a stretch to say that bush is pushing the envelope in terms of attempting to incorporate a religious/christian ethos into his policies(i.e. the ‘indecency’ fines being handed out by the fcc). now if religion is your(in the generic sense) thing, as it is for bush–that’s great, just please don’t try to push your(again, in the generic sense) moral/religious code onto those of us(i.e. me) who don’t agree with it and/or possess a different set of beliefs…