You're very accepting of a leader who only has a track record of two years.
What do you mean that? Its been a pretty good record over two years even though there have been a few disapointments, but you seem to be implying that since he has only been president for two years that I should assume that he is at all likely to start trying to cnquer the world or big chunks of it.
I am suggesting that he does not have enough of a track record for us to just assume he knows what he is doing and that he is doing a good job.
Personally I would rather deal with the reality of what he has done, what he has tried to do, and what he has said he will do rather then basing my opinion of the president on some paranoid fantasy.
What is my paranoid fantasy? That he will start a war with Iraq? If so, its hardly a fantasy nor is it terribly paranoid.........not with the level of rhetoric coming out of the WH the past few months.
This is silly.......conservatives are people found on the right side of the political spectrum. The terms are interchangeable.
The words mean a lot of different things. Some uses of the word "conservative" are not reasonably interchangeable with other uses, the same holds true (maybe even more so) for "liberal"
I really don't know how to argue this with you because you aren't making a lot of sense. Someone on the right is also called a conservative. Its not unusual to interchange the words that way. As for Hitler, his politics was considered to be on the right of the political spectrum; therefore, its considered that he shared ideologies with other conservatives. However, Hitler was twisted so that implementation of his ideologies were very twisted.
I think Bush and Hitler are sometimes compared because they both have taken an aggressive stance with their enemies. However, I don't believe Bush is another Hitler..........I think its an exaggeration to make a point.
For an example, both Bush and Hitler are/were reactionaries to varying degrees. Hitler wanted a Germany free of what he considered undesirable foreign elements. Bush wants to go back to a world where only the US has nuclear weapons. I don't believe either are/were attainable.
Again you look for a label that applies to different ideas and say that two people with different ideas are the same because you can apply the same label. Compare the actual ideas not what label someone may have applied to them.
The term reactionary can be applied to different concepts; there is not one type of reactionary. A reactionary is one who wants to make things like they were in another era. By definition, both Bush and Hitler are/were reactionaries.
As for Bush's idea he is not alone in thinking an American monopoly on nukes would be a good thing. I'm sure most Americans would like that to happen, but shows no signs of thinking it will happen or of planning to make it happen.
I would agree.....however, Bush has the power to try and make it happen.
it is ridiculous to argue this point with you when you insist that what was practiced in Russia was communism as theorized by Marx.
I don't insist they are the same merely that they are alike enough to be called the same name. Modern American constitutional democracy isn't like the democracy of the ancient Greeks, and it also isn't eactly like the constitutional order imagined by the founders of our country, but we still live in a constitutional democracy. In any case you are ignoring the point. Even if you could convince me that Soviet communsim and Marxism are very different, they are both conventionally considered to be ideas on the left. You can argue against that conventional analysis if you want but you shouldn't then turn around and call other people arogant for arguing against similar conventional ideas about the right.
The Soviet Union was a dictatorship with someone at the head surrounded by oligarchs. Communism/Marxism was intended to be a dictatorship of the proletariat initially and a full fledged democracy in the end. The former has its roots in conservatism; the latter in socialism or the left.
Trent Lott - (Here is were most of my response will not be recreated)
There is evidence that he may have racist thoughts and that there is a chance that he was racist to an extent, but there is not solid evidence that he is actually and currently a "full blown racist".
What is going on with you? He's admitted on tv that he was a racist. Its unbelievable how you insist on defending someone without knowing the facts.
I didn't say it was a small issue, I just said there was a lack of evidence
There is so much evidence its truly embarrassing.
that he is a full blown racist and that even if he is that doesn't mean the typical conservative or the typical republican is.
Please point out the racist Dems. TIA.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson ("hymietown" ect.) Senator Robert Byrd ("there are white niggers" said on national TV on Fox News Sunday, former member of the Ku Klux Klan, the evidence against him is at least as good as the evidence against Lott,
While I agree J. Jackson is a racist, I thought we were talking elected officials. I know that are many non elected Reps and a few non elected Dems who are racist. However, I expect our elected officials to be held to a higher standard.
I don't know Al Sharpton nor am I familiar with Sen. R. Byrd. I did a google search and did not find anything on Byrd re racism. Do you have a link? I would think that if he were a racist, the Reps. would have brought this issue to the surface.....particularly now that Lott is being roasted.
if your looking to give people the benefit of the doubt then maybe you should drop both him and Lott from your list of racists), Cynthia McKinny, or for that matter affirmitive action is a racist policy although I think it would not be fair to call the party supporting it racist, but you seem to not want to give the benefit of the doubt to Republicans...
Why would I give anyone the benefit of the doubt on this issue? This issue runs to the core of the American democracy and its one of the things we have been most proud of as a nation; that we have been able to absorb people from different cultures and races, and have made every attempt to treat them equally........at least in terms of the law. I am not naive......I know that there is the theory and then there's the practice. In practice, I know there are people in this country who are racist; some openly, most not. However, I don't expect elected officials to be counted among them.
I don't know if they are or not....that's why I was asking the question.
I couldn't be more straight forward.
When you say "how do we know" that someone "is no racist", and compare them to Hitler, then you are making an implied argument that they are racist. Be straight foward, either make it directly or drop it. This innuendo and veiled character assasination is unbecoming.
A person can have some of the characteristics of a Hitler and still not be racist. I don't believe Bush is racist. And I would hope that most, if not all elected Reps. as well as elected Dems. are not racist. However, I am more sure about the Dems than I am about the Reps. particularly after Lott has been proven to be one.
He talks of WMD 24/7. He talks of terrorists 24/7. He talks of 9/11 24/7. He talks of fear 24/7.
No he does not. But he does talk about them. Considering the circumstances and the concerns of the country it would be inappropriate not to mention such things.
This is silly. Everytime he speaks, no matter the event, the issue of terrorism and WMD comes up. I can't believe I have to argue this point with you.
Where is the fukking evidence of Iraq's WMDs he's claimed he had for weeks now?
The evidence has been in the reports of the inspectors over the last decade. What is playing stupid is assuming that the inspectors saw and got rid of everything and that Iraq hasn't been able to rebuild any of its WMD program over a 4 year period with wide spread smuggleing and no inspectors.
Again, where is the proof that Bush claims to have? He claims it but never shows it. Its one thing to suspect like you suggested above; its another to say you know. I not sure this administration can discern the difference.
ted |
