February 1st, 2005: Preferred outcome

[basso]

Look ahead to next february. the iRaqis have just held an election, and a US president has been inaugurated. If you only had two choices, and you had to accept all the facts of either choice, which scenario would you prefer?

[Rocketman95]

Out of those two options, #1 of course.

But my preferred would be #1 with a slight change at the end. :)

[Chump]

I do believe with this post basso, your creditbility has reached zero

I used to at least respect you, but this thread has destroyed that

[SamFisher]

Wow, the underlying message of this poll is as subtle as a two by four upside the head.

Kerry and Chaos and Discord, or Bush and Peace and Prosperity.

I choose Kerry and Peace and Prosperity.

EDIT:, btw, let's look at June/July 2004.

Taliban resurgent? check.

Iraq in chaos? check.

Beheading a week? check

Troops staying there for a long, long time? check

Now, are these events partially/wholly attributable to the Bush Presidency or the Kerry Presidency?

[basso]

Originally posted by Chump
I do believe with this post basso, your creditbility has reached zero

I used to at least respect you, but this thread has destroyed that

hey, given the invective thrown at bush by some here, and in the media, including MM, it's a valid question. if he can truely be compared to hitler and mussollini, i would think he'd be worth getting rid of at any cost. call it a test of your devotion to the cause.

[Rocket104]

"What is the preferred outcome given the two options I (Basso) have given you?" is the correct way to phrase the question in this poll.

There are other iterations available - you simply chose not to list them. There is a term for polling in the manner you've done, and it's frowned upon. Please tell me you don't work for a polling organization.

[Batman Jones]

Hey basso, would you be more or less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he'd fathered a black baby out of wedlock?

[Chump]

Originally posted by basso
hey, given the invective thrown at bush by some here, and in the media, including MM, it's a valid question. if he can truely be compared to hitler and mussollini, i would think he'd be worth getting rid of at any cost. call it a test of your devotion to the cause.


how does your "poll" reflect any of that?

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
hey, given the invective thrown at bush by some here, and in the media, including MM, it's a valid question. if he can truely be compared to hitler and mussollini, i would think he'd be worth getting rid of at any cost. call it a test of your devotion to the cause.

Cool. Here's another.

Peace and prosperity under Hitler or chaos and disorder under Bush? What do you say, basso?

[SamFisher]

How about Chinggis Khan in leather chaps vs. Dick Cheney in a Fuschia sweater with lavendar pants?

[mc mark]

http://www.1rev.net/cartoons/images/55-moser.jpg

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Hey basso, would you be more or less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he'd fathered a black baby out of wedlock?

more, as long as he hadn't lied to a grand jury about it.

[MacBeth]

Just sad.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
more, as long as he hadn't lied to a grand jury about it.

I see. More of the Clinton's sex life excuses anything the GOP does for all eternity tact. Super.

Of course I was really just quoting that old SC push poll the Bushes ran against McCain last time around to remind everyone that bogus, manipulative polls have been coming from your party (and, sadly, mine) for a long time now. Difference between you and me is I'm against them.

[mc mark]

Hell we don't have to wait for 2-1-05!

Taliban resurgent, iRaq in chaos, a beheading a week, no exit in sight,

We've got it going on!

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I see. More of the Clinton's sex life excuses anything the GOP does for all eternity tact. Super.

Of course I was really just quoting that old SC push poll the Bushes ran against McCain last time around to remind everyone that bogus, manipulative polls have been coming from your party (and, sadly, mine) for a long time now. Difference between you and me is I'm against them.

i'm shocked, SHOCKED, at the OUTRAGE this poll has sparked. where's the courage of your convictions? is bush hitler? ashcroft goebels, as frank rich suggested in his weekly screed against all things republican?

oh, and batman, i don't think this particular poll will quite carry the weight you attribute to the bush poll in SC, but thanks for the compliment!

oh, and the iraq survey group has found another 10-12 sarin shells. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html), of GW1 vintage. certainly not a stockpile, but it bears keeping an eye on.

[RocketMan Tex]

This poll is as fair and balanced as Rush Limbaugh on an Oxycontin binge.

[MacBeth]

Just found this old internet poll:


Counting machine telegraph poll, 1939.


What would you fellers rather see happen in the next decade or so:

A) Mass genocide, world war, millions dead across Europe and in the Pacific, Hitler and Mussolini ousted.

G) Relative peace and quiet on the home front, no news about holocaust, no World War, Hitler and Mussolini happily in power.




For Choice A, send up one puff, for G three puffs.

Thanks, sincerely Basso's Great-Grandfather.

[Batman Jones]

I'm not outraged at all by your poll. I just think it's dumb.

You question the strength of our convictions as Bush haters, conveniently leaving out the fact that we hate him for the exact situations you attribute to a Kerry win in your poll. If he wasn't such a bad president, we wouldn't have so much energy for seeing him lose.

How bout the strength of your convictions? If you're against the bad news scenario you posit, why are you backing the guy who caused it?

[Batman Jones]

p.s. Re: the sarin. Shouldn't you go ahead and post another smoking gun, libs defend yourselves, nanny nanny boo boo thread about it?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
If you're against the bad news scenario you post, why are you backing the guy who caused it?

A question all Bush supporters should ask themselves....

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I'm not outraged at all by your poll. I just think it's dumb.

You question the strength of our convictions as Bush haters, conveniently leaving out the fact that we hate him for the exact situations you attribute to a Kerry win in your poll. If he wasn't such a bad president, we wouldn't have so much energy for seeing him lose.

How bout the strength of your convictions? If you're against the bad news scenario you posit, why are you backing the guy who caused it?

are you suggesting W is responible for the actions of zarqawi's group? under that reasoning, who was responible for the actions of those who slammed airplanes into the WTC?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by basso
are you suggesting W is responible for the actions of zarqawi's group? under that reasoning, who was responible for the actions of those who slammed airplanes into the WTC?

Whoever invaded Manhatten.

[No Worries]

I vote for #1. Without GWB in office, I would have no one to hate!!!

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by SamFisher
How about Chinggis Khan in leather chaps vs. Dick Cheney in a Fuschia sweater with lavendar pants?

Anyone who picks Chinggis Kahn can go f*** themselves.

[basso]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Just found this old internet poll:


Counting machine telegraph poll, 1939.


What would you fellers rather see happen in the next decade or so:

A) Mass genocide, world war, millions dead across Europe and in the Pacific, Hitler and Mussolini ousted.

G) Relative peace and quiet on the home front, no news about holocaust, no World War, Hitler and Mussolini happily in power.




For Choice A, send up one puff, for G three puffs.

Thanks, sincerely Basso's Great-Grandfather.

close, but no cigar, since the two choices are not mutually exclusive, the second merely representing an ostrich's eye view of the world. interesting too, that a poll in 1939, two years before pearl harbor, envisioned millions dead in the pacific. sure, the japanese had been raping nanking for a few years, but that's unusually prescient, n'est ce pas?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by basso
close, but no cigar, since the two choices are not mutually exclusive, the second merely representing an ostrich's eye view of the world. interesting two, that a poll in 1939, two years before pearl harbor, envisioned millions dead in the pacific. sure, the japanese had been raping nanking for a few years, but that's unusually prescient, n'est ce pas?


You don't get it.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
are you suggesting W is responible for the actions of zarqawi's group? under that reasoning, who was responible for the actions of those who slammed airplanes into the WTC?

Well, let's see, if there's no invasion of Iraq, then there's no insurgency in Iraq to kidnap, murder, maim and torture.

Is Bush solely culpable in a criminal law sense? No, of course not.

Does he bear a degree of responsibility for creating a situation in which that kind of thing could happen that he was forewarned against by advisors and critics alike from within and without, who were shouted down by the "cakewalk" crew? Absolutely he does, absolutely.

It's like this; I warn you not to go to a bad part of town with high crime after dark. You go to a bad part of town with high crime after dark. You get mugged.

Are you culpable for getting mugged in a criminal sense? Are you guilty of assault, larceny, etc? no.

Do you bear some degree of responsibity for putting yourself in a situation where it could happen despite being warned otherwise? yes.

Who's responsible for Sept 11? Lots of people: the hijackers, their supporters, the Kingdom, Pakistan, the CIA, the FBI, CLinton, Bush I, Reagan, Bush II, you, me etc....

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
are you suggesting W is responible for the actions of zarqawi's group?

Of course I'm not. I am suggesting, and have suggested, that Bush's actions have made us more hated in the world though. I am suggesting that terror is up under Bush -- as evidenced by the report that the White House released that said terrorism was down before it said it was up. I am suggesting that threatening suicide bombers with violence is a pretty stupid way to win hearts and minds. I am suggesting that America has never received as much empathy worldwide as we did in 2001 and that we have never been more distrusted, feared and maligned as we are right now.

If you're against the Kerry scenario you posted, you should vote for him.

[basso]

Originally posted by MacBeth
You don't get it.

oh, i get it alright, the analogy you're attempting to draw just doesn't work.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Of course I'm not. I am suggesting, and have suggested, that Bush's actions have made us more hated in the world though. I am suggesting that terror is up under Bush -- as evidenced by the report that the White House released that said terrorism was down before it said it was up. I am suggesting that threatening suicide bombers with violence is a pretty stupid way to win hearts and minds. I am suggesting that America has never received as much empathy worldwide as we did in 2001 and that we have never been more distrusted, feared and maligned as we are right now.

If you're against the Kerry scenario you posted, you should vote for him.

i would, if i thought kerry had a serious plan for dealing w/ the threat posed by islamo-fascism (and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"), one that couldn't be boiled down to suck to mes amis anan et chirac. what did the sympathy from 2001 get us? where is NATO in afghanistan? france has 700 soldiers hunkered down in kabul, but 4,000 in cote d'ivoire. what does that say about their priorities, about their seriousness as allies in the WOT? and, pray tell, how would you respond to suicide bombers? turn the other tower?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by basso
oh, i get it alright, the analogy you're attempting to draw just doesn't work.

Yes, it does. As made ( I thought) obvious re: the medium, credit, and means of responce, I was being tongue in cheek ( which is what you missed, at least part of what you missed at the least). But the general principal, ie that you are taking what makes many of us oppose Bush, at least in part, and crediting it to Kerry as a means of undermining that position is obvious. As such, my poll is exactly the same.

[Batman Jones]

basso:

Since you asked people to vote in a push poll with no basis in fact to 'test the strength of their convictions,' why don't you vote in this one:

Democracy taking root in Afghanistan, iRaq stable, new government democraticly elected, US troops on their way home, Kerry inagurated.

Taliban resurgent, iRaq in chaos, a beheading a week, no exit in sight, Bush re-inaugurated.

Difference between yours and mine, of course, is that the Bush scenario perfectly echoes the situation as it exists right now under his leadership. Just how strong is your Bush love? Will you go on record saying you'd prefer the situation to continue as is versus improving under Kerry?

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
basso:

Since you asked people to vote in a push poll with no basis in fact to 'test the strength of their convictions,' why don't you vote in this one:

Democracy taking root in Afghanistan, iRaq stable, new government democraticly elected, US troops on their way home, Kerry inagurated.

Taliban resurgent, iRaq in chaos, a beheading a week, no exit in sight, Bush re-inaugurated.

Difference between yours and mine, of course, is that the Bush scenario perfectly echoes the situation as it exists right now under his leadership. Just how strong is your Bush love? Will you go on record saying you'd prefer the situation to continue as is versus improving under Kerry?

i'd gladly accept the first scenario, however, it should be noted that history would credit W w/ bringing democracy to two regions of the world where it had never been, and with liberating 25 million people.

i don't think either scenario, leaving aside who will be president for the moment, represent what we will find next year, but i do believe we will be getting closer to the former.

[Harrisment]

Wow....I've seen it all now.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"

God I want to slap you sometimes. Is there any chance at all of having a sincere, honest discussion with you? Ever?

I don't know anyone here who has ever defended Al Qaeda or Saddam in any fashion whatsoever. Stop suggesting we are. It's incredibly petty and incredibly dishonest. And it's offensive.

People aren't "outraged" by your poll. They're just sick of you being a jerk.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
i would, if i thought kerry had a serious plan for dealing w/ the threat posed by islamo-fascism (and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"), one that couldn't be boiled down to suck to mes amis anan et chirac. what did the sympathy from 2001 get us? where is NATO in afghanistan? france has 700 soldiers hunkered down in kabul, but 4,000 in cote d'ivoire. what does that say about their priorities, about their seriousness as allies in the WOT? and, pray tell, how would you respond to suicide bombers? turn the other tower?

Did it ever occur to you that further European commitments in Afghanistan may have been influenced negatively by the fact that they are treated like crap by us, and the fact that we haven't really asked all that emphatically, and continue to treat it like an afterthought? Do you know what Spain pledged after withdrawing from Iraq? To redouble their efforts in Afghanistan.

BTW, didn't you mockingly call for French intervention in the Ivory Coast in an attempt to expose them as hypocrites in your freedom fries days? Which way is the wind blowing today?

I also note that Bush has now fully adopted Kerry's approach and is "kowtowing", as you guys like to put it, to both the UN and NATO.

I applaud him for doing it, particularly NATO, though I doubt he can pull it off given the damage he has done. Too little, too late.

[JuanValdez]

Hate to post a question which is not very relevant and a stupid one to boot -- but it's probably better than starting a thread for the sake of the stupid question.

So here's the stupid question: why do some posters, like basso, write Iraq as iRaq? It seems a lot like RMTex's pResident, except the meaning in that example is obvious while the iRaq thing is completely opaque to me. I really don't get it at all. Is it some kind of witticism? Will someone take a second away from their sniping to help a brother out?

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
God I want to slap you sometimes. Is there any chance at all of having a sincere, honest discussion with you? Ever?

I don't know anyone here who has ever defended Al Qaeda or Saddam in any fashion whatsoever. Stop suggesting we are. It's incredibly petty and incredibly dishonest. And it's offensive.

People aren't "outraged" by your poll. They're just sick of you being a jerk.

that comment wasn't directed at you, but at some others, i don't remember who, who derailed a thread the other day with an extensive semantic discussion about whether al queda, or saddam's iRaq, could rightly be called fascist.

and yes, many here have implicitly defended saddam, as does MM in his new film (no i haven't seen it) by depicting it as a place where little girls could fly kites, but conveniently leaving out the part about his murder of hundreds of thousands of people. have i misrepresented the film? it's a sin of omission.

and if challenging your convictions makes me a jerk, so be it. the point of the poll was to point out the absurdity of much of the criticism of bush, and to guage whether it's just rhetoric or what you really believe (you in the plural sense of "bush-haters").

[basso]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
Hate to post a question which is not very relevant and a stupid one to boot -- but it's probably better than starting a thread for the sake of the stupid question.

So here's the stupid question: why do some posters, like basso, write Iraq as iRaq? It seems a lot like RMTex's pResident, except the meaning in that example is obvious while the iRaq thing is completely opaque to me. I really don't get it at all. Is it some kind of witticism? Will someone take a second away from their sniping to help a brother out?

i'm a mac fan, iPod, iTunes...

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i would, if i thought kerry had a serious plan for dealing w/ the threat posed by islamo-fascism (and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"), one that couldn't be boiled down to suck to mes amis anan et chirac.

If you don't think Kerry has a plan for dealing with Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs, then you haven't opened your ears (or your mind) to what he has been saying. He has specifically said that he will dramatically expand our intelligence gathering apparatus in order to ID these nutjobs BEFORE they attack and then take them out with covert, discrete, targeted military action.

Sounds like a much better direction than Bush's "plan."

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
that comment wasn't directed at you...

and yes, many here have implicitly defended saddam

and if challenging your convictions makes me a jerk, so be it.

1. It was posted in reply to me.

2. When you say that defended Saddam stuff I know you have no arguments and are resorting instead to dishonest and offensive innuendo.

3. If you would challenge my convictions instead of calling me a terrorist or tyrant lover, that'd be one thing. You've done plenty of the latter and virtually none of the former. That's why I think you're a jerk.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Whoever invaded Manhatten.

The Dutch?

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
1. It was posted in reply to me.

2. When you say that defended Saddam stuff I know you have no arguments and are resorting instead to dishonest and offensive innuendo.

3. If you would challenge my convictions instead of calling me a terrorist or tyrant lover, that'd be one thing. You've done plenty of the latter and virtually none of the former. That's why I think you're a jerk.

i love you too man, but you're taking things rather personally today.

[GreenVegan76]

Birch Barlow: "Mayor Quimby, you are well known for your lenient stance on crime, but suppose for a second that YOUR house was ransacked by thugs, YOUR family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob..."
Mayor Quimby: "What is your question?"
Birch Barlow: "My question is about the budget, sir."

[BrianKagy]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
Birch Barlow: "Mayor Quimby, you are well known for your lenient stance on crime, but suppose for a second that YOUR house was ransacked by thugs, YOUR family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob..."
Mayor Quimby: "What is your question?"
Birch Barlow: "My question is about the budget, sir."

LOL!!! One of the 5 best Simpsons episodes evar.

[SWTsig]

Taliban resurgent, iRaq in chaos, a beheading a week, no exit in sight

dude, that is EXACTLY what's goin on RIGHT NOW.

i've never understood why people strictly base their opinions on party lines. makes absolutely no sense at all.

[StupidMoniker]

I may have missed the point completely, but I don't think basso was crediting either Bush or Kerry with being responsible for the situations in their corresponding poll options. The point was to see if anyone hates Bush so much that they would pick to have Kerry in the White House in spite of it requiring the horrible conditions of his poll option.

[Batman Jones]

basso: I'm funny that way. I take it personal when people suggest I sympathize with terrorists. You and Jorge and the rest should stop doing it so we could have some decent discussions.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I may have missed the point completely, but I don't think basso was crediting either Bush or Kerry with being responsible for the situations in their corresponding poll options. The point was to see if anyone hates Bush so much that they would pick to have Kerry in the White House in spite of it requiring the horrible conditions of his poll option.

You got basso's point fine. The point you missed entirely is that those horrible conditions are exactly why some of us hate Bush.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by andymoon
If you don't think Kerry has a plan for dealing with Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs, then you haven't opened your ears (or your mind) to what he has been saying. He has specifically said that he will dramatically expand our intelligence gathering apparatus in order to ID these nutjobs BEFORE they attack and then take them out with covert, discrete, targeted military action.

Sounds like a much better direction than Bush's "plan."
What, do you think Bush is "cutting back" our intel? We're training a ton of new officers, equipping Predator drones with Hellfire missiles (having scored a few kills). We go by track record and frankly, the left's track record is one of surrender and appeasement. God, you people are ridiculous.

[basso]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I may have missed the point completely, but I don't think basso was crediting either Bush or Kerry with being responsible for the situations in their corresponding poll options. The point was to see if anyone hates Bush so much that they would pick to have Kerry in the White House in spite of it requiring the horrible conditions of his poll option.

exactamundo, and your moniker's looking smarter all the time...;)

[BrianKagy]

The point you missed entirely is that those horrible conditions are exactly why some of us hate Bush.

Right, you liked him before any of this...? C'mon.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
The point you missed entirely is that those horrible conditions are exactly why some of us hate Bush.

i actually don't buy that. i think it's a convenient excuse and you've hated bush since the fall of 2000. i could be wrong, but i saw much the same hysteria back then. in late october 2000 i attended an event sponsored by Glamour magazine, "Women of the year" or something. there were a few civilians being honored (my sister was one0 but most of the rest were celebrities, sheyl crow, etc. Karina Gore spoke, and i was actually quite impressed. i remember thinking the wrong gore was running. then sharon stone got up and went off on a 15 minute anti-bush diatribe, complete w/ tears, bemoaning the sad state of the country if this reactionary nazi were elected (i'm paraphrasing, i'm sure she did not use the "N" word.). my point is, it's precisely the type of language amd imagery we hear now, and heard in the aftermath of the election. in the wake of 9/11 the left had to hold its collective tongue, but w/ afghanistan, and then the run up to iRaq, the hounds were loosed and the war itself has given the dogs of appeasement their head. you may hate him for reasons that iClude the iRaq war, but at least be honest- you hated him long before that.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
Right, you liked him before any of this...? C'mon.

No. I didn't. But as I've said before here, I come by my ideology honestly. I fully expect you and the other conservatives here do too. I disliked Bush before things started going so badly because I disagreed with his extreme proposals during the campaign and his even more extreme governing after. I grew to hate him when things started going so dangerously wrong.

The suggestion that that hate is arbitrary -- that it has nothing to do with an honest disagreement over policy and that it is so petty as to engender hope for bad things happening to America and Americans is what shuts down any chance at respectful, honest debate in this forum.

The premise of this poll is specifically crafted to suggest that American liberals want bad things for America. How anyone on the left is supposed to react to that with anything but resentment is beyond me.

[BrianKagy]

Well, look, you're the one who said:

The point you missed entirely is that those horrible conditions are exactly why some of us hate Bush.

That implies that you-- or some-- liberals were big Bush fans or at least tolerant of him prior to the current conditions. I think it's clear you have a pathological hatred of the man, and it wouldn't matter if it were raining blowjobs, you'd still hate him.

So I asked-- no, I sarcastically implied-- that you must have liked him, because to say you hate him now is to say you didn't hate him before, especially when combined with a conditional attachment.

You didn't like that, though, so you stated he'd made some "extreme" proposals during his campaign for the Presidency (which would get the rolleyes if I were so inclined) and then said you hated him based on the current situation.

Think about that. You said you hate the President of the United States.

Pathetic.

Then, you manage to imply that I am the problem with this forum. That people who dislike hatred, hypocrisy, and logically inconsistent arguments-- all of which you are demonstrating here-- are the reason people treat politics like it's a neighborhood street fight where their block's favorite fighters are the right side to root for...? You have got some ****ing nerve.

The poll's premise is silly, I think we can all agree on that-- my post in the Hangout being tangible evidence of that. But you've strayed well beyond the poll itself.

[GreenVegan76]

Switch the names in the poll question, and you'll get the same results. Americans want what's best for this great country -- and we support candidates and policies we think will help make us even better. Anybody who votes strictly along party lines is simply too lazy to think for himself, myself included.

Would I support George Bush if it meant world peace and prosperity? You bet your ass I would. But all the evidence leads me to a very different conclusion. That's why I'm voting for John Kerry.

If you feel that Bush will lead us back, you should definitely vote for him. That's why this country is so amazing -- one person, one vote.

[Batman Jones]

Brian, I disliked Bush quite a lot as governor for various policy reasons. I disliked him quite a lot during the campaign for his proposals. Beyond that I thought (and think) he's too intellectually incurious to be a good president, but that part doesn't make me dislike him -- it just makes me oppose him. And my deep dislike turned to hate when his anti-terrorism policies -- especially with regard to Iraq -- reached a point that I sincerely believed made this country a more dangerous place to live while he and his began suggesting that any dissent was treasonous.

Other than that, I'm not gonna war with a moderator. Especially one with a temper that rivals my own.

I'm out.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
i remember thinking the wrong gore was running. then sharon stone got up and went off on a 15 minute anti-bush diatribe, complete w/ tears, bemoaning the sad state of the country if this reactionary nazi were elected (i'm paraphrasing, i'm sure she did not use the "N" word.).

Wow, how prescient. I have a lot more respect for Sharon now.

I can say for myself that I did not like Bush before he was elected, but I certainly didn't hate him. I didn't think there would be much difference between Bush and Gore and that's why I voted for Nader. I actually thought Bush would try to govern from the middle and in no way did I anticipate the utter incompetence and bungling of this administration.

Boy was I wrong.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
i would, if i thought kerry had a serious plan for dealing w/ the threat posed by islamo-fascism (and please, skip the usual harangue that al queda isn't "fascist"), one that couldn't be boiled down to suck to mes amis anan et chirac. what did the sympathy from 2001 get us? where is NATO in afghanistan? france has 700 soldiers hunkered down in kabul, but 4,000 in cote d'ivoire. what does that say about their priorities, about their seriousness as allies in the WOT? and, pray tell, how would you respond to suicide bombers? turn the other tower?

Sam already mentioned one specific nation helping out more in Iraq, but Nato as a whole has taken over the International Security force there, and will be adding more new troops in order to help see to the upcoming election.


http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=303748
Meanwhile, as continuing violence underscore security risks in Afghanistan, NATO boosted the number of troops which will be available to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to 10,000 for the planned September ballot.

NATO took over ISAF last August, but has struggled to expand it beyond the capital Kabul because of a shortfall in contributions from NATO member states.

On Monday its leaders agreed to take over four more Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the north of the country — where it already has a small presence — as well as begin expanding into the west of the country.

[BrianKagy]

Beyond that I thought (and think) he's too intellectually incurious to be a good president

Well, on that, we can agree. I could run intellectual circles around Bush-- then again, that's not necessarily why we elect Presidents.

And I'm not trying to push you around just because I can edit your posts to make you claim to be a little teapot short and stout. YouR post really did irk me, though. I have partisan passions and I hate them, but I really do believe I take an honest approach to politics for the most part. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh unless I'm laid up with mono and my gf forgets to change the radio (who does?), and I probably disagree with as many of Bush's policies as you do. His tax cuts are improperly aimed, his Justice Department is trying to rewrite the Constitution, and I think opposition to stem cell research is a crime against humanity.

What I don't like is the perceived reluctance from some to admit they just ****ing hate the other side and always will. GWB is that kind of catalyst, as was Clinton. For anyone who hates one or the other to pretend it's just a matter of circumstance, well, I don't like it and I don't buy it. I think it's dishonest. Sorry, but I don't believe most liberals would like Bush any more if things were peachy all over the world.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso

and yes, many here have implicitly defended saddam, as does MM in his new film (no i haven't seen it) by depicting it as a place where little girls could fly kites, but conveniently leaving out the part about his murder of hundreds of thousands of people. have i misrepresented the film? it's a sin of omission.

It's not defending Saddam to point out that crime and security of everyday life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam. That's just the truth. If you call telling the truth defending Saddam then what YOU saying about Saddam?

I have said before that conditions involving crime and lawlessness have escalated in Iraq post Saddam. I have also said that I believe the Iraqis have a chance at real freedom, and if they get that the temporary pains felt by the lawlessness will hopefully have been a welcome sacrifice. Presenting the whole issue, including some negatives about the invasion, regardless of how temporary is in no way supporting Saddam. It is looking at all the facts involved and assessing the situation as accurately as possible.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
YouR post really did irk me, though.

What I don't like is the perceived reluctance from some to admit they just ****ing hate the other side and always will. GWB is that kind of catalyst, as was Clinton. For anyone who hates one or the other to pretend it's just a matter of circumstance, well, I don't like it and I don't buy it. I think it's dishonest. Sorry, but I don't believe most liberals would like Bush any more if things were peachy all over the world.

I could tell it did. I'm not suggesting an abuse of power Brian, but when a mod says 'you've got to be ****ing kidding me' I know it's an argument I can't win. That's why I was out. I'm back cause your latest post sounds like you want to talk.

I wasn't ever suggesting you were what's wrong with the forum. I said what I said because I believe when one side assumes the other hates the opposition enough to enjoy a terrorist attack or high unemployment it's very difficult to have a rational debate. It also presumes, as I believe you did, that continued support of one ideology over another is mindless rather than considered. I'm partisan just like you, but just like you I still think for myself. This isn't a football game to me. I care what happens to this country.

If you want to call me dishonest, I can't prove I'm not. I can only tell you I'm being sincere. I disagree with most planks in any Republican platform. That is true. There are several I understand and respect, as in abortion, affirmative action, trade and others, even if I don't agree with them. And I believe we can have reasonable disagreements on these fronts without mindlessly sniping at each other. If you've read my posts you might notice I don't go in for every Dem argument. I've actually never suggested here that Iraq had a single thing to do with oil or with Halliburton. I've even disagreed with those who've said those were our primary motivations there.

I never have liked Bush. You're right about that. Beyond everything else I've said in this thread I carry with me at least a slight prejudice against children of privilege -- especially ones who employ that privilege to (IMO of course) aid the privileged at the expense of the less privileged. Some of my dislike for Bush is personal, yes. But I am being sincere when I say that it was a combination of what I consider to be a dangerously arrogant policy coupled with a careful campaign to paint dissenters as traitors that made me hate him. If you don't believe me, you just don't. I don't like being called a liar when I'm not lying, but around these parts at least I guess I'm used to it.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
Well, look, you're the one who said:

The point you missed entirely is that those horrible conditions are exactly why some of us hate Bush.

That implies that you-- or some-- liberals were big Bush fans or at least tolerant of him prior to the current conditions. I think it's clear you have a pathological hatred of the man, and it wouldn't matter if it were raining blowjobs, you'd still hate him.



Well, I'm called a liberal Bush hater in here with regularity, and I supported him in the last election. So...obviously...for some the point Batman made is not only valid, it's supported by evidence.

[twhy77]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Well, I'm called a liberal Bush hater in here with regularity, and I supported him in the last election. So...obviously...for some the point Batman made is not only valid, it's supported by evidence.

We need pictures, I believe the rockHead rule is summoned....

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by twhy77
We need pictures, I believe the rockHead rule is summoned....

:)

I know you;re joking, but I do believe it says a lot about the contemporary political climate that it is generally believed that, if I critcize Bush or the war, I must have been against him from the get go. I am not singling anyone out here, or even talking just about me: I think it somewhat likely that it would be assumed I supported Bush if I supported the war, though not as much. But it has been assumed of me, in here, so often that I am a card carrying Democrat who has always hated Bush...it never seems to occur to people that the war might just be evaluated as a negative on it's own merits, without some political agenda.

[twhy77]

Originally posted by MacBeth
:)

I know you;re joking, but I do believe it says a lot about the contemporary political climate that it is generally believed that, if I critcize Bush or the war, I must have been against him from the get go. I am not singling anyone out here, or even talking just about me: I think it somewhat likely that it would be assumed I supported Bush if I supported the war, though not as much. But it has been assumed of me, in here, so often that I am a card carrying Democrat who has always hated Bush...it never seems to occur to people that the war might just be evaluated as a negative on it's own merits, without some political agenda.

No I agree, some of the most conservative Catholics I know are not in favor of this move, people you would never call liberal, heck they make W. look like a rainbow parade. Me, I'm on the fence. Its just not an easy question, did you get that link I emailed you a while back?

[FranchiseBlade]

The strange thing is that I'm an avid hater of this administration. I've never hated Bush, though. Anyway I was moderately displeased with the way things were going until 9/11. After that I thought Bush did a great job. He didn't fly off the handle and attack before the facts were in. He waited, gathered info, gave the taliban a chance to hand Bin Laden over, and then went in with full international support.

I honestly don't think Gore would have/could have done that. I think Gore would have been called weak, seen as weak, or cowardly unless he attacked right away. I was actually happy that Bush was in office, and pleased with how he handled things. There were minor glitches such as using the word 'crusade' etc.

Bush also had the first speaker at the memorial service an Imam from the Islamic faith, and I was pleased at that.

Iraq could've had me actually admiring Bush for his statesmanship. If he had gone to the UN delivered his tough talking speach and gotten the inspectors in, and stayed on the U.N's case to make sure that measures were strict and that the inspections carried weight behind them, I would have been amazed. That would've been real leadership, and brilliant statesmanship. However, it seemed to me that any dealings with the UN were just a pretext and Bush wasn't really interested in peace. Things have slid further and further downhill since then.

That was my impression of Bush from start to finish.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
That implies that you-- or some-- liberals were big Bush fans or at least tolerant of him prior to the current conditions. I think it's clear you have a pathological hatred of the man, and it wouldn't matter if it were raining blowjobs, you'd still hate him.
For the record, if it starting raining blowjobs I would switch from hating GWB to merely disliking him.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by No Worries
For the record, if it starting raining blowjobs I would switch from hating GWB to merely disliking him.

Hey! That's pretty good!

BUSH 04'
Blowjobs for everyone!

[SamFisher]

Everybody knows that Bush is lagging behind Clinton in blowJob growth. In fact, he might be the first president to have lost blowjobs since Herbert Hoover.




(not withstanding how sucky Hoover was -- triple metaphor score for me!)

[basso]

interestingly, at least 7 posters have voted for option 2. i'm curious, assuming they're willing fess up, and assuming they're actually serious, whether anyone who chose that option would care to elaborate on why?

[No Worries]

I did not vote but ...

You remember how much the right wing wackos hated Clinton for the get go? I suspect that these people would have voted for Dole no matter the circumstances.

[Kimble14]

Originally posted by basso
interestingly, at least 7 posters have voted for option 2. i'm curious, assuming they're willing fess up, and assuming they're actually serious, whether anyone who chose that option would care to elaborate on why?

I voted #2. I misinterpreted the poll. On first reading (which is all I gave it, since I was at work), I didn't pick up on the permanence implied in the options. Other people have expressed my opinions in their posts, so I'll go to bed now.

[Rocket104]

Originally posted by basso
interestingly, at least 7 posters have voted for option 2. i'm curious, assuming they're willing fess up, and assuming they're actually serious, whether anyone who chose that option would care to elaborate on why?

I'm guessing a few may have voted number 2 just to spite you...

[ROXRAN]

I guess some backslapping, hedonistic liberals would rather have their heads cut off then stand to live another day with assured protection, rights and freedoms under President Bush...

Long live 4 more years baby!!! :cool:

[thadeus]

I voted for Joy Behar appearing nude in Playboy.

[wizkid83]

I voted for number 2, I fully expect that's what will happen since Bush will continue to f&*(& the next 6th month, and atleast with Kerry in office, we have a chance (a small one since Kerry isn't that great either) of turning this thing around.

The first choice just isn't possible or realistic, it's like one those free questions on the SAT that you crossed out ;)

[andymoon]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The strange thing is that I'm an avid hater of this administration. I've never hated Bush, though. Anyway I was moderately displeased with the way things were going until 9/11. After that I thought Bush did a great job. He didn't fly off the handle and attack before the facts were in. He waited, gathered info, gave the taliban a chance to hand Bin Laden over, and then went in with full international support.

I honestly don't think Gore would have/could have done that. I think Gore would have been called weak, seen as weak, or cowardly unless he attacked right away. I was actually happy that Bush was in office, and pleased with how he handled things. There were minor glitches such as using the word 'crusade' etc.

Bush also had the first speaker at the memorial service an Imam from the Islamic faith, and I was pleased at that.

Iraq could've had me actually admiring Bush for his statesmanship. If he had gone to the UN delivered his tough talking speach and gotten the inspectors in, and stayed on the U.N's case to make sure that measures were strict and that the inspections carried weight behind them, I would have been amazed. That would've been real leadership, and brilliant statesmanship. However, it seemed to me that any dealings with the UN were just a pretext and Bush wasn't really interested in peace. Things have slid further and further downhill since then.

That was my impression of Bush from start to finish.

Pretty much ditto for me. I was actually prepared to sign up for the military after 9/11. I was thrilled with the way we went after the Taliban and did not begin to rethink that until Bush started snubbing the world in order to attack Iraq.

[basso]

for those of you who think in this poll i perhaps over-estimated the degree of bush hatred, William Raspberry makes an interesting point in an oped on MM's Magnum opus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10713-2004Jun27.html

--
But why did the mostly liberal crowd at last week's Washington premiere -- people who like to think of themselves as thoughtful and fair-minded -- applaud so unrestrainedly?

They applauded, I suspect, for much the same reason so many members of the black Christian middle-class applaud the harangues of Black Muslim minister Louis Farrakhan. Some of his facts may be wrong and some of his connections strained, but his attitude is right. What's more, he'll say in plain language what nice, educated people cannot bring themselves to say: The man is a devil.

[ZRB]

The Bush administration is far more dangerous to America and the world than unstable Iraq and Afghanistan. Option B.

But don't kid yourselves. While Bush is in power, Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to be in shambles.

Keep in mind that Al Queda has endorsed Bush for president. That should tell you something.

[basso]

Originally posted by ZRB
The Bush administration is far more dangerous to America and the world than unstable Iraq and Afghanistan. Option B.


i rest my case.

and this image appeared on the back page of the july 5th issue of the nation:

http://www.pleasevote.com/images/ind_main_goya.jpg

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
i rest my case.

and this image appeared on the back page of the july 5th issue of the nation:

http://www.pleasevote.com/images/ind_main_goya.jpg

What's wrong with that image? So someone gets more creative and artistic with their vote against Bush campaign? It's obviously not literal, nor was it meant for anyone to take it as literal. It does call Bush a monster(in a humerously, and puposefully exaggerated manner), and insinuates that folks can stop the monster by voting against him.

That add shouldn't be offensive to anyone. I'm not saying the ad is art, but it is more artistic than the normal political ad. If folks can't understand that, then perhaps the NEA should have its funding increased and folks should learn more about artistic expression.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
What's wrong with that image? So someone gets more creative and artistic with their vote against Bush campaign? It's obviously not literal, nor was it meant for anyone to take it as literal. It does call Bush a monster(in a humerously, and puposefully exaggerated manner), and insinuates that folks can stop the monster by voting against him.

That add shouldn't be offensive to anyone. I'm not saying the ad is art, but it is more artistic than the normal political ad. If folks can't understand that, then perhaps the NEA should have its funding increased and folks should learn more about artistic expression.

not commenting on it's artistic value, just saying it's an extremely graphic example of the depth of bush-hatred on the left. a level of hatred for a sitting president that is unparralelled in this country's history, IMO, much more profound than the right's hatred of clinton. clinton hatred was based primarily in frustration w/ clinton's political skill. i don't recall ever seeing clinton compared to stalin, hitler, or mussollini.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by basso
not commenting on it's artistic value, just saying it's an extremely graphic example of the depth of bush-hatred on the left. a level of hatred for a sitting president that is unparralelled in this country's history, IMO, much more profound than the right's hatred of clinton. clinton hatred was based primarily in frustration w/ clinton's political skill. i don't recall ever seeing clinton compared to stalin, hitler, or mussollini.

Please... the level of disgust with Bush is primarily based on policy with a generous helping of incompetence. With Clinton, it was much more personal. (And by the way, Bush has a web ad on Kerry that features Hitler.) Then there are these, found in a few seconds via Google...

http://www.roadtowealth.com/demagogue.htm

http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash/pre_2002/newsflash183.htm

http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/biglies.html

http://www.lyinginponds.com/boxscore.20040308.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/email/box048/msg04890.htm

http://www.yauponcreek.org/GunControl/Learning.html

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
not commenting on it's artistic value, just saying it's an extremely graphic example of the depth of bush-hatred on the left. a level of hatred for a sitting president that is unparralelled in this country's history, IMO, much more profound than the right's hatred of clinton. clinton hatred was based primarily in frustration w/ clinton's political skill. i don't recall ever seeing clinton compared to stalin, hitler, or mussollini.

I saw the ad as saying the things that our being to our country by this President are monstrous. I think I have a hatred of this administration on a level I've never had before. I think a lot of people do.

I'm not commenting about this ad about my feelings on this administration. I know you don't share those, but I will and explain my feeling, and add that I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.

I love democracy. I love the United States, and especially the ideas this country has expressed and in large part clung to for most of its existence. I certainly don't deny the warts, splotches and imperfections the country has gone through and continues to go through. As much as I might complain about those things with past presidents, there was still a basic adherance to our nations ideals and values.

There was an idea that war and violence was only to be used a last resort. We frowned or even intervened at the unnecessary use of military force. Democracy was an idea to be spread by exemplifying our freedom, charity, goodwill, and guidance by example. We stood against torture and abuse of power(at least overtly). Those are things I believed in that our current president doesn't hold to.

Our president ignored solutions that might have given us the truth regarding Iraq's WMD capability. Whether or not he is directly responsible for the torture, his justice department was writing memos excusing it, the administration has been claiming that the Geneva convention doesn't apply, and people in this country have bought into the excuse that 'They(the terrorists) do it we should be able to do it too.' That isnt' America. That is not leading by example, and it's the rationale of a 3rd grader. Our president has dismissed scientists when there scientific findings didn't produce the results he wanted. He's fought the courts to be able to hold American citizens without granting them their rights. He's held back information from congress, he's allowed a person with top security clearance to continue in his position with the same clearance and position despite that person having committed a felony, and exposing an officer of our intel community while we are engaged in a war on terror. That is dangerous, and puts personal ambition and cronies above the security of our nation. The president has been secretive, skirted the checks and balances written into our constitution and portrays our nation in a shameful, and dishonorable manner. I want a president that at least holds true to the constitution, and exemplifies those ideals.

Even if I could dismiss all the above and like the idea of the war in Iraq, I still wouldn't want this president running it. He's botched it at every step of the way. The torture happened under his watch, he didn't finish the job in Afghanistan, he allowed looting, and sacking of hospitals, he hasn't been able to secure Iraq, he's made 'mistake' after 'mistake' in gathering intel, running the occupation of Iraq, dealing with our allies in the situation. He's botched it horribly. That kind of incompetance can not be allowed to coninute while we have combat troops on the front lines of battle.

Watching ideals that are American, that I love, being trounced by this administration is painful, and it's happening in a way that it's never happened in my lifetime. To see the leader and representation of our country defile these values, and ideals, I hate this administration, and think it is eating away at the very fiber of what our nation is and has been based on. This ad while intentionally over the top, captures that feeling.

I know you disagree as do many others, and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think there is anything wrong with expressing our frustration in a political ad. If it's more over the top than before, it's only fitting for this administration.

[SamFisher]

edit wrong thread!

[wouldabeen23]

Interesting Sites Rimrocker....the last one was pretty scary:

http://www.yauponcreek.org/GunControl/Learning.html

Makes me feel guilty for owning firearms--sure hope you don't fall in line with these nut-jobs ROXRAN...

[basso]

Originally posted by rimrocker
And by the way, Bush has a web ad on Kerry that features Hitler.)

nice try, but the ad in question just shows the moveon ad that featured bush as hitler...it's not comparing kerry to hitler, but rather comparing kerry to the coalition of the wildeyed that compares bush to hitler. rather nuanced, i know...

[basso]

rim, there's a world of difference between nut-job websites and your party's former presidential candidate. show me an example where bob dole, or a comparable republican public figure, compared clinton to a nazi or fascist and i'll concede the point. the nation is a main stream, albeit quite leftist, publication, comparable to the weekly standard or NR. certainly the latter two were extremely critical of both clintons, but they didn't use that kind of imagery. no, the attacks on bush are unprecedented in kind, if not in scope.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by basso
nice try, but the ad in question just shows the moveon ad that featured bush as hitler...it's not comparing kerry to hitler, but rather comparing kerry to the coalition of the wildeyed that compares bush to hitler. rather nuanced, i know...

Mmmm. Take a look at it...

http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/Default.aspx

And know that just about everyone who has seen it disagrees with you. Take a look at what Will wrote...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/

[mc mark]

Originally posted by basso
nice try, but the ad in question just shows the moveon ad that featured bush as hitler...it's not comparing kerry to hitler, but rather comparing kerry to the coalition of the wildeyed that compares bush to hitler. rather nuanced, i know...

Basso you forgot to mention this little bit of info on the moveon ad.

Six months ago, MoveOn.org held a contest to find the best amateur ad against President Bush. The group invited people to make ads and submit them to its Web site. Some idiot spliced images of Bush together with images of Adolf Hitler, evidently trying to make Bush look like a warmonger. His submissions, which arrived with 1,500 others—too many to be screened quickly—were posted on the contest Web site. As soon as MoveOn.org leaders realized what was in the ad, they removed and denounced it.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by basso
rim, there's a world of difference between nut-job websites and your party's former presidential candidate. show me an example where bob dole, or a comparable republican public figure, compared clinton to a nazi or fascist and i'll concede the point. the nation is a main stream, albeit quite leftist, publication, comparable to the weekly standard or NR. certainly the latter two were extremely critical of both clintons, but they didn't use that kind of imagery. no, the attacks on bush are unprecedented in kind, if not in scope.

So now we're moving from the general to the very specific... if you had been so exact in your original post, we could have saved brain cells. (Incidentally, one of the eamples was referencing Cal Thomas, a guy who has his own show on Fox.) I think this has come up before and there's at least one campaign rally where a speaker before Dole makes the Hitler comparison (to the delight of the crowd) and Dole says nothing. Perhaps someone can search for the thread.

[basso]

Originally posted by rimrocker
Mmmm. Take a look at it...

http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/Default.aspx

And know that just about everyone who has seen it disagrees with you. Take a look at what Will wrote...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/

i have seen it, and i don't need will to think for me. the image comes from the moveon ad.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
i have seen it, and i don't need will to think for me. the image comes from the moveon ad.

Wow. Who is thinking for you? There is no way to look at that ad - and the way the images are juxtaposed - and not conclude that it groups Kerry, Dean, Gore with Hitler. The actual text reads "Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" and includes Hitler among the rest. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining you hadn't seen the ad or Will's article. I'm truly blown away you have seen both and still stick to your guns.

Here's Will's article for those who want to see just how well basso can wiggle:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/

Der Furor

Bush plays the Nazi card.

By William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg
Posted Monday, June 28, 2004, at 4:13 PM PT


From: William Saletan
To: Jacob Weisberg

Where to begin with this despicable video?

Six months ago, MoveOn.org held a contest to find the best amateur ad against President Bush. The group invited people to make ads and submit them to its Web site. Some idiot spliced images of Bush together with images of Adolf Hitler, evidently trying to make Bush look like a warmonger. His submissions, which arrived with 1,500 others—too many to be screened quickly—were posted on the contest Web site. As soon as MoveOn.org leaders realized what was in the ad, they removed and denounced it.

The Bush campaign, outraged by the mixture of Nazi images with images of an American politician, has decided that the best response to this offense is to repeat it.

The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.

Is Bush suggesting that Hitler fits in with this group? Don't be silly, Jake. Bush's aides insist they're just showing the Hitler footage so you can see the filth Democrats are putting out. But we already know how Bush's GOP presents images from Democratic ads when it wants to discredit them. In 2000, Republican National Committee ads repeatedly depicted Al Gore's commercials running on a small television screen in a kitchen. The RNC ads didn't show the Gore ads at full size on your screen because the RNC didn't want the images in the Gore ads to be taken at face value.

This time, the Bush campaign shows the Hitler images at full size, in an unexplained sequence with Gore, Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry. Draw your own conclusions.

How does the Bush camp identify the Hitler footage? "Sponsored by Moveon.Org" says a label on the first Hitler clip, evidently put there by the miscreants who submitted the ad. "Images from Moveon.Org ad" says the Bush campaign's label on the second Hitler clip. The only organization that doesn't identify the clips as a "Moveon.org ad" is MoveOn.org, which denounced the ad and never "sponsored" it. But never mind. Instead of apologizing for this implicit misrepresentation of sponsorship, the Bush campaign has made the misrepresentation explicit. "The following video contains remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry Supporters," says a graphic appended to the beginning of the video.

The Bush campaign's claim that the amateur Hitler ads represent "John Kerry's Democratic Party" is laughable. Kerry didn't control MoveOn.org, and MoveOn.org didn't make the ads. When the ads were submitted, the membership of MoveOn.org largely supported Dean, the candidate who had nearly wiped Kerry off the map. Kerry had just mortgaged his house to get the cash Democrats were refusing to give him. The suggestion that he controlled the party is preposterous—but only slightly more preposterous than the suggestion that Kerry is responsible what Dean and Gephardt said while running against him, or what Gore and Moore said while supporting candidates who were running against him. Not to mention that the question Gore poses in the ad—"How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison?"—is well warranted.

The only clip that can fairly be attributed to Kerry appears at the end, when the senator is shown telling an audience, "George Bush will lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your (bleep) and tell you there is no Promised Land." This is the punch line of a joke Kerry used to tell on the trail. The joke, now thankfully defunct, is too long and unfunny to bear repeating. What's worth noting is that Bush-Cheney '04 thinks this clip shows a man too angry and foul-mouthed to sit in the White House. This from a president who delivered the seven-letter version of Kerry's A-word in his last campaign, and a vice president who boasted Friday that he "felt better" after delivering the F-word to a Democrat on the Senate floor. Politician, go heal thyself.

To: William Saletan
From: Jacob Weisberg

On the pretext of protesting a comparison of George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler, the president's re-election campaign has made an ad that implicitly compares John Kerry to Hitler. To be sure, it's disgusting, for all the reasons you say.

But the vileness of "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" must not be allowed to obscure its essential hilarity. What moron came up with this idea? What are they smoking in Karl Rove's office? C'mon, Will. This ad is the campaign equivalent of The Producers—an idea so egregiously tasteless and stupid that it might just succeed as camp.

Footage of Hitler shouting in German is juxtaposed with footage of Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt getting worked up while criticizing Bush, Michael Moore getting booed for criticizing the Iraq War at the Academy Awards, and John Kerry using the phrase "kick your ass" (which is bleeped out, possibly in an effort to imply he said something worse). I know I should be disgusted by the attempted association of Democrats and Nazis, but it's too funny to get upset about. Cue the goose-stepping mädchen of the Brookings Institution!

What exactly does the Bush-Cheney campaign think that these Democrats have in common with Hitler? Basically, it's that they're too darned excited about politics. They yell. They criticize harshly. They use bad language. The message here, to the extent there is one, is: "Don't be like Hitler—chill out!"

Developing its argument that Nazism was basically a failure to relax, the ad attempts to tie its grotesque libel to the Bush campaign's theme of the month, which is that the incumbent's "optimism" is better than Kerry's "pessimism." "This is not a time for pessimism and rage," the screen text says, over an image of a not at all enraged John Kerry telling his camel joke. The noise and chaos and grainy footage of the Democrats jarringly dissolves into sunny music, accompanied by a clear, color photograph of a confident President Bush strutting around the White House. "It's a time for optimism, steady leadership and progress," the text continues.

This language pushes the facile notion that "optimism" is the most important of presidential qualities deep into the realm of the absurd. The implicit argument is a parody of syllogistic illogic: According to the premise of the ad, Hitler = rage and pessimism; Democrats = rage and pessimism; ergo, Kerry = Hitler. Is there any danger of any person in the United States taking this stuff seriously?

Then again, if such a grotesque video is not an occasion for pessimism and rage, I'm not sure what is. In the president's view, is there ever "a time" for such sentiments? Would Bush have counseled optimism if he'd been a Jew facing the real Hitler in Germany in the 1930s, or a Kurd in Saddam's Iraq? Should the kidnapped U.S. Marine threatened with beheading by his captors be optimistic because optimism is the American way?

A state of perpetual optimism is either a dangerous delusion or a calculated pose. In the case of the Bush campaign, it's evidently the latter. Comparing one's opponent to Hitler is not, in fact, the sign of a confident or optimistic candidate. To the contrary, it's the act of a fearful and cynical candidate who is willing to use any tactic to avoid defeat.

But in reaching so far down so early in, Bush has not improved his prospects. Aimed as it is at the surviving members of various John Birch splinter organizations, this ad will win over no one, while alienating and offending many potential Bush supporters. Republicans will spend much time on the defensive trying to explain why their ad is not as revolting and preposterous as it obviously is. This sets Bush back.

He's going to need better gutter tactics than this to stop Hitler in Ohio.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i have seen it, and i don't need will to think for me. the image comes from the moveon ad.

You mean the ad that was removed from moveon.org and denounced once the content was reviewed.

That's right, you don't need any stinking facts to help you make up your mind.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Wow. Who is thinking for you? There is no way to look at that ad - and the way the images are juxtaposed - and not conclude that it groups Kerry, Dean, Gore with Hitler. The actual text reads "Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" and includes Hitler among the rest. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and imagining you hadn't seen the ad or Will's article. I'm truly blown away you have seen both and still stick to your guns.


and what did gore say just the other day about "digital brownshirts?" and moveon's defense is laughable. they only removed the ad because conservatives called them on it- not because they fely any reticence about depicting bush as hitler.

i should've prefaced my earlier post by saying i don't like the ad. however, there's a huge difference between showing gore, dean, and hitler as "wildeyed" and acusing bush of using gestapo tacticts.

[Rocketman95]

Batman, that's just like the administration professing outrage at Kerry using the F word in an interview, then turning around and using it on the Senate floor.

If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
and what did gore say just the other day about "digital brownshirts?" and moveon's defense is laughable. they only removed the ad because conservatives called them on it- not because they fely any reticence about depicting bush as hitler.

i should've prefaced my earlier post by saying i don't like the ad. however, there's a huge difference between showing gore, dean, and hitler as "wildeyed" and acusing bush of using gestapo tacticts.

1. I didn't think the bush campaign ad was all that bad in the context of disgusting "associative"attack ads; It wasn't Max Cleland/Saddam/Osama level, though it was in the same territory. It was not as bad as I had expected however.

2. Please elaborate on the grounds of this "huge difference", I'd like to see you build up this artificial distinction. (BTW, your history is a little funky, IIRC, the brownshirts pre-dated the establishment of the Gestapo, I believe, so "gestapo tactics" is not an accurate characterization)

3. Since Brownshirts is off the table, is the following materials fair game for an anti-Bush ad? (and would this ad be "huge(ly) different)

a. an article in a conservative online mag/blog about feminists entitled "The Brownshirts of our Time"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10882

b. an article about the NEA (the educational one) called "Brownshirts in the Classroom" http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm03_brown.html

4. What other metaphors are permissible?

"Bush Campaign plans campaign ad blitzkrieg in coming months"

"Karl Rove brilliantly outflanks his opponents with Rommel-esque political manuevering"

"Karl Rove brilliantly outflanks his opponents with Stonewall Jackson-esque political manuevering"

"Republican party purges disloyal operatives"

"Hastert, DeLay exile McCain to political gulag"



I eagerly await the construction of this intellectual house of cards in order to show me the "huge" difference between the two.

[basso]

the distinction, which you continue to ignore, is that leaders of the democratic party are themselves making the nazi comparisons. any such language from the right comes not from BC and Co., but from weblogs, magazines, etc, even then, nazi/fascists language isn't used by mainstream sources. unless you count cheney's endschuldigenf!cking sie...

[basso]

google me this batman, sam, where has Reagan, Bush pere, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Shrub, or Cheney referred to Carter, Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry has a Nazi, Fascist, or Brownshirt, either while in office or after leaving?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
the distinction, which you continue to ignore, is that leaders of the democratic party are themselves making the nazi comparisons. any such language from the right comes not from BC and Co., but from weblogs, magazines, etc, even then, nazi/fascists language isn't used by mainstream sources. unless you count cheney's endschuldigenf!cking sie...

No, you guys tend to use Stalinist/Communist metaphors when leveling insults...blah blah blah.

Were you that offended by brownshirts? If he had said "digital thugs" or "digital henchmen", does that constitute a "Huge Difference"?

What about the other examples? Does using "blitzkrieg" render you liable to get hitlerized? What about "gulag", can I get stalinized then?

You've got a lot of questions to answer on this still.

BTW, I guess I take it that comparing Bush to Saturn is off limits too? Does this go for all of Goya's Pinturas Negras or for Saturn in general in any form, or both?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
google me this batman, sam, where has Reagan, Bush pere, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Shrub, or Cheney referred to Carter, Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry has a Nazi, Fascist, or Brownshirt, either while in office or after leaving?

I don't know, but I do know that if they didn't, then it's ok to put Kerry up there next to a picture of Hitler in bassoland because it's a difference in kind. And not just a difference, a huge difference.

[basso]

Originally posted by SamFisher
BTW, I guess I take it that comparing Bush to Saturn is off limits too? Does this go for all of Goya's Pinturas Negras or for Saturn in general in any form, or both?

andrew sullivan, and yes, we all got the same memo from king karl this morning:

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_27_dish_archive.html#108861088754416598

"Yes, I know it's a Goya parody. So? Bush is eating his own son? This is simple demonization. I was worried that it appeared in the Nation. But now I'm less surprised. Guess who registered the domain name for pleasevote.com, the site sponsoring the ad? The contact listed is hamfish@nationinstitute.org. Sometimes you don't need Michael Moore connecting the dots, do you?"

[basso]

a Goya aside:

in 1986 i was fortunate enough to appear in the world premier of Menotti's "Goya" at the Kennedy Center, televised live on PBS. "Goya" was written for one of three tenors, and we had a nice scene together, which came to be called the "mo duet." this picture perhaps explains why...

http://redrosemusic.com/images/mo_duet2.jpg

thye opera was written in english, and Placido had a rather unidiomatic command of the language. there was a big scene with the duchess of alba called "Ah, do not laugh", but we called it "Chase your booty!" the original words went something like:

Ah, do not laugh
Don't make a plaything of me.
Your laughter will not save you now!
Mine are these hands.
Mine are these eyes.
Yes! your beauty now belongs to me
and burns into my heart!

But when Placido sang, it came out:

Ah, doo nah lafffff
don maeek a playting uhff me.
Choor lafftrrr weell nah safe choo now.
Mine errr theess haints.
Mine errr theess eyeuhs.
Chase! Your booty now belonks to me!
anduh burnsss eento my ccchhheart!

guess you had to be there...

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
a Goya aside:


guess you had to be there...

On the bright side, I can't imagine that a deaf spanish painter would have sounded any more comprehensible than Plathido.

[Refman]

Question: In scenario #2, who is doing the beheading and who is being beheaded? It could make a difference.

:D

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by Refman
Question: In scenario #2, who is doing the beheading and who is being beheaded? It could make a difference.

:D

I was wondering the same thing about this one...

new government democraticly elected

[Deckard]

I'm gone for a few days and the first thread I click on, after checking out the GARM, is this one. How could I be so lucky?? (insert rolleyes here)

basso, is the job going OK? Things good in the basso house? Because, for the life of me, I can't understand why you, or anyone of intelligence, would post a poll like that. It's both idiotic and insulting. I guess you're enjoying it, however, since you've gotten some response. Hell, I'll give you one...

I've disliked Bush for years. I disliked him before he was governor. I thought he was a rich kid who was handed an ownership interest in the Rangers by friends of his father's when he failed as a businessman. I thought he was a terrible governor and I disliked him for that. I thought he ran a dishonest campaign for President, and I disliked him more. I thought he was handed the election by the Supreme Court and it furthered my dislike. I hoped he would prove to be a better President than I expected, but he unfortunately fufilled my expectations. For a brief time, I held only a moderate dislike because of how he handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it soon became clear that he was what I knew him to be, quickly enough, and I wasn't surprised.

I began to hate George W. Bush after he began dismantling our freedoms in this country, ruining our alliances of 50 years standing, and invaded a country needlessly, lying during the runup and, since the invasion, making a complete cockup of the whole thing.

In short, he's been busy screwing up the things I love and respect about my country. So I hate him for that. When he is defeated in November, I'm going to run out into the front yard, if I'm not at Democratic Party Headquarters, and sob with relief. If he somehow manages to win, I may start looking at real estate in New Zealand.

[basso]

Originally posted by Deckard
In short, he's been busy screwing up the things I love and respect about my country. So I hate him for that. When he is defeated in November, I'm going to run out into the front yard, if I'm not at Democratic Party Headquarters, and sob with relief. If he somehow manages to win, I may start looking at real estate in New Zealand.

so if he's so stupid, dishonest, mendacious, how has he managed to win three consecutive elections, in the process garnering more votes than bill clinton, who won in a landslide, that brought him down (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=639283&selectedItemId=639256) ...was he just in the right place (http://imdb.com/title/tt0078841/) at the right time?

[Woofer]

Bush was pretty much the same as governor of Texas, except he couldn't start a war back then. Ann Richards was a much better governor, just could not compete with the money behind Bush.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by basso
so if he's so stupid, dishonest, mendacious, how has he managed to win three consecutive elections, in the process garnering more votes than bill clinton, who won in a landslide, that brought him down (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=639283&selectedItemId=639256) ...was he just in the right place (http://imdb.com/title/tt0078841/) at the right time?

Gore won the last one, that's what's so dishonest and mendacious.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Woofer
Bush was pretty much the same as governor of Texas, except he couldn't start a war back then.

Very similar, even in foreign policy, right down the alliances with unsavory, human rights violating, murderer/dictators

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art/bushlay12.gif

[Deckard]

Originally posted by basso
so if he's so stupid, dishonest, mendacious, how has he managed to win three consecutive elections, in the process garnering more votes than bill clinton, who won in a landslide, that brought him down (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=639283&selectedItemId=639256) ...was he just in the right place (http://imdb.com/title/tt0078841/) at the right time?
Because he's stupid, dishonest and mendacious. And he has some very clever people behind him who are ruthless and will stop at nothing to get this stupid, dishonest and mendacious tool reelected... because he is a pliant tool, and has an incredible amount of money behind him for that very reason.

[basso]

Originally posted by Deckard
Because he's stupid, dishonest and mendacious. And he has some very clever people behind him who are ruthless and will stop at nothing to get this stupid, dishonest and mendacious tool reelected... because he is a pliant tool, and has an incredible amount of money behind him for that very reason.

uhmmm, i rest my case...again.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by basso
uhmmm, i rest my case...again.
And what case might that be? You haven't one, my friend.

[rimrocker]

This fits here...
_______

NOVAK: All right. Readers -- readers of the left wing magazine, "The Nation," might be a little shocked when they see the back page of the current issue. Even the most fanatical Bush haters might be shocked.

Yes, the drawing shows George W. Bush eating a headless child. This is inspired by a 19th century work by Francisco Goya, Saturn Devouring his Children, aimed against the Spanish monarchy.

Sitting at this table, I know how emotional and relentless and mindless is the hatred directed against George W. Bush. But in the spirit of patriotism, this Fourth of July weekend, I wonder, Paul, if you can join me in deploring this treatment of any president of the United States as over the line and unacceptable?

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: In the spirit of patriotism, let me support the first amendment, which says the nation shouldn't be censored by right- wingers. And let me ask you, Mr. Novak, with your new self-founded -- newfounded self-righteousness, are you going to retract the statement you said last week on "Meet the Press," where you implied that President Clinton was involved in people's deaths over Whitewater? That's the most outrageous things I've heard said about an American president.

NOVAK: I didn't say he was engaging -- and you're lying.

BEGALA: I'll read your words.

NOVAK: And when I said that...

BEGALA: "I don't believe that the Whitewater case was ever fully investigated. People died, and I believe Bill Clinton beat the rap on Whitewater."

(CROSSTALK)

(BELL RINGING)

NOVAK: Well, I didn't say he was involved with the thing.

BEGALA: You said...

NOVAK: You...

BEGALA: ... he beat the rap and people died. Who died? Who died in Whitewater?

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: McDougal died, and...

BEGALA: He died in prison of a heart attack.

NOVAK: Well, people died (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But just a minute. You can't -- you can't say -- go on national television and accuse me of something I didn't say.

BEGALA: I read your words.

NOVAK: I did not say that, and that is a lie. And I...

BEGALA: These are your words, Mr. Novak. I read them.

NOVAK: And I'm ashamed of you for going on the air and saying that.

BEGALA: I got this from the transcript. This is the transcript from "Meet the Press", Bob.

NOVAK: That's an outrage. And it is...

BEGALA: It is an outrage. You owe Mr. Clinton an apology.

NOVAK: ... an absolute outrage because I did not say that he was responsible for those deaths. And this is not fun, Paul.

[nyquil82]

further proof that some people are only capable of seeing in black and white.

[Deckard]

""I don't believe that the Whitewater case was ever fully investigated. People died, and I believe Bill Clinton beat the rap on Whitewater."
Bob Novak on Meet the Press.


Very nice, rimrocker. I'm glad Begala called him out on it. This sort of thing happens again and again... the innuendo suggesting murder, in this case, and the guilty party, here being Novak, gets "outraged." What a laugh. The only outrage Novak feels is the "injustice" of having his lies thrown back in his face. That's not supposed to happen. The body politic is meant to absorb the BS and begin to believe it's true.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Deckard
This sort of thing happens again and again...
Yes. I agree. Sort of like implying that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. You're absolutely correct.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Yes. I agree. Sort of like implying that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. You're absolutely correct.
Oh, did Novak say that, too?? I must have missed it.
It's unusual for a "talking head" like Novak to be called out that directly. I find it noteworthy, at any rate.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Yes. I agree. Sort of like implying that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. You're absolutely correct.

Yes, I agree too. Show me any lefty thinker or writer who's quoted as saying that and I'll duly ignore everything he has to say. I'm happy to hear you'll do the same with Novak -- a man who not only lied by blatant innuendo (the favorite trick of this admin) and then pretended to be offended when his direct quotes were read back to him (LO freaking L), but who is also the only living columnist who's abetted an as yet uncharged, top level White House employee in committing a felony of the sort that Bush 41 described as the highest order of treason. Seriously though ima, it really is great when we find points of agreement like this. Way to cross party lines in the interest of patriotism. What'll really impress me though is if you decide you won't vote for those kinds of liars.

Speaking of Novak, isn't it amazing how the Bush admin has dodged the full force of the Plame scandal by flooding the market with other scandals? This is an unprecedentedly successful strategy. My hat is off to Mr. Rove. If there are five plus grounds for impeachment you can just call the left angry and blow off answering a single charge. It really is impressive.

[gifford1967]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rimrocker
[B]This fits here...
_______


Thanks for posting that. I caught the tail end of that exchange and wondered what was going on.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Yes. I agree. Sort of like implying that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. You're absolutely correct.

I'd be willing to bet that there aren't nearly as many people on the left who believe that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand as there are people on the right who think Clinton's guilty of all that stuff.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
I'd be willing to bet that there aren't nearly as many people on the left who believe that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand as there are people on the right who think Clinton's guilty of all that stuff.

Just finished reading David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right."

It should frighten everyone who cares about the founding principles of this country, be they Democrat or Republican.