Are Bush haters scumbags?

The fact that his supporters need to label everyone who disagrees with him as a hater to avoid actually arguing his mistakes puts this thread in the proper light.

Say something that Bush did that you don't like = you hate him?

Does that even make sense? Disagreeing with someone means you hate them? I guess I hate my wife... We have great debates and discussions on a lot of things. We must hate each other.

I don't hate Bush any more than I hate any person whom I think has made stupid mistakes.

- To say that I do even after what I've just said here means to me that you read minds and know me better than I know myself. An arrogant statement and pretty silly if you look at it honestly.

- To say I'm just a blind liberal loyalist is equally as ridiculous because the fact is I'd vote for any president I felt was intelligent enough to run this country properly. McCain, Rice, and Powell come to mind.

Let's face it no one would mention Bush's name when rattling off presidents that would be considered great thinkers. I just don't think he's the right guy for the job. I'm sorry if you can't accept that as my opinion without thinking I hate the man, but that's your problem.

 

Beat those straws up George!

Nothing like watching a liberal portray themselves as victims. Gloom, despair and agony on me

 

Well if all you're gonna do is do everything you can to not address or counter the points in my post well... what good are you? Comic relief? Yeah I guess we can take you about that seriously.

As for the point you made in an attempt to change the subject yet again... am I portaying myself or am I simply addressing the point of this thread?

Look let me break down the sillyness of this argument. And since you like to use me so much I'll use you as an example.

Me: OK George Bush took us into Iraq on false pretenses but won't admit he's wrong.
You: You're just a Bush hater.. boo hoo
Me: Umm... but he did.... Aren't you even going to counter that?
You: Look at you all cut and run. Tissue? Kooky liberals rofl
Me: What? You still haven't even addressed what I said yet.
You: You're a liberal nutcase that hates Bush!
Me: I just stated that he.... nevermind...

That's pretty much any thread that you and I are in.

Now consider this. Any time I say anything against Bush I'm a Bush hater. But hey, you might even argue that everything I say is anti-Bush so I must hate him and I'm blinded by hate. That sound about right?

But check this out... I can simply counter by saying you have proven that you will defend anything that Bush does. Show me some examples of where you disagreed with anything Bush says as we close in on the November elections. You're blinded by loyalty.

See we can just go round and round in circles calling each other blind. But that's what you want isn't it? Because to actually debate the issues at hand would mean that you might have to admit that Bush screwed up here and there which I don't think is physically possible for you to do.

 

You thought your strawman arguments deserved addressing? Ok, I can work with delusion!

Change the subject of what? Boo hoo, I don't like GWB, but I don't know why? Get a grip!

Yes, another strawman argument. Beat the strawman up George, you macho man you!

Me: OK George, what false pretenses? You mean these?
You: but, but but what about wmd?
Me: I thought you said GWB took us to war on false pretenses? Did you mean these wmd?
You: but, but, but Bush lied about something, I know!
Me: Ok, so what did he lie about?
You: He misled America.
Me: In what way?
You: He lied about Iraq.
Me: How so?

and on and on and on.

Let's not forget how you also know that the military made it's retention goals through stop loss, even though sources tell a different story. But no, George has no source, his only defense is that maybe my source could be wrong and that he knows, because he supposedly works for the DoD. Yeah, right, always the same, huh Georgie?

Blinded by hatred?

You haven't been around much, just getting your feet wet down here. Do a search for border security and immigration. I won't do your research for you, but if you have any skill, you can easily find it. And your example of where you've ever said anything good about Bush? I didn't think so. You're blinded by hatred and as I pointed out last week, your hatred over powers your ability to work with honesty. Only the message matters, right George?

If you were smart enough and took the time, you might even find where I openly admitted GWB lied about something. I won't give it to you on a silver platter though. You have some sort of skill, right? After all, you *were* an "officer" supposedly. See what you can find

Indeed, we can go round and round. You can keep pretending you care about America, that you don't hate Bush, and that you won't sacrifice your integrity for an opportunity to expose that hatred.

Now if you *really* want to debate, see my example of yourself above. Bring your issues and for once, back them up with something more than your opinion or what you read on a liberal blog. And for once, be prepared to answer questions, not just ask them. That one's gotta hurt

Until then, I'll treat you like the whining little liberal you are!

Tissue?

 

GET OVER IT. I think this thread has gotten out of hand. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you like it or not. Just for the record, I'm a Canadian citizen, and I've been living here practically my entire life. Therefore, I'm a viewer just like everyone else who sees everything that happens on TV. You can't just throw words around, telling people their supporters of terror and this and that.

Believe what you want. I'm proud to be Lebanese, and I don't care what you think of me because you don't even know me to begin with. It makes me sick to know that people actually judge you based on world issues. That's really pathetic.

 

But they are not entitled to their own facts

 

Trying to make it seem like an OK I'll stoop to your level moment isn't gonna work here. You tried to dodge the issues at hand with one liners and changing the subject and I called you on it.

We were talking about Bush Hating and you tried to (yet again) take it off track with a baited comment about liberals. It's simple A + B = C logic man. All the name calling in the world cannot defeat it.

LOL

Wow. OK first of all I don't think there is anyone who's ever watched you and I go at it that believes I'm the one who constantly backpedals and changes the subject when losing an argument. You have your puppets mixed up in that puppet show in your head. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but when you're going to try to use it to insult someone you have to actually make sense when doing so else the joke's on you.

As for your links:

Link 1: All that link proves is that a lot of people fell for his retoric and that in the aftermath of 9/11 and the bullhorn speech everyone wanted to have his back. Now actually show me a link that actually proves there were WMDs in Iraq that posed a threat to America SO GREAT that it warrented us invading their country. No talks... no negotiations... none of the BS courtesies we're giving Iran right now. Just let's get em, yeeeehaaaww!

Link 2: Now Rick Santorum took a serious balck eye over those mustard canisters and now he's fighting for his life (and trailing) against the weakest candidate the Democrats could throw at him. Do you really want to go there again?

I mean in that very thread when I actually pointed out to you that you were wrong, there was no sensational media blackout as you tried to proclaim but that it was all over all the stations. But even Fox news dropped it like a hot potatoe when people started asking questions about what we really found.

And what did you have to say?

WMDs are WMDs and 10 year old mustard gas capable of skin burns is 10 year old mustard gas capable of skin burns. So is this what happens when people actually ask questions in that little world you live in?

Ahh your favorite topic as of late because you think it gives you the right to call me a liar. Let's address.........

A) I can pretty much erradicate any delusions you have over my current employment and exactly whom it is I work for by sending you my command specific .mil address via PM. But you're not interested in that because you don't like end game. You will likely call me a Bush hater for haveing that address as well or some other off the wall comment that doesn't address the fact that I'm throwing it in your face. Heck if you had access to the GAL you could simply look up my name and see that I work for DISA and am attached to USTRANSCOM. But alas... doing so would make your argument look silly.

B) Your uhh.. source? != > my source. I'm sorry but it's fact. Trying to take advantage of the fact that you know darn well I can't flat out record conversations and play them just for GTech in a forum is cowardess. Flaunting it and using it to call me a liar even more so. You should be ashamed.

C) You're retired and out of touch with what goes on in the DoD these days where as I am not. Sorry...

D) In the thread you're speaking of you confused reelistment with retention but I'll try to explain it for you in slow-mo

But let's quote exactly what I said for clarity sake here

RETENTION
GTech it's this simple. If you think the military is not imposing stop loss on mission critical MOSs you need to get your head out of the sand. Here I'll make it simple for you.... if there is anyone reading this thread still in the Army today who can coroberate please explain to Mr. GTech that there is a stop loss for critical MOSs (especially infantry) in effect at this very moment. Frankly anyone in the military or that works closely with the military knows this GTech. Sorry you don't....

E) And most importantly. The bottom line here is that when you said we were meeting our goals I simply asked a question (which once again conservatives seem to hate for some reason). I said... "
Who do you think sets those goals that we're so easily meeting?"


REENLISTMENT
Now cmon GTech... don't you find it odd.... that one year we are struggling to reach our goals and falling short. Then the very next year (as support for the war in Iraq declines and young kids know what's going to happen if they join) we're hitting suddenly hitting our goals and doing fine? Not odd at all? The thought didn't cross your mind that maybe... just maybe... that's because the same people that set the goals are charged with reaching them and they simply lowered the goals? That wouldn't cause us to suddenly reach our goals now would it?

Where's the lies GTech? The intentional Bush hatred fueled lies I was supposed to have told? Where are they?

Nope.. pure simple logic. Asking questions is not = to hatred GTech. It may make you hate me though it seems

I'm not the one who uses that phrase over and over again hoping it sticks. Perhaps you're the one that believes it?

As for my example.. sure you're right I'm new down here and don't have as much history as you. But had I been in those threads I can assure you I'd have been disagreeing with you. I agree with Bush on immigration and his social security plan believe it or not. It's either that or we're all gonna sit here and watch the gov waste it away. Again my point was that it's silly to argue that I hate Bush just because I disagree with him. Yet it appears your attempt to change the subject to me instead of simply agreeing with me on that was clear.

You better believe I'm all over that

Umm.. I know you are but what am I?... no no that's not it... Oh yeah and you can keep pretending that I hate America and I and anyone else that disagrees with you just hates Bush just so you can actually have something to say. Without that your post count would decrease greatly.

Done thanks. I can't wait to see how long this lasts. GTech actually trying to debate and make solid points without going personal because he has nothing else to say?

Welp... that didn't last long.

 

Nice post GeorgeB!

Can you say pwNt!?!?

Photobucket can!

 

Since when do those two not go hand in hand?

 

You did? Where?

Liberals hate Bush, right? What's the beef? What's the topic of the post? Whose crying?

Worried about your popularity, huh? Nothing of substance here, as usual.

No, it proves that long before Bush was in office, the same intel was used by previous administrations and other world leaders. Is that a fair statement? What part of it do you feel isn't accurate? What did Clinton say?

So where's the lie? Where's the misleading? Are you really prepared to debate this?

Setting your own criteria, eh? I've never eluded to such, nor is it any requirement I'm aware of. What do you base this requirement on, to accept that there were wmd? Bottom line is, WMD were found and it's that pure and simple reality that I base it upon. WMD were found. Did you have any other issues here?

Really? I heard there was yet more to come. Did you try the Santorum thing before? Yes, I believe you (or someone) did try to show that his poll numbers were falling because of it, when in fact, they were falling before hand, at that time. Was that you that was trying to pawn off that lie? I can't remember exactly, but I remember calling someone on it. Give your recent history that facts and credibility are not important to you and that only the message matters, I wouldn't be surprised.

No matter what you throw at it, WMD were found. Anything else to add to this point?

Incorrect, initially there was a media blackout. The story couldn't be found anywhere. And when it was, it didn't last long. Fox did not drop it, in fact they covered it quite a bit. You may have thought you pointed out I was wrong, but you didn't.

Bottom line is, WMD were found. More, might I add.

Quote me on that? WMD were found. It upset you dearly. That's something you'll have to work on. Have you thought about counselling? Who asked a question, btw?

You clearly demonstrated you are more than capable of lying. Only the message matters.

I could honestly care less whether you do or do not work there. It's not an issue for me, I simply mentioned "supposedly."

 

Easy..

You said I "lied" several times in this post. Only in the same post to take the points I made and try to spin them. Which is it? Am I "supposedly" a government employee or am I a government employee? It seems you enjoyed alluding to the possibility that I might not be one but when I showed you that I am fully prepared to prove it to you and how. You could suddenly care less Is there a stop loss or did I lie about it? Does the DoD (directed by the OSD) set the goals so they can reach them or does it "not matter" if they set them or not?

You say I'm backpedalling on on the stop loss statement because I mentioned mission critical MOSs. Shows how desperate you are. You know that a stop loss is a stop loss and the point is it keeps troops from getting out that want to. I only qualified it with more detail (mentioning that it's for mission critical MOSs) because it is! If anything the fact that I'm giving you more detail should clue you in to the fact that I know what I'm talking about. I could have not mentioned that it's for mission critical MOSs and it would still mean the same thing. It's a stop loss.... Stop reaching.

You want me to have lied so bad that you think saying it over and over will make it so. But calling me a liar makes you look silly. It's not like anything I'm saying isn't known by anyone that is in the military or works for the DoD. There IS a stop loss right now and that is a pretty big factor in why the DoD can say we reached our retention goals. The DoD does set it's own reenlistment goals and that is why it's not exactly difficult to reach them.

I honestly don't think anyone else reading this believes otherwise besides you. But then you have to. Because without that to hold on to we'd have to get back to discussing the issues with no distractions wouldn't we

And uhh.. yeah I think I will keep "quoting myself as a source". Because I am a DoD employee just like the "official sources" half your link sources like to quote. What's your title again? Armchair investigator PI?

 

Everyone in the entire world, except Repblicans, is now classified as a scumbag.

 

Except what?

 

I've refocused the issues at hand so you are not so tempted to go off topic with random banter:

You assert:

George Bush took us into Iraq on false pretenses but won't admit he's wrong.


What are the false pretenses you suggest he should admit to?

Is this opinion, or do you have a resource to help better understand why you've come to this conclusion?

Military retention. You suggest the Army made it by a stop loss program. News sources including:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-30-16-43-14

and many others, say otherwise.

Are you suggesting they are lying to create numbers?

Are you suggesting the military has not met it's goals this year?


You suggest here

Yet here http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20051011-4881.html we see that fiscal year 2005 goal was 80,000 with 92% met and here http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true the article suggests the fiscal year 2006 goal is 80,000 and 100% met.

How do you reconcile the misleading nature of your post above, to suggest:

I could argue that the actual number isn't important, it's the percentage made, because as we know, the needs do change from year to year. However, I don't have to argue that, as the goal is the same this year, as it was last year, for the Army. What I don't understand, is how does someone who suggest "they know" more because they work at the DoD and have access to this information, but for whatever reason cannot source it, would not know the goal numbers were identifical between the two years? And further, why would you "suggest" they were lower this year, than last?

Now you ask, where are the lies. Is there anything else you require?

 

I'm NOT an American liberal (i.e. leftist). I'm a libertarian. I do not hate Bush, or anyone. I do disagree with Bush and hope he gets impeached, for many reasons; here's a few:

1. He's openly claimed the right to violate over 750 laws by using presidential signing statements. He openly believes he's above the law, which is the exact opposite of the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.

2. He (and his administration) doesn't respect the 4th Amendment to the United States' Constitution, nor the human right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. He has conducted unwarranted spying on American citizens on American soil, despite the secret FISA court which allows for secret warrants to be secretly issued after-the-fact.

3. He (and his administration, and namely Rumsfield) wasted the tax-dollars of U.S. citizens by using tricky juxtaposition to convince (conservative) America that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. (Indeed, 80% of Fox News watchers believed that Iraq/Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 42% of other citizens.) They also used outright lies, namely about the presence and manufacturing of WMD, to trick the U.S. and U.K. into believing that Iraq posed a threat (despite the actual threat posed by countries like Iran and North Korea).

4. The poor handling of the needless Iraq war has led to thousands of U.S. soldiers deaths and 10s of thousands of Iraqi citizens death, leaving Iraq in a civil war, which they euphemistically call "sectarian violence" or a "quagmire".

5. His open support of anti-freedom (a.k.a. anti-libertarian) legislation that would infringe on the free-trade right of U.S. citizens to voluntarily enter a marriage contract with each other, which is based on his mixture of church ("sanctity") with state (contract law).

6. His huge spending which has increased the dept.

7. The fact that he (and the Republican congress) supports (and gives) tax-cuts to the rich, instead of working-class U.S. citizens. Indeed, they'd rather give tax-cuts to dead rich people (estate tax cut) than living working people.

8. Osama Bin Laden.

9. His foreign policies increase hatred towards America and foster terrorism. For example, his connection to the corrupt leaders of Saudi Arabia (who happen to be filthy rich) fosters hatred and terrorism, and was one of the three main reasons Osama Bin Laden claims to have allegedly attacked the U.S. on 9/11. (The other two were the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and U.S. military/financial support of Israel.)

10. His connection to Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, and pharmaceutical companies. Four huge industries which use bribes and lobbyists to destroy democracy in the U.S.

I think 10 is enough for now.

Because of the existence of these valid reasons to dislike the Bush administration, I do not think that all "Bush haters" are "scumbags".

Thanks,
Scott Hughes

 

I forget to point out that the needless Iraq war has cost U.S. taxpayers over $320 billion so far. Most estimates say that it will cost well over a trillion dollars before it's over.

Since Bush and the Republican congress support tax-cuts for the rich, that means the working-class will end up footing the bill. Indeed, it is working-class citizens (not Bush's daughters) who die in the wars.

 

Did you have *any* sources for these Scott, or are they all personal opinion where you don't know for sure, you are just guessing? I'll take on a few of the issues, if you are willing to back them up. Otherwise, like most, I'd just be wasting my time, because "only the message matters."

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040924-120646-8254r.htm

 

Bush never made that connection There were no "outright lies" as Gtech has pointed a thousand different times here.

There is no violation of the 4th amendment. These are intelligence gathering exercises for people who call Al Qaida. International calls; intelligence operation. No 4th amendment (nor the obligatory 1st amendment violations that'll be coming up next).

Every president signs executive orders. The true power of the presidency resides in the executive orders. Every one of them sign them. If you read them, your "libertarian" ideals might even approve of many of them; as they usually tend to circumvent needless government controls.

No one's rights are being violated. This is a silly argument. Since you obviously referring to homosexual marriage. Think about it. As a straight guy, you have the same to marry a woman. A gay guy has the right to marry a woman. Straight woman have the right to marry a man. Lesbians have the right to marry a man. Everyone's rights are equal. What you are seeking is the alteration of the "contract". If it is simply a "contract" anyone two people can go down to any lawyer's office and right up their own "contract" with the same enforcement as a "marriage contract" would. "Libertarianism" is not about imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Maybe you should really reconsider if you are libertarian at all.

Are you suggesting that we should back down and appease OBL's wishes so that he doesn't attack anymore? Is that your suggestion? Bush's policies foster terrorism? Is that why the WTC was attacked in 1993, the Kobar towers were attacked, the USS Cole was attacked? Cuz of Bush? Makes sense, I suppose

In one sense, you are right. If the US would just pull out of the middle east, let the Islamic people destroy Israel and let them have that entire part of the planet. Why would they bother coming after us? Oh wait...you've probably never played Dominoes before.

I think you are the first libertarian I've EVER heard to use class warfare in their argument. Libertarians are for LOWER taxes (since the rich pay more taxes, its logical to include that when they are lowered, they get the bigger cut). Are you against lower taxes? Or are you simply engaging in the non-libertarian sport of class warfare? Which is it?

Again, while I'm sure you like to think you are libertarian, you are not. Please don't sully a good political opinion such as libertariansim by attaching your beliefs to it.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm

​