Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XI

[Thundercrack85]

I don't think Bush thought that much.

But then I never saw Bush as intelligent or villainous. More like a well-intentioned, easily-manipulated idiot surrounded by people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[Hotwire]

I don't think Bush thought that much.

But then I never saw Bush as intelligent or villainous. More like a well-intentioned, easily-manipulated idiot surrounded by people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

"W doesn't talk while Cheney's dinking water. Check that s*** out."
-Robin Williams

Personally, I've always thought of W. like those babies in cartoons. The ones that wander around aimlessly through numerous life threatening hazards, but by pure dumb luck, come out unscathed.

 

[WildcatNC]

The left clearly has selective moral outrage.

Pointing it out just makes them angerier.

EVERY group has selective outrage.

Your not saying anything insightful, just distracting from the current idiotic commentary from Rush. You yourself seem to be displaying "selective outrage". I don't fundamentally disagree that both sides are hypocrites and get selectively offended when it suits them.

Isn't that what your doing though?

If both are hypocrites then calling one out on it isn't productive, its a distraction or talking point. By seeming to take sides you become the very thing you are criticizing. You MAY be playing devil's advocate (which I like to do a lot) but its not coming across here.

I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with you that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. are analogous to Maher, Colbert, or Stewart. Thats my problem with your take. If you were using an actual good comparison I would agree with you.

I will say its very telling that the right has to drag out comedians and satirists to put up as equivalent to their actual Pundits and popular mouthpieces. Its a false equivalency. Olberman? Sure. Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow? Sure. Those are valid comparisons. Apples to apples.

The problem is that the right knows its been dragging further to the extreme and the only people it can find that say equitably outrageous things are satirists and comedians who ALWAYS say outrageous things and step over the line by trade, always have. Always will, thats the point.

Tells you a lot about how far right the core of the party has swung. Tells you much about the rights lack of a sense of humor as well that many refuse to get the difference.

 

[Hotwire]

EVERY group has selective outrage.

Your not saying anything insightful, just distracting from the current idiotic commentary from Rush. You yourself seem to be displaying "selective outrage". I don't fundamentally disagree that both sides are hypocrites and get selectively offended when it suits them.

Isn't that what your doing though?

If both are hypocrites then calling one out on it isn't productive, its a distraction or talking point. By seeming to take sides you become the very thing you are criticizing. You MAY be playing devil's advocate (which I like to do a lot) but its not coming across here.

I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with you that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. are analogous to Maher, Colbert, or Stewart. Thats my problem with your take. If you were using an actual good comparison I would agree with you.

I will say its very telling that the right has to drag out comedians and satirists to put up as equivalent to their actual Pundits and popular mouthpieces. Its a false equivalency. Olberman? Sure. Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow? Sure. Those are valid comparisons. Apples to apples.

The problem is that the right knows its been dragging further to the extreme and the only people it can find that say equitably outrageous things are satirists and comedians who ALWAYS say outrageous things and step over the line by trade, always have. Always will, thats the point.

Tells you a lot about how far right the core of the party has swung. Tells you much about the rights lack of a sense of humor as well that many refuse to get the difference.

:slow clap:

 

[floreairfoot]

I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with you that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. are analogous to Maher, Colbert, or Stewart. Thats my problem with your take. If you were using an actual good comparison I would agree with you.

You don't agree, because one commentator has a larger following, and one woman is more popular.

This can't go any further.

I will say its very telling that the right has to drag out comedians and satirists to put up as equivalent to their actual Pundits and popular mouthpieces. Its a false equivalency. Olberman? Sure. Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow? Sure. Those are valid comparisons. Apples to apples.

The problem is that the right knows its been dragging further to the extreme and the only people it can find that say equitably outrageous things are satirists and comedians who ALWAYS say outrageous things and step over the line by trade, always have. Always will, thats the point.

Tells you a lot about how far right the core of the party has swung. Tells you much about the rights lack of a sense of humor as well that many refuse to get the difference.

I thought they were both hypocrites, where's the wrongs of the left?

Just kidding.

 

[floreairfoot]

I'm tired of many just thinking the Iraq War had to do with simply getting cheap oil. That was a motivation because US corporations took control of the supply, hoped to create a pro-Western democracy that would invite in Western media, consumerist values, and favorable trade deals. Some of the defense contractors made a mint building the US bases there and the infrastructure of Iraq. The military industry loved the making of profit from weapons and ratings the war would bring.

But I think the reason Bush went there was to appease the lobbyists and special interests that feed his reelection campaign and to make up for his intelligence failings in preventing 9/11, not catching or killing Bin Laden, and helping America get some version of revenge for 9/11 in which he would be seen as a heroic war time President who freed Iraq and Afghanistan that would be reelected in 2004. It was opportunity fed by his ego to remain President of the United States.

Luckily, all of that has fallen apart miserably.

I wouldn't say it's "lucky", since the Middle East is in worse condition than when we got there, but I believe it was definitely a large portion of his motivation.

It's clear, because we didn't stay focused on the point of the war - An attack on the US. We tried starting housing projects, interfered with elections, etc. It's been a disaster.

Now that we've stuck our nose in Egypt's business (though, that's been under Obama), the Muslim Brotherhood has taken parliament, labeling Israel an enemy.

With all the damage, it's making it more difficult to get out.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I really wouldn't be afraid of moderate Islamists taking over governments in the Middle East. It's not really any different than say evangelicals gaining power in the United States.

 

[SV Fan]

Now that we've stuck our nose in Egypt's business (though, that's been under Obama), the Muslim Brotherhood has taken parliament, labeling Israel an enemy.

<sarcasm>Yeah how dare Obama send drones into Egypt and blow up the Pyramids.

I really wouldn't be afraid of moderate Islamists taking over governments in the Middle East. It's not really any different than say evangelicals gaining power in the United States.

To be perfectly honest I fear evangelicals taking Power in the US, separation of Church and state and all

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

<continued sarcasm> I think the Japanese tsunami was also Obama's fault. Because it happened while Obama was President.


Man, floreairfoot is such a party-line hack.

 

[floreairfoot]

I really wouldn't be afraid of moderate Islamists taking over governments in the Middle East. It's not really any different than say evangelicals gaining power in the United States.

If they were moderate.

 

[WildcatNC]

You don't agree, because one commentator has a larger following, and one woman is more popular.

This can't go any further.

Your right, it can't. However your assumption of why I don't agree is wrong.

I thought they were both hypocrites, where's the wrongs of the left?

Just kidding.

Most everyone is a hypocrite if you question them enough. Its human nature. You like what you agree with or benefits you and you don't like the opposite. All groups do it. Logical consistency is not a human strong point. Both sides are guilty of selective outrage and hypocritical Rhetoric. That does't mean its always equal or the same. Individuals vary and it fluctuates over time.

We are talking about Rush, why should we start making a list of each sides bull and comparing it? None of that has any bearing on what Rush said or our opinions of it.

I don't disagree there is selective outrage. Its the comparison to Maher that I think is ridiculous. Dennis Miller is a conservative comedian and I don't think he should be held to the same standard as a serious news guy either. The host of Red Eye has a right bent too. He's not a "pundit".

Freedom of speech was primarily given so we could criticize our leaders and political figures. Satire/Parody has always been one of the primary methods of doing so and should be seen as a service, regardless of what side of the aisle they are on and protected as such.

 

[Schlosser85]

I would be afraid of evangelicals taking over the United States. They aid and abet murder in Uganda.

 

[floreairfoot]

<continued sarcasm> I think the Japanese tsunami was also Obama's fault. Because it happened while Obama was President.

Obama called for the resignation of President Mubarak, are you aware of that?

Anyway, I was discussing our failures in the middle east, some by Bush and some by Obama.

Man, floreairfoot is such a party-line hack.

Everyone take note.

If you disagree with the majority, there will be name-calling.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Mubarak didn't resign because Obama asked him to. Do you really think Obama has that much power? Mubarak resigned because 95% of his people were against him and had basically shut down his country's economy through disruptive protests that made it impossible for him to continue as an effective leader of the country. His own military had turned against him in the end.

I called you a party-line hack, because your critcisms of Obama veer into the ridiculous over stuff he has little to no control over. Not because you disagree with the majority.

 

[DBryan]

Obama called for the resignation of President Mubarak, are you aware of that?

So did many other world leaders. Mubarak was killing his own people and the people of Egypt wanted him gone.

Everyone take note.

If you disagree with the majority, there will be name-calling.

I think its more your own attitude than the positions you're taking being unpopular.

 

[floreairfoot]

Mubarak didn't resign because Obama asked him to. Do you really think Obama has that much power? Mubarak resigned because 95% of his people were against him and had basically shut down his country's economy through disruptive protests that made it impossible for him to continue as an effective leader of the country. His own military had turned against him in the end.

I was explaining that Obama interfered in Middle Eastern buisness, just like Bush.

I called you a party-line hack, because your critcisms of Obama veer into the ridiculous over stuff he has little to no control over. Not because you disagree with the majority.

I don't see it's ridiculousness.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I was explaining that Obama interfered in Middle Eastern buisness, just like Bush.

You're fudging the truth. What you said was....

Now that we've stuck our nose in Egypt's business (though, that's been under Obama), the Muslim Brotherhood has taken parliament, labeling Israel an enemy.

... Implying that it's Obama's fault that the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over. Mubarak would have fallen and the Muslim Brotherhood would have taken over the country, regardless of who the US President was at the time. Acknowledge that and we will be done here.

I don't see it's ridiculousness.

That's because you're wearing some nice blinders.

 

[floreairfoot]

Your right, it can't. However your assumption of why I don't agree is wrong.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just thought that was the reason.

Most everyone is a hypocrite if you question them enough. Its human nature. You like what you agree with or benefits you and you don't like the opposite. All groups do it. Logical consistency is not a human strong point. Both sides are guilty of selective outrage and hypocritical Rhetoric. That does't mean its always equal or the same. Individuals vary and it fluctuates over time.

We are talking about Rush, why should we start making a list of each sides bull and comparing it? None of that has any bearing on what Rush said or our opinions of it.

I don't disagree there is selective outrage. Its the comparison to Maher that I think is ridiculous. Dennis Miller is a conservative comedian and I don't think he should be held to the same standard as a serious news guy either. The host of Red Eye has a right bent too. He's not a "pundit".

Freedom of speech was primarily given so we could criticize our leaders and political figures. Satire/Parody has always been one of the primary methods of doing so and should be seen as a service, regardless of what side of the aisle they are on and protected as such.

That's all I'm trying to do, give criticism where I think it warrants notice.

I could find hypocrisy in Republicans too, but my focus was mainly Obama for this instance.

 

[DBryan]

It is ridiculous for multiple reasons.

1. Mubarak would have been overthrown irregardless of what Obama said.

2. It was correct for Mubarak to step down. I don't understand your position. Are you saying it would have been more correct for Obama to say, "Mubarak should stay". No. It was the absolute correct thing for Mubarak to step down from power. Is your position that Obama should have said nothing at all? That Obama should give NO comment whatsoever, on one of the biggest issues in the Middle East in 2011? What? That's crazy.

Obama only said the most obvious thing in the world, that Mubarak should step down. Where is the controversy?

 

[hippie_hunter]

If they were moderate.

The Muslim Brotherhood which became the largest party in Egypt after the elections took in the extremist al-Nour and secularist New Wafd and Egyptian Bloc to form a coalition government in Egypt. Moderate Islamists did the same in Tunisia and Iraq where it was moderate Islamists that took control and formed coalitions with secularist parties while pushing the extremists to the side.

There is nothing wrong moderate Islamists taking control of governments in the Middle East. The Middle East is an Islamic society and their governments need to reflect that, especially since secular dictatorships in these countries brutally repressed religious movements that threatened their power. In order to be legitimate, governments need to reflect what kind of society their constituents form.

You also have to take into account that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood provided all sorts of charity services to provide for the people where their governments failed. That is where their major source of power comes from.

 

[SV Fan]

Obama called for the resignation of President Mubarak, are you aware of that?

It's one thing if you want to blame how Libya is going on Obama, but Obama has/had little or no say what went on in Egypt. It just seems like another reason to try ***** about Obama then an actual argument.

 

[floreairfoot]

It is ridiculous for multiple reasons.

1. Mubarak would have been overthrown irregardless of what Obama said.

2. It was correct for Mubarak to step down. I don't understand your position. Are you saying it would have been more correct for Obama to say, "Mubarak should stay". No. It was the absolute correct thing for Mubarak to step down from power. Is your position that Obama should have said nothing at all? That Obama should give NO comment whatsoever, on one of the biggest issues in the Middle East in 2011? What? That's crazy.

Obama only said the most obvious thing in the world, that Mubarak should step down. Where is the controversy?

I never said Obama was the reason Mubarak lost power, but I do believe it was a contributing factor.

I do think Mubarak should have stepped down, and I think what replaced him will end up being much worse. Only time will tell.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I do think Mubarak should have stepped down,

So, after all this criticism of the President, you're basically saying you agree with him.

 

[SV Fan]

I do think Mubarak should have stepped down, and I think what replaced him will end up being much worse. Only time will tell.

If it's much worse then it's the people of Egypt's fault. I think the US has pissed off enough countries in the Middle East trying to dictate who should run there country.

 

[floreairfoot]

So, after all this criticism of the President, you're basically saying you agree with him.

I do not believe he should have been involved.

If it's much worse then it's the people of Egypt's fault. I think the US has pissed off enough countries in the Middle East trying to dictate who should run there country.

Right and right.