Sounds like you're trying to rationalize your way out of the data. Had the education data leaned more your way, you most likely would have embraced it.
> The RR inflates the anti-gay numbers dramatically. I think you understimate how many religious people are out there.
Polls indicate that my home state of Massachusetts is majority against gay marriage. Surely we're not a hotbed of Republicanism, right? No, but many are religious.
The point is, the "Right" doesn't have a monopoly on anti-gay-marriage citizens -- not by far.
> They *have* been caught, time after time, and the public doesn't seem to care.
Excuse me, but do you think that the WMD-intel debacle hasn't cost the Bush administration? Oh, it cost them plenty. Perhaps you didn't notice how close this election was for a wartime president.
The problem with your list of lies, though, is that you have to prove the Bush/etc. absolutely knew the truth before speaking the opposite. Difficult if not impossible to do.
I still don't blame Bush (or anyone) for dodging trap questions like "name your worst mistake". I mean, either you admit something terrible and your opponent uses it against you, or you admit something trivial and your opponent says you lack perspective.
Also, there is that FBI investigation into Halliburton contracts. And the Democrats are free to dig for evidence themselves. (They probably have.)
> They lied about Iraq's WMD, they lied about Saddam's al Qaeda connection, they lied about most everything related to this war, it's that simple.
It's not that simple. They were mistaken on the WMD intelligence, as were agencies outside the country. The fact Saddam had al-Qaeda connections was stated by the 9/11 Commission. (They didn't work together, but had friends in common.)
I don't know what "most everything" is, but I advise you to take it with a grain of salt. Ask yourself, what would their motivation be to put forward faulty information? They'd just be caught on it in the end, and you yourself said you wouldn't have minded certain other arguments.
> The god given right of evangelical xians to impose their views on everyone else and meddle in people's lives.
Really? Because I thought that right was given to them by the laws of our democratic republic.
I support gay marriage, but governmental recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is defined by its limitations -- there is also no polygamy, no 1st cousins marrying, no limited-time marriages (a Shia-Muslim thing).
Gays can get pro-gay-marriage laws passed, and that's fine by me. But their opposition can also outlaw it using the same legislative process.
> Pride/Hubris: A presumption of infallibility and complete denial of ever making a mistake.
I assume you're talking about Bush's answer to that loaded question in the second debate? To clear the record, he specifically stated that he made mistakes. That he didn't come to the debate with a ready-made list, and that he didn't want screw up by winging it, should come as little surprise.
> Sloth: He has taken more vacations than any man has a right to.
Although Bush's vacation numbers are often inflated (by including weekends, etc.), you generally mischaracterize Presidential vacations in general. It's not a job you really get away from. Most of the time he spends on his ranch, he's spending it with various world leaders/officials. (Tony Blair, Vicente Fox, etc.)
> Greed: Lots of good old boys are going to cash in for ANOTHER 4 years for elevating a "C's get degrees" party boy to the top.
Wake me when there's some real evidence. Rumors and innuendo does not a "-gate" make.
> Anger: Ass kicking, shoot from the hip, drunk cowboy decision making.
I've yet to see him make a decision that wasn't thoroughly discussed and/or debated beforehand. (Although he does give the impression of being an ass-kicking cowboy, that's really just for show.)
> and you americans have played a BIG part in it by supporting dictators like saddam hussein, saudi and the rest
So we gave Saddam a little satillite info on the Iranians (also dictator-ruled). Its the oh-so-enlightened Europeans who have been kissing Saddam's ass for the past decade.
And Saudi Arabia has long enjoyed an amount of "Western" support. (Not that they really need it, as they're filthy rich.) What's changed under the Bush administration is that the Saudis are now having pressure put on them, are slated to have some elections, and were/are deadset against the liberation of Iraq.
Bush promised in 2000 that he would act as a president that would unite the country.
Four years later, and the country is even MORE divided than before, largely due to the acts of Mr. Bush and his administration during his presidency.
Bullshit. Go ask the people who were screaming about the 2000 election, non-stop, since it was over. Bush's opposition has torn this country apart. Even the Iraq war enjoyed bi-partisan support, even from Mr. Kerry (until late 2003).
Do a Google image search on 'Bush' and 'Hitler' some time. The people responsible for those images are the problem. The people who demonized Bush, and then infected the mainstream Democrats with their virulent hatred.
Uh, they claim to be "Fair and Balanced" when they clearly are not.
And I'm open to that suggestion, but nobody has actually shown me that they're more unbalanced than anyone else. The only examples I get are people saying "they are clearly not [fair and balanced]".
As to your sig, hindsight is always 20/20. Those were not the justifications given before the war.
Most of those points, even the Food-for-Oil corruption, were alleged or suspected before the war. It is rather unfortunate, yes, that the WMD evidence that the world's intelligence agencies put forth didn't really pan out.
On the other hand, if the police raid your house for drugs, but all they find are dead bodies, is it still not worth it?
If he's so bad, and everyone is so worried about it, why don't they form their own force and take over?
With all due respect, the Iraqis tried that. They were slaughtered. This isn't colonial times with muskets and sabres. Modern technology has made dictatorships all the more difficult to overcome.
It's easy to be the world's police when it's not your life on the line.
A wise man once said: "If I can't support a war without having served in the military, then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times."
(1) He's fiscally conservative -- if you ignore his record, or his plans for healthcare (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!) -- he's also said that life begins at conception, and doesn't accept gay marriage (3) He's environmentally friendly -- he voted down the Kyoto protocols (4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other.. 5.7 billion people in the world. -- so Bush is an isolationist? (5) He's actually aware of national security... and on and on. -- which is why he wants to go back to pre-9/11 security standards
Also, that "100,000 Iraqis killed" study has long since debunked. Even in the study report itself, it says it estimates there were somewhere between 8,000 and 250,000 civilian deaths.
That's like a poll coming out that says Bush will get between 4% and 90% of the vote.
Judging from the tenor of most of the reponses posted so far, the only things a 'friend of America' can expect from the US are arrogance, derision and condescension.
To be perfectly realistic, we were responding to a arrogant, derisive, and condescending post.
I fail to see how this will in any way change a majority of the US population's profoundly ignorant and bigoted world view
And that's another perfect example.
You have to come to terms with the fact that people outside of the U.S. have a biased and shallow understanding of America, with few notable exceptions.
George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?
LOL! This is the saddest attack on a President that I've ever seen. Is Bush his brother's keeper?
And did you give the same amount of attention to Bill Clinton's embarassing half-brother? Or to Jimmy Carter's brother?
> LAst weekend Bild had a headline on the front page (on the goddam day the EU constitution was signed!) that the earth is going to flip on its axis and cause massive tidal waves.
The Earth, or the Earth's magnetic poles? One idea is crazier than the other.
Also, the signing of the EU constitution isn't that big of a deal, as it'll probably never get past the various national parliaments/referenda. Opinion polls show support for the EU at its lowest ever levels, and democracy has the same effect on EU legislation as sunlight has on vampires.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you're trying to rationalize your way out of the data. Had the education data leaned more your way, you most likely would have embraced it.
This is just my opinion, mind you.
Not that I should be responding to sigs, but I don't get it.
> The RR inflates the anti-gay numbers dramatically. I think you understimate how many religious people are out there.
Polls indicate that my home state of Massachusetts is majority against gay marriage. Surely we're not a hotbed of Republicanism, right? No, but many are religious.
The point is, the "Right" doesn't have a monopoly on anti-gay-marriage citizens -- not by far.
Except that this was the only county in Ohio that used this type of voting machine.
> Both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice specifically stated that Iraq did not own WMD and did not represent a danger in january and july 2001.
And they changed their minds upon further examination of the evidence available at the time.
Is that too "nuanced" for you? Too "flip-floppy"?
> The government choosing which forms of marriage to official sanction is a clear violation of the separation of church and state
The government giving special recognition to a religious institution such as marriage is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Now you see the root of the problem.
> They *have* been caught, time after time, and the public doesn't seem to care.
Excuse me, but do you think that the WMD-intel debacle hasn't cost the Bush administration? Oh, it cost them plenty. Perhaps you didn't notice how close this election was for a wartime president.
The problem with your list of lies, though, is that you have to prove the Bush/etc. absolutely knew the truth before speaking the opposite. Difficult if not impossible to do.
I still don't blame Bush (or anyone) for dodging trap questions like "name your worst mistake". I mean, either you admit something terrible and your opponent uses it against you, or you admit something trivial and your opponent says you lack perspective.
Also, there is that FBI investigation into Halliburton contracts. And the Democrats are free to dig for evidence themselves. (They probably have.)
Incorrect.
> They lied about Iraq's WMD, they lied about Saddam's al Qaeda connection, they lied about most everything related to this war, it's that simple.
It's not that simple. They were mistaken on the WMD intelligence, as were agencies outside the country. The fact Saddam had al-Qaeda connections was stated by the 9/11 Commission. (They didn't work together, but had friends in common.)
I don't know what "most everything" is, but I advise you to take it with a grain of salt. Ask yourself, what would their motivation be to put forward faulty information? They'd just be caught on it in the end, and you yourself said you wouldn't have minded certain other arguments.
> The god given right of evangelical xians to impose their views on everyone else and meddle in people's lives.
Really? Because I thought that right was given to them by the laws of our democratic republic.
I support gay marriage, but governmental recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is defined by its limitations -- there is also no polygamy, no 1st cousins marrying, no limited-time marriages (a Shia-Muslim thing).
Gays can get pro-gay-marriage laws passed, and that's fine by me. But their opposition can also outlaw it using the same legislative process.
> falsely claiming Kerry wanted to legalize gay marriage?
Either that, or Kerry was falsely claiming that he opposed gay marriage.
It's certainly a possibility, and I'm not about to blame them for speaking on their beliefs. Mind you, though, I'm a pro-gay-marriage Bush supporter.
> Pride/Hubris: A presumption of infallibility and complete denial of ever making a mistake.
I assume you're talking about Bush's answer to that loaded question in the second debate? To clear the record, he specifically stated that he made mistakes. That he didn't come to the debate with a ready-made list, and that he didn't want screw up by winging it, should come as little surprise.
> Sloth: He has taken more vacations than any man has a right to.
Although Bush's vacation numbers are often inflated (by including weekends, etc.), you generally mischaracterize Presidential vacations in general. It's not a job you really get away from. Most of the time he spends on his ranch, he's spending it with various world leaders/officials. (Tony Blair, Vicente Fox, etc.)
> Greed: Lots of good old boys are going to cash in for ANOTHER 4 years for elevating a "C's get degrees" party boy to the top.
Wake me when there's some real evidence. Rumors and innuendo does not a "-gate" make.
> Anger: Ass kicking, shoot from the hip, drunk cowboy decision making.
I've yet to see him make a decision that wasn't thoroughly discussed and/or debated beforehand. (Although he does give the impression of being an ass-kicking cowboy, that's really just for show.)
If they graciously accepted defeat, and didn't go all moonbat-crazy, then yes -- the nation would not be so divided.
Of course, they were well within their rights to do what they did, but it didn't make it a good move, now did it.
> and you americans have played a BIG part in it by supporting dictators like saddam hussein, saudi and the rest
So we gave Saddam a little satillite info on the Iranians (also dictator-ruled). Its the oh-so-enlightened Europeans who have been kissing Saddam's ass for the past decade.
And Saudi Arabia has long enjoyed an amount of "Western" support. (Not that they really need it, as they're filthy rich.) What's changed under the Bush administration is that the Saudis are now having pressure put on them, are slated to have some elections, and were/are deadset against the liberation of Iraq.
Bullshit. Go ask the people who were screaming about the 2000 election, non-stop, since it was over. Bush's opposition has torn this country apart. Even the Iraq war enjoyed bi-partisan support, even from Mr. Kerry (until late 2003).
Do a Google image search on 'Bush' and 'Hitler' some time. The people responsible for those images are the problem. The people who demonized Bush, and then infected the mainstream Democrats with their virulent hatred.
> How about it has not effected me one bit. Just like how it has not effected 99.9% of Americans.
;-)
On the contrary, it just got you modded down.
Strange, as Bush is currently up by about 11% in Florida, with 29% of the precincts reporting in.
And I'm open to that suggestion, but nobody has actually shown me that they're more unbalanced than anyone else. The only examples I get are people saying "they are clearly not [fair and balanced]".
Most of those points, even the Food-for-Oil corruption, were alleged or suspected before the war. It is rather unfortunate, yes, that the WMD evidence that the world's intelligence agencies put forth didn't really pan out.
On the other hand, if the police raid your house for drugs, but all they find are dead bodies, is it still not worth it?
With all due respect, the Iraqis tried that. They were slaughtered. This isn't colonial times with muskets and sabres. Modern technology has made dictatorships all the more difficult to overcome.
A wise man once said:
"If I can't support a war without having served in the military,
then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times."
Evil Genius?
Also, if you're talking about Resident Evil: Outbreak, you couldn't actually control yourself once you became a zombie.
(1) He's fiscally conservative -- if you ignore his record, or his plans for healthcare .. 5.7 billion people in the world. -- so Bush is an isolationist? ... and on and on. -- which is why he wants to go back to pre-9/11 security standards
(2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!) -- he's also said that life begins at conception, and doesn't accept gay marriage
(3) He's environmentally friendly -- he voted down the Kyoto protocols
(4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other
(5) He's actually aware of national security
Also, that "100,000 Iraqis killed" study has long since debunked. Even in the study report itself, it says it estimates there were somewhere between 8,000 and 250,000 civilian deaths.
That's like a poll coming out that says Bush will get between 4% and 90% of the vote.
To be perfectly realistic, we were responding to a arrogant, derisive, and condescending post.
And that's another perfect example.
You have to come to terms with the fact that people outside of the U.S. have a biased and shallow understanding of America, with few notable exceptions.
Good god, imagine the uproar if George W. Bush wanted to do that.
LOL! This is the saddest attack on a President that I've ever seen. Is Bush his brother's keeper?
And did you give the same amount of attention to Bill Clinton's embarassing half-brother? Or to Jimmy Carter's brother?
> LAst weekend Bild had a headline on the front page (on the goddam day the EU constitution was signed!) that the earth is going to flip on its axis and cause massive tidal waves.
The Earth, or the Earth's magnetic poles? One idea is crazier than the other.
Also, the signing of the EU constitution isn't that big of a deal, as it'll probably never get past the various national parliaments/referenda. Opinion polls show support for the EU at its lowest ever levels, and democracy has the same effect on EU legislation as sunlight has on vampires.