NationStates Jolt Archive

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

He also wanted to send black people back to Africa as soon as it was all over.

let me make a point


lincoln stood over a civil war, a war within the country between itself, it was started over the withdraw from the union by the south


bush is standing over a war within a foreign coutnry started without rhyme or reason. he started a war with afghanistan over "terrorism" then rammed into iraq for no other reason than to attack it

Talking stomach?

Are you sure you don't mean an organ a bit lower down?

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

Allow me. They are very different.

I could say that a boat is quite similar to a shark, as they both spend a lot of time in the ocean, but that doesn't make it the case.

let me make a point


lincoln stood over a civil war, a war within the country between itself, it was started over the withdraw from the union by the south


bush is standing over a war within a foreign coutnry started without rhyme or reason. he started a war with afghanistan over "terrorism" then rammed into iraq for no other reason than to attack it

The world today is a much smaller place. Foreign countries are no longer so foreign, and a war with anyone can almost be called a civil war.
As for terrorism..Not trying to argue it, but Saddam supported terrorists. It would be impossible to go after every single terrorist, just as it would have been impossible for Lincoln to go after each individual slave holder.
When there is a flaw in the system, you do not simply change a component, because the flaw is still there. You must change the entire system. Kerry targets components, the small picture. Bush targets the large pieces, he is looking ahead to his repercussions.


A side note in response to the original post: A lot of people will be very similar, but the media plays different sides...Is the glass empty, or half full? It would seem to me that it is the media who decides how full or empty the glass is, regardless of how much is actually in it.

He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves.

[Bush] changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.


I know I can address this bit.

Lincoln's unwillingness to make the Civil War a war over slavery was because of his desire to stabilize the Union, as he believed at the outset that reconciliation was still possible. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation, thus making the Civil War a war over slavery, in order to ensure that no foreign nations would become involved on the side of the Confederacy. Several nations in Europe, particularly Great Britain, relied on the American South for cotton for their textile industries. However, the issue of slavery was one that few governments really wanted to deal with at the time.

Bush's reversal is of a different nature. WMD's were used as a reason to go to war. Hindsight shows that this seems to have been more of an error in intelligence than judgement. He didn't really change that stance - he has stated that he believes WMD's are either still hidden somewhere, or have been smuggled out of Iraq. The war has also always had a bit of a terrorism issue to it. That particular reason has gathered strength recently because the WMD reason is growing thin.

There, I know that bit of your assessment is false. I'm sure someone else can deal with the rest.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?

You're introducing reasonable historical comparison into the debate. Since liberals aren't reasonable and have no concept of history, prepare for attacks on your mother.

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

He also declared martial law, sent federal troops to New York City to interfere with elections, imprisoned thousands of Northerners merely for disagreeing with him, confiscated firearms, shut down dozens of opposition newspapers and jailed their owners, deported a member of Congress who opposed him, and openly supported the Union's terrorist activities against Southern citizens. Lincoln was not anti-slavery, either. William Lloyd Garrison said Lincoln "does not have a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery into new territories, but had no intention of interfering with it where it existed. The real purpose of his war was the implementation of Henry Clay's "American System-" a highly centralized federal government, subsidized corporations, internal improvements, extremely high protectionist tariffs, a national bank, an income tax, etc.

I have a feeling i'm involved in the starting of this thread

Actually Lincoln did lie. If you do any amount of research you should know he wasn't as Honest as the American school district lets out. That whole thing about Freeing the slaves, he didn't start saying that until long after the civil war started, and he was more than willing to let them keep slaves. As a matter of fact the last state to allow slavery was Delaware in 1868. Just remember, the winners write the History books.
About the Lincoln thing, thank you, he was a lot like Bush, a lying Republican who changed his stance on the war half way through, although unlike Lincoln Bush will not boost our econemy at the end of this war, and the war will not end, and unfortunately he wont be assassinated, I know these things.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?

No, but neither did Lincoln. He was an ardent white supremacist.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?

Nope. No standing up for minorities. He just appointed a Hispanic Atty. General, a black Sec. of State, not to mention the black Sec. of Education he had in his first term, the Hispanic he appointed to the bench (and was blocked by Dems), the black his father appointed to the SCOTUS and he might promote to Cheif Justice. Nope. anding up for minorities there...

The world today is a much smaller place. Foreign countries are no longer so foreign, and a war with anyone can almost be called a civil war..
i stopped reading right here because my bullshit meter hit the fan

You're introducing reasonable historical comparison into the debate. Since liberals aren't reasonable and have no concept of history, prepare for attacks on your mother.
attacks on your intelligence perhaps, maybe you need reread my post

Nope. No standing up for minorities. He just appointed a Hispanic Atty. General, a black Sec. of State, not to mention the black Sec. of Education he had in his first term, the Hispanic he appointed to the bench (and was blocked by Dems), the black his father appointed to the SCOTUS and he might promote to Cheif Justice. Nope. anding up for minorities there...
oh you mean all the people who epitomise neocon? i would hope the democrats are blocking them like nutcases at a beatles concert

attacks on your intelligence perhaps, maybe you need reread my post

Ooh, not far off. Exactly what your side does in desperate situations...

oh you mean all the people who epitomise neocon? i would hope the democrats are blocking them like nutcases at a beatles concert

Oh wait. I thought we were talking about them the color they were. That is the prism of the debate, because that is how your guy framed it.

Ooh, not far off. Exactly what your side does in desperate situations...
*plays a neocon*

woo im ignoring all points from liberals and dismissing them because liberals are inherently stupid and evil


lincoln on the civil war and bush on the war with a foreign country over irrelevant reasons are not the same thing

the key points here

civil war
lincoln changed his position to a known fact to keep support away from the south
bush changed his positions multiple time as his previous reason was shown to be a lie

oh yeah those are SO the same

on is tactics one is stupidity

*plays a neocon*

woo im ignoring all points from liberals and dismissing them because liberals are inherently stupid and evil


lincoln on the civil war and bush on the war with a foreign country over irrelevant reasons are not the same thing

the key points here

civil war
lincoln changed his position to a known fact to keep support away from the south
bush changed his positions multiple time as his previous reason was shown to be a lie

oh yeah those are SO the same

on is tactics one is stupidity

Projection. Rule number one of the playbook. #1 You made that particular discussion about intelligence. I simply pointed to the fact that that's what libs do when they've got nothing else. #2 Our discussion on Bush not standing up for the minority. I pointed out the various minorities he did stand up for. You made it about ideology. You changed the discussions. Game. Set. Match.

Projection. Rule number one of the playbook. #1 You made that particular discussion about intelligence. I simply pointed to the fact that that's what libs do when they've got nothing else. #2 Our discussion on Bush not standing up for the minority. I pointed out the various minorities he did stand up for. You made it about ideology. You changed the discussions. Game. Set. Match.
i bet you feel smart but fine i will counter you

on y our point you state he was standing up for minorities, but that is a moot point as he is supporting them upon the fact they share his political and religious moral philosphies, not because of their race


game over

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.


I think Lincoln should have just let the south seccede.

I think Lincoln should have just let the south seccede.

Two things,
One, finally someone who isn't intent on only flaming others posted
Two, He didn't want to look like a "weak" president and let the country split in two

i bet you feel smart but fine i will counter you

on y our point you state he was standing up for minorities, but that is a moot point as he is supporting them upon the fact they share his political and religious moral philosphies, not because of their race


game over

A minority is a minority is a minority, regardless of their political opinion. Regardless of that, he's supporting them because they are qualified (as he did with all of his Cabinet), not because of their race.

Nope. No standing up for minorities. He just appointed a Hispanic Atty. General, a black Sec. of State, not to mention the black Sec. of Education he had in his first term, the Hispanic he appointed to the bench (and was blocked by Dems), the black his father appointed to the SCOTUS and he might promote to Cheif Justice. Nope. anding up for minorities there...
Those are the acceptable minorities these days. I don't see him lifting one finger to help homosexuals. In fact, he and his supporters have done pretty much everything in their power to oppose gays and lesbians. Despite his claims that he believes homosexuals should be given some form of benefit, his attempts to block those benefits with the Federal Marriage Amendment paint quite a different picture.

Lincoln created an unneccesary war within our own country.
Bush created an unneccesary war in somebody else's country.
...Close enough.

Those are the acceptable minorities these days. I don't see him lifting one finger to help homosexuals. In fact, he and his supporters have done pretty much everything in their power to oppose gays and lesbians. Despite his claims that he believes homosexuals should be given some form of benefit, his attempts to block those benefits with the Federal Marriage Amendment paint quite a different picture.

I need to go, but I encourage you to look at this issue some more. Your position makes absolutely no sense.

Those are the acceptable minorities these days. I don't see him lifting one finger to help homosexuals. In fact, he and his supporters have done pretty much everything in their power to oppose gays and lesbians. Despite his claims that he believes homosexuals should be given some form of benefit, his attempts to block those benefits with the Federal Marriage Amendment paint quite a different picture.

Help minorities do what? Minorities are doing very well in this country,
has it ever occurred to you that millions of people come to America for
the benefits that the US offers. Any person can do well in this country,
but the only ones complaining about are the ones that already live here.

You think not letting gay people get married is taking away liberties, but no -
it wasn't a lone decision we all voted on it and said "no". Most of America
thinks it's sickening. How is that the fault of one man? How does marriage
benefit homosexuals anyway? - gay people move in and out of relationships
so often that we'd just be adding to the divorce rate - so forget them. ;)

OK i dont see why anybody didn`t point this out...
Notice how the civil war was to end slavery IN OUR OWN COUNTY... this had nothing to do with the fact bush attacked Iraq to end their problems. y do we need to end the problems of another country. we have problems here in america that bush should concentrate on. Also notice Bush's father hit iraq and failed to kick saddam out of power. well from my point of view i think bush hit iraq to prove that he is a better presidednt then his father by getting rid of saddam. Now this will sound extremly crazy but I belive Hitler strikes the biggest resemblance. Notice that one of germany's buildings was burned down and this gave Hitler a reson to attack another county after saying they did it when the whole time Hitler himself ordered nazi's to burn the building. Well if you read the documents Bush received plenty of notice that Osama wsas attacking us Y then didn`t he rais up protection in our country. He ignored the letters and now he uses 9/11 in all his speeches to tell us american's that we have a reson to be fighting terrorism. his spacific quoet was.
"People of america, we are at war in iraq let us not forget 9/11." WTF did 9/11 have to do with iraq? I know hitler did the whole holocost thingy and But dont you think killing thousands of middle eastern people is like that...well maybe not but we are killing lots of civilians in our bombings. So explain this stuff to me please if you can tell me that Bush is a good president and back it up do it.

I just read the comic strip in Rolling Stone that talked about Lincoln in regards to this past election... I find it endearing that I come online and find this here, too, it must be a sign!

Originally Posted by Talking Stomach
If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

OK i dont see why anybody didn`t point this out...
Notice how the civil war was to end slavery IN OUR OWN COUNTY... .
But that is exactly what it wasn't doing. Lincoln oly tagged that on after the start of the civil war. Not to mention it didn't end slavery, the last state to have slavery was Delaware, in 1868, 3 years after the civil war ended. Most of the people in the south were fighting for their rights as states to succede from the Union. Less then 5% of all southerners owned slaves.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?
Why do the minorities need someone to stand up for them? Aren't they just as good as the majorities?

You think not letting gay people get married is taking away liberties, but no -
it wasn't a lone decision we all voted on it and said "no". Most of America
thinks it's sickening. How is that the fault of one man? How does marriage
benefit homosexuals anyway? - gay people move in and out of relationships
so often that we'd just be adding to the divorce rate - so forget them. ;)

Oh, shut the fuck up and learn something.

Check the divorce rates in Mass.

Check the divorce rates in Mississippi.

Here's some help: Linkie poo (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/)


Why do the minorities need someone to stand up for them? Aren't they just as good as the majorities?
Because they're-get ready for this-the minority? They don't have superior numbers (kinda the point behind the word "minority") so the majority MUST be stopped from abusing them.

I think Lincoln should have just let the south seccede.
Oh dear GOD yes.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

You sick twisted Nazi. Talking stomach? More like talking out of your ass.

Please excuse my harshness, I just spent an hour talking to a very nice homeless person, who is far more intelligent, compassionate, and reverent, than you will ever be.

Ergo, my intolerance for stupid people and those who have the audacity to compare Bush to any other American president, let alone Lincoln, is very high.

he is supporting them upon the fact they share his political and religious moral philosphies, not because of their race


Exactly, and I wasn't even talking about racial minorities exclusively. Bush may be bad but he's not a racist. He's not "supporting" them anyway; he's simply appointing them. Appointing a black judge =/= setting up programs to combat selective enforcement by the police.

Now how about gays? Do you see Bush supporting them? Do you even see him ignoring them? Nope. Utterly against. So much against, in fact, that in order to maintain control Cheney, with a lesbian daughter, has to assume an anti-gay position. Sad. This is the man that half of our registered voters picked to have the most power of any single person in the country?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and one more thing. This debate is about whether Bush is like Lincoln. Don't try and use my statement to say it's about whether he supports minorities. Any extension of the Bush vs. Lincoln argument is fair game for this thread.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?

Yeah, I do. He's had two black Secretary of States, Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice (who is the first black woman to hold that position). Also, Gonzalez is the very first Hispanic Attorney General. I'd say he's doing pretty well for minorities by showing them that they can succeed by their merits and their race will not hold them back.

Just because he doesn't bow to the NAACP doesn't mean he's not standing up for blacks. He met with the Urban League, a black minority group.

liberals are stupid and they all deserve to get punched in the face

Hmm, a Civil War that threatened the very integrity of our country versus a war that we still aren't sure on what reason it started.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a war move, it both destablized the South's labor force (by encouraging slave revolts) and removed the Europeons giving the South assistance from the equation.

Switching reasons on Iraq happened because the first reason ended up being incorrect, then the second reason followed suit, leaving us with a third reason that's so arbitrary you can't really say whether it is right or wrong.

When there is a flaw in the system, you do not simply change a component, because the flaw is still there.

What if the flaw is that component?
:rolleyes:

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

Lincoln is considered by many to be one of, if not the greatest Presidents ever. Now, comparing him to Bush predicts a favorable look on our current leader in the future. I can only hope so.

Yeah, I do. He's had two black Secretary of States, Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice (who is the first black woman to hold that position). Also, Gonzalez is the very first Hispanic Attorney General. I'd say he's doing pretty well for minorities by showing them that they can succeed by their merits and their race will not hold them back.

Just because he doesn't bow to the NAACP doesn't mean he's not standing up for blacks. He met with the Urban League, a black minority group.

Speaking of that, there is a recent political cartoon making fun of Condoliza Rice for basically being black and not being able to hold the position of secretary of state. Has anyone from the NAACP spoken out against this? No.

The NAACP is a waste. It stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who Share Similiar Beliefs as us. They're radical racists...and that makes them above all hypocrits.

a war with the south can hv a plausible definative ending...u win become hero or u lose and become villian.....

a war in Iraq, difficult to see a clear cut win.....so we won over saddam army but trouble only starts with victory in traditional sense.

in that context, Bush is far worse..........also i hv no idea whether Lincoln has done all he could to avoid war....Bush certainly didn't/.

conclusion Bush far worse or far batter depends on your point of view.

Yeah, I do. He's had two black Secretary of States, Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice (who is the first black woman to hold that position). Also, Gonzalez is the very first Hispanic Attorney General. I'd say he's doing pretty well for minorities by showing them that they can succeed by their merits and their race will not hold them back.

Just because he doesn't bow to the NAACP doesn't mean he's not standing up for blacks. He met with the Urban League, a black minority group.

*nods blankly* Uhuh uhuh yep yep. uhuh.

And so, what exactly has he done for poor people? The majority of whom are minorities? (sorry, that's my topic today)

Speaking of that, there is a recent political cartoon making fun of Condoliza Rice for basically being black and not being able to hold the position of secretary of state. Has anyone from the NAACP spoken out against this? No.

The NAACP is a waste. It stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who Share Similiar Beliefs as us. They're radical racists...and that makes them above all hypocrits.
and there are those people who could care less about advancing the colored agenda ie clarence thomas condoleeza rice etc

*nods blankly* Uhuh uhuh yep yep. uhuh.

And so, what exactly has he done for poor people? The majority of whom are minorities? (sorry, that's my topic today)

Why must the government babysit poor people? Why don't poor people do something for themselves for a change?

and there are those people who could care less about advancing the colored agenda ie clarence thomas condoleeza rice etc

Why is there a colored agenda? I thought it was supposed to be about equality. If so, why do they (NAACP) go out of their way to make themselves seem different and entitled to so many things. They're just distancing everyone who doesn't agree with their view on the world.

Why is there a colored agenda? I thought it was supposed to be about equality. If so, why do they (NAACP) go out of their way to make themselves seem different and entitled to so many things. They're just distancing everyone who doesn't agree with their view on the world.
you brought it up

naacp isnt all great, but neither is every non naacp person

naacp isnt all great, but neither is every non naacp person

Yeah...

anyhow...back to topic...

No president in history has ever been without some seriously nasty flaws SOMEWHERE. Humanity and goodness don't mix well. Abe was very USEFUL to the goodness of the world, in that he used slavery abolishment to his advantage. Similarly, War has led to the invention of the Internet.

We owe death and destruction and fear and hate for Google.

Doesn't mean they're good things in and of themselves.

So, yes, Bush and Abe are alike. They're pricks. Just one is dead, and was more useful to the world. Hitler was also useful, he helped to unite the world against war, and helped to inspire comic book characters, like Captain America.

Does that mean any of them were truly -good- people? Hell no.

Then again, Mother Theresa was a more or less good (if deranged) person, who was extremely harmful thus far.

I'd sooner call Bill Gates a saint. He's had fewer negative effects on society, and, while hardly pristine, at least isn't outright evil, either, and he's done a little good (You should see all the money he's pumping in to Africa).

Yeah, I do. He's had two black Secretary of States, Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice (who is the first black woman to hold that position). Also, Gonzalez is the very first Hispanic Attorney General. I'd say he's doing pretty well for minorities by showing them that they can succeed by their merits and their race will not hold them back.

Just because he doesn't bow to the NAACP doesn't mean he's not standing up for blacks. He met with the Urban League, a black minority group.


What is Bush results? ..one must judge by the results...not just by the instrument of execution as this is chosen purely for convenience and effectiveness.

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Lincoln had been eleced, but not inaugurated. The war started on Buchanon's watch.

In actuality, his main concern was securing the Union. He was against slavery from the beginning, but said we should limit it instead of abolishing it (before he became president). Since the South ceceded anyway, why not just abolish it? Serves them right (even though I doubt those were his thoughts at the moment). The Proclamation of Emancipation was meant to please the North (those he had control over), not the South (those he didn't).

Want to know the real reason why the South broke off? Lincoln won, and he wasn't even on the ballot in all but 2 southern states. The South was already losing ground in Congress, and the fact that man who didn't even win one southern state became POTUS was the straw the broke the candle's back. Fearing that their say in things, and therefore their way of life, was at the mercy of the North, they broke off.

Comparing Lincoln's actions to Bush's is like comparing butterflies to moths. Lincoln was brilliant. Bush isn't.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

True, but much different than Lincoln.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

Well, here's a big difference: During the Civil War, Americans were killing Americans. Brothers fighting brothers. Fathers fighting sons. Lincoln had an obligation to repair the South, as every single citizen of the Confederate States of America was now, once again, a citizen of the United States of America. "United we stand, divided we fall." That's what happened during our Civil War, and Lincoln tried to "stand" the Union "back up".

Bush, on the other hand, invaded a country that was never part of the US for reasons we're still not quite sure of. He's cleaning up because if he doesn't, we look bad! :D

There's a reason why many historians rate Lincoln as one of the top three Presidents we've ever had, and not anyone with the surname of "Bush".

The comparisons you made between the two presidents can be made between any two wartime presidents.

You can't really judge presidents on decisions they make so much as the rationality for the decisions. And in that consideration Lincoln stands hands and shoulders above Bush.

And leave minorities and race out of this. It is irrelevant because there is no link in the comparison. They presided over two very, very different cultures.

Help minorities do what? Minorities are doing very well in this country,
has it ever occurred to you that millions of people come to America for
the benefits that the US offers. Any person can do well in this country,
but the only ones complaining about are the ones that already live here.

You think not letting gay people get married is taking away liberties, but no -
it wasn't a lone decision we all voted on it and said "no". Most of America
thinks it's sickening. How is that the fault of one man? How does marriage
benefit homosexuals anyway? - gay people move in and out of relationships
so often that we'd just be adding to the divorce rate - so forget them. ;)

For your information, Boston legalized gay marriage in their state. So that means a majority in Massachusetts approves. So what if 99% of the people outside the state think it's revolting? Massachusetts made it a law, and no other state has the right to ban that law. Not even the president, moreso a REPUBLICAN president, has a right to get involved. This is a state law that does not hurt the country in any way.

I find it ironic that republicans, who are always so 'let the states handle local issues' suddenly become so centralized when something pops up they don't like. I thought they had a word for that, what was it again? Oh, Hypocracy!

Nope. No standing up for minorities. He just appointed a Hispanic Atty. General, a black Sec. of State, not to mention the black Sec. of Education he had in his first term, the Hispanic he appointed to the bench (and was blocked by Dems), the black his father appointed to the SCOTUS and he might promote to Cheif Justice. Nope. anding up for minorities there...Appointing token minorities isn't the same as standing up for minorities.

Most of the people in the south were fighting for their rights as states to succede from the Union
so they could have slaves without the union interfering.

Lincoln is considered by many to be one of, if not the greatest Presidents ever. Now, comparing him to Bush predicts a favorable look on our current leader in the future. I can only hope so.
Except to have a favorable look on our current leader would mean to ignore his policies.

On the start of the Civil War, it did indeed begin obstensibly b/c of Lincoln's election, in truth b/c of the loss of ground that someone mentioned, and other reasons, the South was looking for reasons to Seceede, and the election of any canidate other than the South's was good enough(Breckinridge was Southern Democrat, Bell was Consitiutional Union). Lincoln's position was not threatening of the South's slave system, he wanted to maintain it where it was while not extending it, and while this seems threatening b/c it will give the Non-Slave States more power in Congress, but Lincoln wanted to protect that, so he wouldnt be divisive. Someone said that Lincoln was White Supremacist, not true, was he devoted to Abolition, no, but he wasnt a white supremacist either. This is a place where Bush and Lincoln are similar, neither really cared. Not cared you say? But Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proc. and he did, to get the Moral High Ground and to get more Troops. Counter to this to say that Britan was ready to go to war to help the South is untrue, Britan was at the time the largest textile manufactureer, and reliant on Cotton, but there had been massive crops of cotton the previous year and the UK had enough stockpiled and coming from other Colonies to sate its appetite for cotton. France was the closest to helping the South, the French Monarchy was interested in the failure of the American Democracy, and yes this was post-Vienna Congress and the French Monarchy was back in power. Now, I know this is all about Lincoln so far, but its important to get our facts right. As for economics Lincoln and Bush were very different, Abe was running on a platform to help the Norhtern workers, Bush is sticking to the policy that Republican's have since McKinley, Tax Cuts, for now lets ignore whether or not these were sucessful. To get back to the Wars, Bush's War on Terror is ambigious, partially b/c its two Wars(Afganistan and Iraq) and then Anti-Terror. Afganistan and Iraq were started by Bush, the Anti-Terror was not. This is different that Fort Sumner being attacked and Buchannon doing nothing and waiting around to go home. But ive got to go now so I cant do anytning else.

Hitler was also useful, he helped to unite the world against war, and helped to inspire comic book characters, like Captain America.

Captain America was the worst comic book hero ever.

But back to topic, while supporters of Bush would certainly like to compare their hero to Lincoln, the fact remains that the two are in entirely different leagues. Of course there are similarities; George Washington and Ike Eisenhower were both military commanders, but the resemblance more or less ceases there.

Whether we gain anything beneficial from the war in Iraq, like a comic book hero, remains to be seen. But I wouldn't count on it.

Since liberals aren't reasonable and have no concept of history, prepare for attacks on your mother.
We need none of this. Lack of reason knows no ideology. There are idiots and unreasonable people of every ideology.

You think not letting gay people get married is taking away liberties, but no -
it wasn't a lone decision we all voted on it and said "no". Most of America
thinks it's sickening. How is that the fault of one man? How does marriage
benefit homosexuals anyway? - gay people move in and out of relationships
so often that we'd just be adding to the divorce rate - so forget them. ;)
Banning them from marriage is taking away liberties.

it wasn't a lone decision we all voted on it and said "no".
That's called tyranny of the majority.

How does marriage benefit homosexuals anyway? - gay people move in and out of relationships so often that we'd just be adding to the divorce rate - so forget them. ;)
OK, and how do you know this? Contrary to media stereotypes, gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people. In fact, there are many gay people who are disgusted by "gay pride parades".

I find it ironic that republicans, who are always so 'let the states handle local issues' suddenly become so centralized when something pops up they don't like. I thought they had a word for that, what was it again? Oh, Hypocracy!
It's hypocrisy. Also, notice how their philosophy of "government staying out of your life" goes out the window when it comes to social issues?

liberals are stupid and they all deserve to get punched in the face
Saying this proves your own stupidity, and inability to argue points. Nice first post. Thank you, don't come back again.

well so far bush hasnt been shot in the back of the head...

but i still have my fingers crossed.

It's hypocrisy. Also, notice how their philosophy of "government staying out of your life" goes out the window when it comes to social issues?

So, I spelled something wrong. So sue me. Just because I can read and write english doesn't mean I'm flawless. And that they are supposed to stay out of your life is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It was a decision from Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage, and no other state or government can tell them to repeal it under a republican government, or it would be hypocrisy. See, now I got it right, I learn!

In a republic the president has just as little authority over individual states as the Pope has over individual catholics, or the EU leader over member nations. So if Bush wants to dictate what states can do and can't do he should either join another party or publicly proclaim he is an authoritarian (and thus member of the wrong party).

Appointing token minorities isn't the same as standing up for minorities.

Instead of calling some very intelligent people "tokens", why don't you just call them Uncle Toms? Because any black who doesn't agree with welfare liberalism seems to get the "back of the bus" treatment. "Mr. Sowell, I'm sorry, but your NAACP credentials seem to be out of order. You'll have to sip from that fountain."

And that they are supposed to stay out of your life is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It was a decision from Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage, and no other state or government can tell them to repeal it under a republican government, or it would be hypocrisy. See, now I got it right, I learn!

In a republic the president has just as little authority over individual states as the Pope has over individual catholics, or the EU leader over member nations. So if Bush wants to dictate what states can do and can't do he should either join another party or publicly proclaim he is an authoritarian (and thus member of the wrong party).

Water...both parties believe in situational federalism. When it suits their aims, they believe in states' rigthts, when it doesn't, they believe only a strong central government will do. Anyone who claims that the Republicans or Democrats consistently adhere to a set of principles that guide their actions has been drinking the kool aid.

I don't see Bush standing up for minorities, do you?



Indeed, I do. If you were to take a look at funding for historically Minority Colleges, it has increased. If you were to look at minority house ownership, you would see that it is at an all-time high.


Just the mere fact that his Cabinet is full of minorities should say something. America's "first Black President", Bill Clinton, how many african-americans or latinos did he appoint to key positions? I'm not talking about Secretary of Agriculture or Transportation, I'm talking about KEY POSITIONS. The answer is none.



Being a member of the NAACP, I am bombarded with opinions to the contrary, but facts still remain. Whether it be a tax cut that saves poor families (like my own) $600 a year, a 49% increase in funding for education, or governmental programs that have been created to help small businesses with minority owners, yes, one can see how much the President is helping minorities.



All of this, of course, means nothing if you completely loathe the President. But this persona that the DNC and the NAACP (a once great institution which has lost sight of its true goals) have created about Republicans in general I.E. showing pictures of police officers hosing down minorities from the 1960s and calling them "Republicans" or saying "if you elect George W. Bush, a black church will burn" is utterly false.




Diatribe over.

Petro...you make too much sense.....you aren't supposed to do that here...

There are only three similarities between Lincoln and Bush.

1. They are both people (although the jury is still out on Bush)
2. They are both Republicans (Lincoln when it was a good thing...)
3. They are both Presidents of the US (fortunately in the first case, unfortunately in the other case)

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either,

While I don't overly like Lincoln, I respect his presidency. I however despise Bush.

let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency,

Incorrect. The civil war was not started by Lincoln.


many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed.

Not to mention numerous illegal acts (the emancipation proclimation - much as I hate slavery, this was an illegal act of government)

He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Wrong. Emancipation was only designed to hurt the economy of the South.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency,

WTF? No.

he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act.

Granted. However, the freedoms curtaioled within had largely been curtailed previously.

People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

Nope. No one I can think of thought the war on terror would be over in two weeks.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money.

Lincoln did. Bush did not.

Now someone tell me they were very different.


They were. Lincoln planned for reconstruction. His plans were f***ed when he was assassinated and Johnson took over reconstruction. Bush didn't have any plans for reconstruction at all.

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

The only people who thought the war would end soon is the Whitehouse staff. Neither the Pentagon nor the intelligence community supported that outcome. That was the SELL they were giving us in pre-war. They also said Iraq was poised to use WMD's on the US, it was an imminent threat, remember? How dare you drag Lincoln's name through the putrid quagmire we are facing now.

How dare you drag Lincoln's name through the putrid quagmire we are facing now.

Lincoln is one of those sacred cows that needs to be slaughtered every now and then. He made some serious mistakes and needs to be held accountable.

I guess somebody needs to be held accountable since nobody in the current administration can admit to having anything to do with any problems happening.
9/11, bad intelligence, ignoring advice of pentagon and CIA, assualting organized labor, attacking women's rights, poor diplomacy to the point where allies have been alienated. Nice work.

I guess somebody needs to be held accountable since nobody in the current administration can admit to having anything to do with any problems happening.
9/11, bad intelligence, ignoring advice of pentagon and CIA, assualting organized labor, attacking women's rights, poor diplomacy to the point where allies have been alienated. Nice work.

I guess it takes about 150 years or so to look at a situation in a manner that is a little more dispassionate.
Bush sucks, but some of the things that Lincoln did make the Patriot Act look like child's play.

9/11 is not Bush's fault. You're saying "bad intelligence" but then you blame Dubya for ignoring the two branches that provided much of that intelligence. Can't have it both ways. Who in the hell assaulted organized labor? You mean laws protecting labor unions? Cry me a river. Women's rights? How? Because some people don't hold a woman's 'right' to abort as holy? You must be joking. Sure, diplomacy was piss poor, but it's not like Europe had its best diplomatic face on either. Remember Dominique de Villepin? Not like he was a big diplomatic ace in the hole for France.

Didn't Lincoln do something involving the suspensation of habeas corpus or something along those lines?

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

i hear there are many similarities between lincoln and kennedy as well...

I guess it takes about 150 years or so to look at a situation in a manner that is a little more dispassionate.
Bush sucks, but some of the things that Lincoln did make the Patriot Act look like child's play.

9/11 is not Bush's fault. You're saying "bad intelligence" but then you blame Dubya for ignoring the two branches that provided much of that intelligence. Can't have it both ways. Who in the hell assaulted organized labor? You mean laws protecting labor unions? Cry me a river. Women's rights? How? Because some people don't hold a woman's 'right' to abort as holy? You must be joking. Sure, diplomacy was piss poor, but it's not like Europe had its best diplomatic face on either. Remember Dominique de Villepin? Not like he was a big diplomatic ace in the hole for France.

No,no,no Mr. Spindoctor.
9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, I know, he can't admit to any mistakes because he talks to God. Forget about that Aug. 6, 2001 daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike US", we all know as Condi said, that was a "historical document". That's what the Presidents daily briefings are for, it's like history class, not to present any pressing matters. So what if George Tenent cancelled vacations in his office that month because they knew something was up. Face it, this President and his staff are incompetent liars.
Bush said bad intelligence as an excuse when bogus information was used that WAS NOT determined elligible by the intelligence community. I'm not looking to have it both ways. It's Bush who ignored the warnings and then blamed the CIA and others for the mistakes.
Bush assaulted organized labor when the longershoremen went on strike. His union busting policies are well known. But then I have to remember most right wingers cant think past the last hour in politics. He's against overtime pay, minimum wage, benefits, in short-all the things that made the middle class possible in the US. And unless you are a billionaire, you wouldnt have a damn thing without them.
Cry you a river? You have your river of blood, what more do you want?
YES, WOMEN'S RIGHTS. It's not about abortion, it's about a woman being able to make her own choices in life. That bothers you?
Lastly, you mentioned France, YOU LOSE.

Bush assaulted organized labor when the longershoremen went on strike. His union busting policies are well known. But then I have to remember most right wingers cant think past the last hour in politics. He's against overtime pay, minimum wage, benefits, in short-all the things that made the middle class possible in the US.
Don't forget the repeal of disability pay for people suffering repetative motion injuries (i.e. carpal tunnel)

Instead of calling some very intelligent people "tokens", why don't you just call them Uncle Toms? Because any black who doesn't agree with welfare liberalism seems to get the "back of the bus" treatment.
I'm well aware that they're very intelligent people. But that isn't the point. Either they were appointed because they were intelligent and qualified, which means that their appointments are not an example of Bush standing up for minorities, or they were appointed because they were minorites, which is an example of Bush standing up for minorities, but makes them token minorities. You can't have it both ways.
Furthermore, there are other ways of standing up for minorities than "welfare liberalism."

No,no,no Mr. Spindoctor.
9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, I know, he can't admit to any mistakes because he talks to God. Forget about that Aug. 6, 2001 daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike US", we all know as Condi said, that was a "historical document". That's what the Presidents daily briefings are for, it's like history class, not to present any pressing matters. So what if George Tenent cancelled vacations in his office that month because they knew something was up. Face it, this President and his staff are incompetent liars.

I know this is news to you and those on the left, but the government is not omnipotent and omnipresent. What should Bush (or any president) have done? Halted commerce for an undetermined amount of time in America? Without specifics you end up chasing shadows with very limited resources. That's reality, not the political shell game you seek to play.

Bush said bad intelligence as an excuse when bogus information was used that WAS NOT determined elligible by the intelligence community. I'm not looking to have it both ways. It's Bush who ignored the warnings and then blamed the CIA and others for the mistakes.

The same intelligence community that stated that WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk"?

Bush assaulted organized labor when the longershoremen went on strike. His union busting policies are well known. But then I have to remember most right wingers cant think past the last hour in politics. He's against overtime pay, minimum wage, benefits, in short-all the things that made the middle class possible in the US. And unless you are a billionaire, you wouldnt have a damn thing without them.

The longshoremen are overpaid. So what? You're the type of guy who thinks some arse who screws the wipers on an Explorer needs to make $25\hour, then cries when "all the good manufacturing jobs go overseas". Believe it or not, there actually was both a middle class and a God before labor unions came along, despite the talking points provided from your Local.

Cry you a river? You have your river of blood, what more do you want?

I'd like a semi-rational discussion, that's what I'd like.

YES, WOMEN'S RIGHTS. It's not about abortion, it's about a woman being able to make her own choices in life. That bothers you?
Lastly, you mentioned France, YOU LOSE.

Here's a newsflash- women are able to make their own choices in life. And in case you haven't been paying attention- they can vote! And own property! And go into any field they damn well please.

Mentioning France is quite apt when discussing poor diplomacy. Don't you wish you could "win" so easily? I guess your labor union has conditioned you to that.

I was reading a diatribe by some neo-Nazi (neo-conservative) who compared G.W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln. I see Bush as being more like Adolph Hitler.

As I went through the "thread" about Bush, I decided that the only logical end result of such discussion is that everyone is like Hitler.

Instead of that morbid final result, however, I think I will stick to my real premise. Each person is an invidual who has free will. God and Satan both want our souls.

My choice is to give everything to God. Of course, it is all His anyway, but the free will of my selecting a place to send my soul is toward wherever God wants. Expanding on my metaphysical statement, I choose Jesus as my Savior to reconcile me with God for my sins. Beyond that, I will note the Holy Ghost is my Comforter while I remain on earth.

The energy wasted on Bushy verbiage is sad. He is unworthy of any consideration, except as an example of how not to behave in a world where humans live. Those of us who are Christians should pray for Bush and the other trigger-happy fascist pigs. Let us pray for peace on earth. Let us love our enemies -- thus making them our friends, and hence all people will become friendly with each other.

Rather than fighting and hating each other, and all that, let's talk about peace and love. Let's help each other.

The longshoremen are overpaid.
And their bosses are even more so.

I'm well aware that they're very intelligent people. But that isn't the point. Either they were appointed because they were intelligent and qualified, which means that their appointments are not an example of Bush standing up for minorities, or they were appointed because they were minorites, which is an example of Bush standing up for minorities, but makes them token minorities. You can't have it both ways.
Furthermore, there are other ways of standing up for minorities than "welfare liberalism."

Jello...it's not an either-or proposition. They were appointed to their positions because they are intelligent first and foremost. I'm sure it was seen as an added benefit that they are black, since Democrats continuously try to tar them with the racist label, because, remember, "If you don't vote, another black church burns to the ground."

And sure, there are other ways of standing up for minorities than welfare liberalism, but many Democrats haven't seemed to have discovered them. Any divergence from the orthodoxy and the "society is at fault" paradigm and you're branded a racist. Any proposed cuts in welfare are called genocide (Charles Rangel D-NY). Look at Bill Cosby. Now, he's probably just as much a Democrat as anyone else, but God forbid he challenge the liturgy of racial politics.

Lincoln could formulate a sentence. Lincoln was a statesman. It's a wonder Bush has enough brain power to wipe his.... nose. And how can you compare freeing slaves at home to bombing innocents for oil half way around the world?

I love the "War for Oil" paradigm. Fits neatly on a bumper sticker. Happily short-cuts critical thinking. "Iraq? Nah! It's just a war for oil, to make the rich richer. Hey, I wonder what Brittney will be weraring to the Grammys tonight."

Not a war for oil. A war for oil-for money-for the purchase of another election.

If you hate Bush you shouldnt love Lincoln either, let me point out the many similarities between their presidency's; Lincoln started a war very soon into his presidency, many people thought that this war was going to end very soon (within about two weeks) however it didnt, it lasted for 4 long bloody years. He suspended our rights (Habeas Corpus) the right to a trial before you are jailed. He changed his stance on the war, from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. And even than he didnt free slaves in the northern states like the border states. or southern territories won by the UNion, such as New Orleans.

Bush started a war soon within his presidency, he suspended our rights (from the constitution) you know the so called Patriot act. People thought the war would end soon (within about two weeks) he changed his mind from taking down Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs (after he knew the people wouldnt buy that WMD bullshit) to fighting terrorism, where none exhisted.

They both focused on reconstruction for a long time using a lot of money. Now someone tell me they were very different.

This is one of the stupidest posts ever.

1. Lincoln did not start the Civil War (the South seceded when Lincoln was elected; he would not become president for a couple of months still) - Bush and his cronies did start the Iraq conflict.
2. Lincoln was trying to preserve the United States - Bush is raping Iraq.
3. Rebuilding parts of your own nation is a lot different than setting up puppet regimes in other parts of the world and then stealing their natural resources.
4. Lincoln never "changed" his stance on the war. Lincoln's main priority would always be to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves, I am sad to say, was secondary. The emanicpation proclamation did end up freeing all slaves in the United States.
5. Also Lincoln suspended some rights of anti-war democrats in Illonios, not the entire nation.
6. Plus Lincoln was assassinated......the one thing I wouldn't mind them having in common.

Not a war for oil. A war for oil-for money-for the purchase of another election.

Righto! Makes much more sense....

the hardest thing to swallow is, i thought there were laws in America to keep the mentally challenged from voting. standards must be very low.

the hardest thing to swallow is, i thought there were laws in America to keep the mentally challenged from voting. standards must be very low.


Normally they are driven to the polls and aided by their social workers.

I know this is news to you and those on the left, but the government is not omnipotent and omnipresent. What should Bush (or any president) have done? Halted commerce for an undetermined amount of time in America? Without specifics you end up chasing shadows with very limited resources. That's reality, not the political shell game you seek to play.

How about not going on vacation when you know something is up? How about
admitting you had some information and instead of ignoring it, did the best you could under the circumstances. But no, this was "an historical document" as if anyone intelligent can accept that's what the PDB is for.



The same intelligence community that stated that WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk"?

Who said that outside of the PNAC crowd? You're going to have to back that one up sir.



The longshoremen are overpaid. So what? You're the type of guy who thinks some arse who screws the wipers on an Explorer needs to make $25\hour, then cries when "all the good manufacturing jobs go overseas". Believe it or not, there actually was both a middle class and a God before labor unions came along, despite the talking points provided from your Local.

You have no idea what type of guy I am. I do however think that people that work 70-80 hour weeks should be compensated for it. It should be reasonable and a deal made, rather than send in stormtroopers and bust the picket lines, a good leader would do some negotiating. Longshoremen and people who work for a living are not the terrorists. I was living in the pacific at the time and was directly affected by the strike. Shelves were becoming bare, so I know full well how serious the situation was.



I'd like a semi-rational discussion, that's what I'd like.

...



Here's a newsflash- women are able to make their own choices in life. And in case you haven't been paying attention- they can vote! And own property! And go into any field they damn well please.

Because they fought for their civil rights after having been denied all these things. Roe vs. Wade was part of that struggle. A reversal of this is frightening to some when you have spokesmen on the right also denouncing their right to vote. It's not just so simple, black and white. If the government can deny a woman's choice over reproductive rights, where does it end? Women have struggled for a long time to not be treated like property and breeding material. The right to abort and not be trapped in that situation is one that they alone should have the right to decide.

Mentioning France is quite apt when discussing poor diplomacy. Don't you wish you could "win" so easily? I guess your labor union has conditioned you to that.

France is irrelevent in this discussion. You're just being a weasal on this, with the France referrence as pertained to liberals and anti-american. France isn't the problem in the US.

I love the "War for Oil" paradigm. Fits neatly on a bumper sticker. Happily short-cuts critical thinking. "Iraq? Nah! It's just a war for oil, to make the rich richer. Hey, I wonder what Brittney will be weraring to the Grammys tonight."

You can't deny however that they insisted the oil would pay for the war. It was going to cost the US 1.7 Billion and no more. The rest would all come from oil revenues after 2 months when we could start reducing the number of troops there. That was the reasoning we were given before the war. Nonetheless, the situation has not prevented The Carlyle Group
from making money on Iraq. (Carlyle Group)

How about not going on vacation when you know something is up? How about admitting you had some information and instead of ignoring it, did the best you could under the circumstances. But no, this was "an historical document" as if anyone intelligent can accept that's what the PDB is for.

Really now....do you think the President is EVER ON VACATION? Do you think because he spends his time away from DC in Crawford or Martha's Vineyard that this really compromises his ability to communicate with other power-brokers and intel services? Also, do you honestly think that was the only thing in the PDB? There was no way to say this was a credible threat and the hundreds of other possible terrorist actions were bogus. If the president acts on everything the country is paralyzed. In order to act, something must stand out above the din of everything else. Many people, including Bush, have said that in order to protect America from terrorism we must be right 100% of the time while terrorists need only be right once. Sounds about right to me. Would you bet on those odds? I know the need to find fault and blame is strong, especially to blame those you're inclined to dislike to begin with. The only blame I can find is with the people who actually commited the crimes and the odds that out of 100 tries, they will be successful at least once.


Who said that outside of the PNAC crowd? You're going to have to back that one up sir.

George Tenant





You have no idea what type of guy I am. I do however think that people that work 70-80 hour weeks should be compensated for it. It should be reasonable and a deal made, rather than send in stormtroopers and bust the picket lines, a good leader would do some negotiating. Longshoremen and people who work for a living are not the terrorists. I was living in the pacific at the time and was directly affected by the strike. Shelves were becoming bare, so I know full well how serious the situation was.

All people who work 70-80 hours a week are compensated for it, unless of course they are salaried. I think we should refrain from calling anyone "stormtroopers" since the unions don't exactly have a stellar record of treatment of those who cross picket lines. Also, longshoremen are paid huge sums of money for what they do. They are overpaid. Period. Second, they have the ability, as you noted, to paralyze commerce. This cannot be seen as a blank check. Third, you seem to be of the opinion that because shelves were bare, it's 'management's' fault for not submitting to 'labor's' demands, when it could every bit just as easily be seen the other way around. These longshoremen aren't exactly scraping by, and it's hard for many of us to feel too much sympathy for a high school graduate making $25\hour to start, and with OT making over six figures.


Because they fought for their civil rights after having been denied all these things. Roe vs. Wade was part of that struggle. A reversal of this is frightening to some when you have spokesmen on the right also denouncing their right to vote. It's not just so simple, black and white. If the government can deny a woman's choice over reproductive rights, where does it end? Women have struggled for a long time to not be treated like property and breeding material. The right to abort and not be trapped in that situation is one that they alone should have the right to decide.

Frankly, to see the abortion debate is something that our country obviously struggles with. The fact that many in our culture see a fetus as a child and not mere property of the mother carrying that fetus is not something that will ever go away, nor should it. I think to tie Roe to voting rights, et al, is very disingenouous. NOBODY serious enough to merit considering believes it is immoral for a woman to vote. Woman's sufferage is absolutely uncontested. We all have our opinions on abortion, and I'd rather not go off on that tangent. But your argument that to strike down Roe will lead to an end to woman's sufferage makes about as much sense to me as the argument that if you allow gays to marry it is a slippery slope to allowing Bill to marry his cocker spaniel.


France is irrelevent in this discussion. You're just being a weasal on this, with the France referrence as pertained to liberals and anti-american. France isn't the problem in the US.

No, I was pointing out that it takes two to tango. That, yes the administration has not been good at practicing dimplomacy, but neither have many other more "diplomatic" nations.

You can't deny however that they insisted the oil would pay for the war. It was going to cost the US 1.7 Billion and no more. The rest would all come from oil revenues after 2 months when we could start reducing the number of troops there. That was the reasoning we were given before the war. Nonetheless, the situation has not prevented The Carlyle Group
from making money on Iraq. (Carlyle Group)

I know congress insisted that part of the costs of the war would be covered by Iraqi oil, yes. Does that make it a "war for oil"? I am well aware that the administration had a far too rosy outlook on the war and are completely incometent on fiscal matters- that's why I didn't vote for them.

Also, I do not find it morally reprehensible that some companies are actually being compensated for providing support to the Iraq situation, debackle, whatever you want to call it.

I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking specifically about the Whitehouse insisting on a very specific pricetag, $1.7 billion.(I'll find the exact quotes on that if you press me to do so.) We had every reassurance that would be the case. That was something the public and congress could accept, rather than the case presented by many military experts who predicted exactly the situation as it now stands. That's what I'm getting at this big sell coming from the whitehouse in spite of what the experts were saying. Every single news channel played a part in the sale of this war as well. EXAMPLE: Keith Oberman's Countdown became Countdown to Iraq long before the action was officially accepted.

I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking specifically about the Whitehouse insisting on a very specific pricetag, $1.7 billion.(I'll find the exact quotes on that if you press me to do so.) We had every reassurance that would be the case. That was something the public and congress could accept, rather than the case presented by many military experts who predicted exactly the situation as it now stands. That's what I'm getting at this big sell coming from the whitehouse in spite of what the experts were saying. Every single news channel played a part in the sale of this war as well. EXAMPLE: Keith Oberman's Countdown became Countdown to Iraq long before the action was officially accepted.


I for one will not defend the Bush administration's fiscal ineptitude. Yes, I am uberPro tax cut, but they need corresponding spending cuts. So, like I said, I won't defend them on the fiscal issue. That's why I didn't vote for one Republican for national office.

As for the Whitehouse selling Iraq, you're right. I'm not sure if the media played as big of a role as you might think. Broadcast news put those experts on who said that the war would cost more money than thought, and that our reception wouldn't be as rosy as the administration presumed.

Really now....do you think the President is EVER ON VACATION? Do you think because he spends his time away from DC in Crawford or Martha's Vineyard that this really compromises his ability to communicate with other power-brokers and intel services? Also, do you honestly think that was the only thing in the PDB?

Well let's look at the entire text of said document...
"Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa’ida members -- including some who are US citizens --have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa’ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

Yes I think going to the ranch for the entire month when this is happeing is a completely bozo move for the President. I watched him clearing brush and playing with his dog instead of... In light of the briefing and what happened a month later is direct contact with important staff and advisors too much to ask? Not only that it's just what I said, this complete denial that the thought ever crossed their minds. Read the briefing and tell me how you can believe that to be truthful. Condi made this statement and many others about the briefing and about the attacks. That really works for you?




There was no way to say this was a credible threat and the hundreds of other possible terrorist actions were bogus. If the president acts on everything the country is paralyzed. In order to act, something must stand out above the din of everything else. Many people, including Bush, have said that in order to protect America from terrorism we must be right 100% of the time while terrorists need only be right once. Sounds about right to me. Would you bet on those odds? I know the need to find fault and blame is strong, especially to blame those you're inclined to dislike to begin with. The only blame I can find is with the people who actually commited the crimes and the odds that out of 100 tries, they will be successful at least once.

Bullshit. They could have easily put airports on alert, increased security, done ANYthing. So you read that briefing and think doing nothing is the right action. They were clearly determined to hijack planes, Bush failed and is at fault. The reality is that nobody wanted to pay for it, the airlines nor the government. This was exactly what they said after 9/11. Improvements to security were stalled based on who was going to pay for it. He had just given the industry 15 billion with no stipulations. What are you saying, that we just aren't worth it? The CEO's are worth it but people can go ahead and die.

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

I like this one too. This is the little tidbit that Ashcroft used to set the alerts last summer. The same information. It was good enough to use when it really counted, but for politics it's anything goes with this bunch. If we had justice in this nation, we'd have all of their heads for treason.

Yes I think going to the ranch for the entire month when this is happeing is a completely bozo move for the President. I watched him clearing brush and playing with his dog instead of... In light of the briefing and what happened a month later is direct contact with important staff and advisors too much to ask? Not only that it's just what I said, this complete denial that the thought ever crossed their minds. Read the briefing and tell me how you can believe that to be truthful. Condi made this statement and many others about the briefing and about the attacks. That really works for you?

So, reading the PDB....what exactly gave the clues that Bush could've acted to to prevent 9/11. Planning hijacks? Is that news? That document basically says "Yes there is a threat, and yes Bin Laden is a threat, etc"....so where is the revelation in that? Through the new marvelous means of telecommunication it is not relevent where Bush is geographically located. Presidents do not get "vacations" as we get them. The CIA works even when the President naps. Any President can only act on information as it becomes available...do you honestly believe that if Bush wasn't in Texas and was in DC that somehow further information would have become uncovered...because...he sifted through all FBI reports himself? Because he needs to be in DC to call people from the Oval Office?


Bullshit. They could have easily put airports on alert, increased security, done ANYthing. So you read that briefing and think doing nothing is the right action. They were clearly determined to hijack planes, Bush failed and is at fault. The reality is that nobody wanted to pay for it, the airlines nor the government. This was exactly what they said after 9/11. Improvements to security were stalled based on who was going to pay for it. He had just given the industry 15 billion with no stipulations. What are you saying, that we just aren't worth it? The CEO's are worth it but people can go ahead and die.

It was 30 days between the memo and the hijackings. Where are you going to get the additional security? Custom Agent farms? If you think this PDB was absolutely explicit and exceptional, go right ahead and believe what you want as you nonetheless would anyway. Frankly, I think you look at this memo from hindsight and judge Bush harshly because you didn't care for him to begin with. The reality is that this memo was not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. It mentions "hijack"- well gee, that's a new MO for a terrorist. This looks like a general warning, but probably nothing more severe than the Executive has seen for years. But hey, if you must put the blame somewhere, might as well be on your aversary.

What the hell are you talking about "we aren't worth it" and "CEO'S are worth it"?

I like this one too. This is the little tidbit that Ashcroft used to set the alerts last summer. The same information. It was good enough to use when it really counted, but for politics it's anything goes with this bunch. If we had justice in this nation, we'd have all of their heads for treason.


Can you really be any more hyperbolic or obtuse?

Why must the government babysit poor people? Why don't poor people do something for themselves for a change?

Have you ever been homeless or poor? Do you know how "easy" it is for them to get a good education, a roof over their heads, a place to eat, sleep, work, get a job, get medicine? Do you know how "easy" it is to have the policemen working against you, to be loathed and shunned and avoided by your fellow man, to be afraid of having your life's savings stolen from you?

Oh yes, it's so easy. We all know poor people are poor because they are lazy, stupid, and enjoy their situations.

Have you ever been homeless or poor? Do you know how "easy" it is for them to get a good education, a roof over their heads, a place to eat, sleep, work, get a job, get medicine? Do you know how "easy" it is to have the policemen working against you, to be loathed and shunned and avoided by your fellow man, to be afraid of having your life's savings stolen from you?

Oh yes, it's so easy. We all know poor people are poor because they are lazy, stupid, and enjoy their situations.

Everytime I hear this, I'm reminded of something Incertus put on his blog, that sometimes the US NEEDS a depression to keep everyone on their toes.

Sadly, sometimes I think he might be right...

poverty is actually quite nice. humility is gained better when not distracted by X-box, Nike, or the need for something hollow. Being poor does not mean you cannot excel. I have educated myself without money. I have put a roof over my head with no government assistance. I have stayed out of jail, and haven't had to resort to excuses or deceit to pick myself up out of the gutter. I have no one to fall back on if I lose all I have gained, and you know what? I am not scared to lose it all. Life is not about things or social status.

Rich, poor, black, white, Christian, Jew or whatever you are, in America you have the ability to do whatever you want if you have the drive. The poor can make their lives better if they choose to. Most simply don't belive they can overcome.

poverty is actually quite nice. humility is gained better when not distracted by X-box, Nike, or the need for something hollow. Being poor does not mean you cannot excel. I have educated myself without money. I have put a roof over my head with no government assistance. I have stayed out of jail, and haven't had to resort to excuses or deceit to pick myself up out of the gutter. I have no one to fall back on if I lose all I have gained, and you know what? I am not scared to lose it all. Life is not about things or social status.

Rich, poor, black, white, Christian, Jew or whatever you are, in America you have the ability to do whatever you want if you have the drive. The poor can make their lives better if they choose to. Most simply don't belive they can overcome.

"the biggest difference between most poor people and most rich people, is that poor people can still hope that money can make them happier" :D

I have a feeling i'm involved in the starting of this thread

Yeah I knew one post on pg. 14 on some random thread wouldnt have made a difference, so I just posted this :p. Seems to have some effect though.

Since liberals aren't reasonable and have no concept of history, prepare for attacks on your mother.

I think I am a reasonable person, well on least on certain issues, a history major, and I don't say anything bad about someone's mother. So does that make me not a liberal?So everything I stand for has no meaning anymore?



WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO?!?!?!?!?

Bush & Lincoln - do not think so.

More like Bush & LBJ - both started wars in foriegn lands and both failed to win those wars.

Righto! Makes much more sense....
Well, if you don't think that he started the war to reward the companies who paid for his election campaign, then why do you think he started the war?

George Tenant

All people who work 70-80 hours a week are compensated for it, unless of course they are salaried. I think we should refrain from calling anyone "stormtroopers" since the unions don't exactly have a stellar record of treatment of those who cross picket lines. Also, longshoremen are paid huge sums of money for what they do. They are overpaid. Period. Second, they have the ability, as you noted, to paralyze commerce. This cannot be seen as a blank check. Third, you seem to be of the opinion that because shelves were bare, it's 'management's' fault for not submitting to 'labor's' demands, when it could every bit just as easily be seen the other way around. These longshoremen aren't exactly scraping by, and it's hard for many of us to feel too much sympathy for a high school graduate making $25\hour to start, and with OT making over six figures.
George Tenet also said that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

If the longshoremen are overpaid, imagine how much more overpaid management is.

I want that damme Bush :mp5: assasinated and then his "holy" war :headbang: until it dies :p

:mp5: assasination I say :sniper:

I want that damme Bush :mp5: assasinated and then his "holy" war :headbang: until it dies :p

:mp5: assasination I say :sniper:

So, reading the PDB....what exactly gave the clues that Bush could've acted to to prevent 9/11. Planning hijacks? Is that news? That document basically says "Yes there is a threat, and yes Bin Laden is a threat, etc"....so where is the revelation in that? Through the new marvelous means of telecommunication it is not relevent where Bush is geographically located. Presidents do not get "vacations" as we get them. The CIA works even when the President naps. Any President can only act on information as it becomes available...do you honestly believe that if Bush wasn't in Texas and was in DC that somehow further information would have become uncovered...because...he sifted through all FBI reports himself? Because he needs to be in DC to call people from the Oval Office?

I wouldn't say a damn thing about if if the Bush team hadn't come out on countless occassions denying knowledge of any kind of threat. They made that very clear in their defense. Especially Condaleeza Rice. I don't know what you're not seeing here.




It was 30 days between the memo and the hijackings. Where are you going to get the additional security? Custom Agent farms? If you think this PDB was absolutely explicit and exceptional, go right ahead and believe what you want as you nonetheless would anyway. Frankly, I think you look at this memo from hindsight and judge Bush harshly because you didn't care for him to begin with. The reality is that this memo was not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. It mentions "hijack"- well gee, that's a new MO for a terrorist. This looks like a general warning, but probably nothing more severe than the Executive has seen for years. But hey, if you must put the blame somewhere, might as well be on your aversary.

You really don't know what you're talking about when addressing what I personally believe. You don't know me. I base my thinking on what Bush has done. Just because I don't rally behind an otherwise lameduck president after a terrorist event... did I say otherwise? I think he dropped the ball. I think they were so determined to ignore anything coming from the previous administration that they let this happen. The terror threat was never a priority for the Bush team, even though we had the Trade Center in 1993, Oklahoma City, Atlanta, the plots to fly planes into CIA headquarters and the Eiffel Tower in 1996(both prevented), and the plots prevented at the millenium, most notably the border crossing from Canada aimed at Seattle. For this administration to take office and not prioritize the terror threat, then later deny having any intellingence on it, what can be said? The FBI had full knowledge of Al Queda members, including the hijackers before 9/11. I think I would have told Condi and Ashcroft to get their asses over there and stop sniffing out porn.

What the hell are you talking about "we aren't worth it" and "CEO'S are worth it"?

I'm talking about handing the airlines $15 billion. They still laid off employees. Security was pathetic. What about spending some money to protect the public? What about something like ok here's the bailout money but you guys have to use some of it to improve security? When the GM bailout happened there were some guidelines given. It wasn't just free money. Even AFTER 9/11 security wasn't improved much over debate on who was going to pay for it. 7/4/02. Remember that date? A man opened fire in LAX with an automatic weapon. Luckily the Israelis do have their security shit together and brought him down.

Can you really be any more hyperbolic or obtuse?

Want to see me try?

The ashcroft alert I am referring to...
He used the exact information in the aug. 6, 2001 PDB in july of 2004.
They denied any real knowledge of a threat before 9/11, but in 2004 the same information can be brought out to raise alert levels? It didn't have anything to do with the DNC did it? So basically the terror threat can be used for politcal points during election year but not when it's actually happening. It was no good then but it's a threat now. They are LIARS and will do anything to win, anything to save their own asses.

I'd like to get into the subject of George Tenant but I think that needs its own thread. And stop trying to flamebait me with personal attacks. I'm presenting a reasonable arguement here.