NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully this is the first thread on the topic, but either way: Happy Inauguration Day!

Today, we see all of our efforts pay off, and we celebrate the peaceful transfer of power from one Administration to the next (thankfully quite similar to the last!). Today's a treat to all the donors and volunteers of the '04 campaign, from the organizers down to the phone bank volunteers!

So, I thought I would start this thread for observations throughout the day, from reflections on speeches given, down to funny signs carried by conspiracy-theorizing friends on the Left (and certainly some on the Right fringe, too!) who, even in their often ridiculous cries carry on a proud tradition of protest dating back since Washington, who despite winning the Electoral vote unanimously, must have had detractors. ;) So regardless who we all voted for, I'm hoping those of us who plan to watch the day's activites can use the thread for lively conversation! :)

......
a proud tradition of protest dating back since Washington, who despite winning the Electoral vote unanimously, must have had detractors. ;) So regardless who we all voted for, I'm hoping those of us who plan to watch the day's activites can use the thread for lively conversation! :)

Actually I'm betting that Washington was the one President that didn't get too many complaints, he could have had the office as long as he wanted it, though he stopped running because he didn't want it to become a second kingdom.

Actually I'm betting that Washington was the one President that didn't get too many complaints, he could have had the office as long as he wanted it, though he stopped running because he didn't want it to become a second kingdom.

That's true, although he certainly didn't have an easy time being first, since there was no proper definition of what the job entailed or what a President was meant to do!

Some good news though, Washington's desired tradition of saying "So help me God" at the swearing-in, seems to have survived the last-minute emergency appeal by that guy out here in California. ;) I guess sanity prevails for now. :)

Washington getting complained about? Hardly. They tried to make him king!

And that guy is the only atheists both athiests and creationists both hate. He's a pain in the ass.

Tom Paine, for one, called Washington a "lying tyrant." A bit of hyperbole, yet it shows that Washington was not unanimously adored. Yet he faithfully followed the example of Cincinnatus and retired to private life after his two terms.

How far we've come! Today we celebrate a continuation of the last four years' bumbling and bungling, and the changes in the cast of supporting characters don't bode well for an improvement.

Update from Drudge Report, some advanced remarks given by Bush to the press as a preview for this morning:

“We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

“America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.”

Pretty similar to what he was saying in front of the Texas group today, but in more formal terms. Should be a good speech this morning, in my opinion. ;)

Nice words. It's too bad he either doesn't really believe it or doesn't know how to achieve it.

Nice words. It's too bad he either doesn't really believe it or doesn't know how to achieve it.

Well, all I can say is that most people think he does and/or will. ;) But of course, time will tell. However, it does show that the President doesn't mince words, and, as Reagan would say, doesn't dream small dreams. :)

Nice words. It's too bad he either doesn't really believe it or doesn't know how to achieve it.

Afghanistan is doing pretty damn well. I'd call that a pretty big achievement. How many countries have *you* liberated in the past four years?

Update from Drudge Report, some advanced remarks given by Bush to the press as a preview for this morning:

“We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
Good grief man, is he planning to wage war on every dictatorship on the planet? After all, my common sense applied to certain events gives me the conclusion that Bush really believes that the only way to remove regimes that aren't very nice is to send in the military.

Of course, I do wonder how that is going to promote peace.

“America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom.”
Sorry, is he saying that America isn't free yet?

Afghanistan is doing pretty damn well. I'd call that a pretty big achievement. How many countries have *you* liberated in the past four years?
3, if you count my damned underwear uprising, that was an itchy situation

though now I have to fight the liberal socks, they have already outlawed the wearing of socks, due to the smell.

Afghanistan is doing pretty damn well. I'd call that a pretty big achievement. How many countries have *you* liberated in the past four years?

The war on Afghanistan was to liberate it? *coughs*

The war on Afghanistan was to liberate it? *coughs*

Coincidentally, yes. A democratically-elected Taliban that promoted terrorism woulda been blown to hell by us just as quickly as a dictatorship. The president, like most people, sees that freedom abroad is in our best interest, and serves the general good, but our security surely comes first. This is an unspoken principle as old as time. ;)

Wish we could get the holiday off here! Oh well

Wish we could get the holiday off here! Oh well

We don't get a holiday. :(

I coincidentally don't have class until after the speeches are over, which works out nice, but I'll be in class later, missing the parade entirely.

I don't think there will be much of an Inauguration Parade this year! Did everyone see what happened in his last one? They had to speed him up in a limo, because of all the protestors... now a record number of people voted! That means there even more people pissed about this election! Trouble ahead!

Good grief man, is he planning to wage war on every dictatorship on the planet?

It's about time. Of course, if that is a credible threat, I think most will reform. Ghadaffi anyone?

Of course, I do wonder how that is going to promote peace.

Peace through superior firepower. Either that, or Nuke The Moon (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm) .

It's about time. Of course, if that is a credible threat, I think most will reform. Ghadaffi anyone?



Peace through superior firepower. Either that, or Nuke The Moon (http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm) .

I think "every dictator" is a bit of a broad reading. ;)

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

I think this part specifies somewhat, that he's referring to nations that could potentially impact us. Not that Bush doesn't want to see freedom in all places, but when he says that spreading freedom can secure our freedom, he means specifically to those that we deal with in a significant way.

A democratically-elected Taliban that promoted terrorism woulda been blown to hell by us just as quickly as a dictatorship.

A hypothetical that we will probably not ever have the chance to test. *All* state sponsors of terrorism are dictatorships. The two go hand in hand.

Even though I am a Democrat...GO BLUE!...I do have to agree that this is the most peaceful transition of power...ever.

Too bad it had to be him though.

the only real question is whether to wear my against me! "hey george w, fuck you and your daddy" shirt, or this one

http://www.internationalterrorist.com/shirt.gif

the only real question is whether to wear my against me! "hey george w, fuck you and your daddy" shirt,
Theres no question, thats the shirt you gotta wear dude

Theres no question, thats the shirt you gotta wear dude

I wholeheartedly agree. ;) All the more to discredit the opposition. Maybe we'll see some such on t.v., and not just at odd points on campuses on the coasts. :p

Sorry, but did I misread that?

Well, all I can say is that most people think he does and/or will.

What what WHAT??? Bush's approval rating in the USA is less than 50%. In the rest of the world, it's substantially less. Here in NZ, for example, it's about 27%.

Liberated Afghanistan? Hmm... That'll be why it's so much safer!

*All* state sponsors of terrorism are dictatorships. The two go hand in hand.

Of course. When the government is democratically elected, it's called freedom-fighting or liberation.

What I want to know is why hasn't Bush declared war on the USA? THEY have WMDs! And we really do know where those are!

Anyway, even if you believe the war in Iraq was the right decision, how on Earth can you claim that it has been fought well? It has been undertrooped, underfunded and underthoughtthrough.

Peace through superior firepower? Maybe. Peace through war, killing and anarchy? Are you really that stupid?

Anyway. Inauguration Day Parade. There'll be an assassination attempt, I'm sure.

Sorry, but did I misread that?

What what WHAT??? Bush's approval rating in the USA is less than 50%. In the rest of the world, it's substantially less. Here in NZ, for example, it's about 27%.


We had an election, just recently. ;)

And it's over 50 in most polls here, 52 or 53 in all but one poll recently. Not that approval rating necessarily entails one's preferrence for President, or the inverse. ;)

So, um, how many people voted for Bush?

Hmmm, I've just been trying to find a recent report on the afghanistan situation, i'll add a link in red at the bottom, I mean the last I heard was that international troops were trying to hold order in place, the central government had no power outside of the capital and warlords were begining to divide up the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1394188,00.html

Ha this does sum up politics on the British end quite nicely

...starting with the glowering resentment of his chancellor of the exchequer just a few yards away at No 11...the damage Iraq has done to his credibility in much of continental Europe, and the stubborn militarism of the vice-president's office in Washington DC. If he fails, as most politicians ultimately do, then we will find engraved on his heart the word "Iraq".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1394105,00.html

"By contrast, criticism of the effects of US imperialism in Chile, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq has been strikingly muted. Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, not to mention the scandal of the domestic adherence to the death penalty (placing the US in a club with China and Iran), produce so little in the way of press, political or academic critiques that Bush and his administration are re-elected. Gilroy and the rest of the group known as the post-colonialists are as severe a case of denial as you could find."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1394099,00.html

Democratic senator Joseph Biden told Dr Rice, that America has never been so alone. The transatlantic alliance that held through the cold war and after is under unprecedented strain.

-

So, um, how many people voted for Bush?

62,028,719 officially.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

I think this part specifies somewhat, that he's referring to nations that could potentially impact us. Not that Bush doesn't want to see freedom in all places, but when he says that spreading freedom can secure our freedom, he means specifically to those that we deal with in a significant way.

Aha! This calls for a hypothetical situation!

Let's say there are two dictatorships that, because they are dictatorships, need to be invaded to bring a bit of peace around the place. Unfortunately there're only enough troops to invade 1 dictatorship. Which one will it be?

Dictatorship A is ruled by a dictator who is generally liked by the populace and he didn't even have to use a lot of propaganda to make it so. The police force is actually there to curtail crime, people do not disappear in the night and the overall quality of living is pretty damn decent.
However, dictatorship A is sitting on a huge reserve of oil and the dictator absolutely refuses to sell any of it to the USA, because he doesn't like that country very much.

Dictatorship B is ruled by a dictator who is also liked by the populace, because everybody who doesn't like him gets shot. The police force is busy making sure that everybody follows party doctrine and that there is no interference in the highly lucrative drugs business. Every major city and small village contains at least one building from the Ministry of Society - usually an impenetrable block of concrete surrounded by barbed wires. Nobody really knows what goes on there, but a lot of people suspect that a great deal of "missing persons" end up there.
Dictatorship B also has a great big lot of oil and since this particular dictator got installed by the CIA he is more than willing to sell great big heaps of oil to America at very, very low prices.

So, which dictatorship does Bush "deal with in a significant way" and which really ought to be invaded?

Liberated Afghanistan? Hmm... That'll be why it's so much safer!

Well, yes, it is... They are enjoying the end of two decades of civil war. Incidentally, no major attacks on election day.

Of course. When the government is democratically elected, it's called freedom-fighting or liberation.

Consider for a moment that it might really *be* liberation.

Anyway, even if you believe the war in Iraq was the right decision, how on Earth can you claim that it has been fought well? It has been undertrooped, underfunded and underthoughtthrough.

No war ever fought has been "fought well". You should read up on some WW2 history for example, that was an almost uninterrupted string of disasters right there. (Pearl Harbor? Bataan? Guadalcanal? Kasserine? Cassino? Anzio? Normandy? along with many lesser-known ones like Slapton Sands). The nature of war is that the enemy tries to make you screw up, so if you're screwing up slighly less than the other guy you are doing ok. (We had Pearl Harbor, they had the Battle of Midway, ergo we won.)

"By contrast, criticism of the effects of US imperialism in Chile, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq has been strikingly muted. Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, not to mention the scandal of the domestic adherence to the death penalty (placing the US in a club with China and Iran), produce so little in the way of press, political or academic critiques that Bush and his administration are re-elected. Gilroy and the rest of the group known as the post-colonialists are as severe a case of denial as you could find."

-

"Scandal" of the death penalty? I think even those not familiar with the British newspaper "the Guardian" can see the particular bent of the source. ;)

Aha! This calls for a hypothetical situation!

Let's say there are two dictatorships that, because they are dictatorships, need to be invaded to bring a bit of peace around the place. Unfortunately there're only enough troops to invade 1 dictatorship. Which one will it be?

Dictatorship A is ruled by a dictator who is generally liked by the populace and he didn't even have to use a lot of propaganda to make it so. The police force is actually there to curtail crime, people do not disappear in the night and the overall quality of living is pretty damn decent.
However, dictatorship A is sitting on a huge reserve of oil and the dictator absolutely refuses to sell any of it to the USA, because he doesn't like that country very much.

Dictatorship B is ruled by a dictator who is also liked by the populace, because everybody who doesn't like him gets shot. The police force is busy making sure that everybody follows party doctrine and that there is no interference in the highly lucrative drugs business. Every major city and small village contains at least one building from the Ministry of Society - usually an impenetrable block of concrete surrounded by barbed wires. Nobody really knows what goes on there, but a lot of people suspect that a great deal of "missing persons" end up there.
Dictatorship B also has a great big lot of oil and since this particular dictator got installed by the CIA he is more than willing to sell great big heaps of oil to America at very, very low prices.

So, which dictatorship does Bush "deal with in a significant way" and which really ought to be invaded?

Perhaps you would like to tell us which A and B are? I'm guessing they're real countries?

You may think Iraq was A, but 500,000 dead Iraqis would probably disagree with "people do not disappear in the night". Also "the dictator absolutely refuses to sell any of it [oil] to the USA"... that is bullshit, Saddam would have been quite delighted to sell any quantity to us, probably even undercutting OPEC in the process.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to which is supposed to be B...

Ok, already forgotten the figure, but essentially, it doesn't matter:

6.5 billion people did not vote for Bush.


Anyway, no, in Afghanistan the murder rate is up, as is the rape rate.

Consider for one moment that it's not liberation. When was the last time you went to Sudan or Afghanistan or Iraq?

Perhaps you would like to tell us which A and B are? I'm guessing they're real countries?

You may think Iraq was A, but 500,000 dead Iraqis would probably disagree with "people do not disappear in the night". Also "the dictator absolutely refuses to sell any of it [oil] to the USA"... that is bullshit, Saddam would have been quite delighted to sell any quantity to us, probably even undercutting OPEC in the process.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to which is supposed to be B...

Both are loaded scenarios.. I'm not too sure how either fit in with Bush's speech preview that spreading freedom to others helps ensure our own freedom.. naturally, we prioritize our targets of diplomacy and/or military action, keeping our interests at heart first and foremost.. I don't take Bush's quote as some grand claim of pure altruism, do you? ;)

A hypothetical that we will probably not ever have the chance to test. *All* state sponsors of terrorism are dictatorships. The two go hand in hand.

This is just not the case. How about Israel's terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank?
How about (as an example) the US support for the violent overthrow of the Chilean government in the early 1970s....Doesn't supporting these acts count as sponsoring terrorism???

[QUOTE=Mondiala]Ok, already forgotten the figure, but essentially, it doesn't matter:

6.5 billion people did not vote for Bush.
QUOTE]

That's true. Americans are normally called upon to elect the American President, just as many of those other 6 billion may elect theirs, God willing. ;)

Perhaps you would like to tell us which A and B are? I'm guessing they're real countries?

Nope. Made up on the spot. That's why they're such mirror images of each other.

And to say that Iraq ever even looked like Dictatorship A is indeed a bit strange.

#36 - Yes, that's true. But is it right? Is it a good thing?

Anyway, he WASN'T democratically elected. The vast majority of people didn't vote for him.

Back on topic, (The Inaugural, rather than the Pros and Cons of President Bush) what does everyone think abour Rehnquist. Think he'll be there, do well, and be off? Or have you heard something different? Any bets?

Does a man have the right to be inaugurated as a "democratically elected president" if he isn't democratically elected?

This is just not the case. How about Israel's terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank?
How about (as an example) the US support for the violent overthrow of the Chilean government in the early 1970s....Doesn't supporting these acts count as sponsoring terrorism???

No, that is not terrorism. Look up the definition of terrorism sometime. The go read up on the Law of War and related legal theories.

#36 - Yes, that's true. But is it right? Is it a good thing?

Anyway, he WASN'T democratically elected. The vast majority of people didn't vote for him.

I tend to value self-determination - that is, governance by those who actually inhabit a political region. ;)

Does a man have the right to be inaugurated as a "democratically elected president" if he isn't democratically elected?

Certainly not. Ours was, however, both popularly and electorally. That is, by a majority of the electorate, as opposed to a hypothetically world government or some such thing.

Consider for one moment that it's not liberation. When was the last time you went to Sudan or Afghanistan or Iraq?

I have not, but I happen to know people who are from Afghanistan and numerous people who have been to Iraq recently. I'll take their word for what the situation is over what is reported in the media any day of the week.

#42 - why? And stop winking at me! I already have a boyfriend!

#43 - yeah - by the electorate. 6.5 billion people didn't vote for him. I call that a majority.

#44 - well, I don't live in the States, so I don't know what your media reports, so I can't really comment on that.

Actually I'm betting that Washington was the one President that didn't get too many complaints, he could have had the office as long as he wanted it, though he stopped running because he didn't want it to become a second kingdom.

Actually, Washington got ripped pretty good by the Democratic-Republicans (forerunners of the present day Democrats) and the press over the Jay Treaty. The most frequent criticism was that Washington acted too much like a king.

Today I feel proud to call myself an American,
on the second inauguration of President Bush.
Santa- Nita

PePe, I applaud your efforts. Continue to keep up the good work. We can only hope that Democrats may some day see the truth and reality, and that our society will return to what it once was.