Bush Administration: Opinions

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Rainbow, What should we "debate" now : #1 This thread's issue ? #2 Private messages between Nono and Kyran ? :-))) P.S. A private message is designed to carry an information exchange between particular persons, only. That is not so "wise" to post it to the public.

Agreed. Private messages are for a reason, and although one might be angry enough to publicize it, it should remain private. There was another thread which went on in that direction and it was unproductive as well.

Private messages can be directed to Sean and he does take them seriously. Further, if a member has a problem with a mod they can inform another mod and we can inform Sean of this as well.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What should we "debate" now : #1 This thread's issue ? #2 Private messages between Nono and Kyran ? :-)))[/b]

Thats the damn problem. What is the issue of this thread?
What Kyran's piracy made it? or what Nono made it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1,

Agreed.  Private messages are for a reason, and although one might be angry enough to publicize it, it should remain private.  There was another thread which went on in that direction and it was unproductive as well.[/quote]Its unproductive because Kyran screwed it up. Even though Sean changed the title back I didnt recieve an apology from Kyran, and he is still threatening. And he actually deleted stuff from my opening statement, and added his own fucking "sub topic" inside my post. This isnt a private issue when it happens in an open forum. This isnt a private issue when it happens to you, I bet.

Private messages can be directed to Sean and he does take them seriously.  Further, if a member has a problem with a mod they can inform another mod and we can inform Sean of this as well.

Thank You. I would like to take this opportunity to report Kyran to you, Scribbler and any other Moderator who reads this, to have a litle chat with Kyran. Have him at least consult with us before he attacks our stuff.

edit to add on: inside my post
and added his own f*cking "sub topic" inside my post.

edit to add: Link to other butchered thread http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...topic=3130&st=0

[Scribbler1]

It seems that anything done now won't help the situation, although as I said Sean is aware of it. I really can't say anything else. However, I have a suggestion.

Can we restart this thread elsewhere? I found it interesting and quite relevant but it's focused on Kyran now and going nowhere. No offense, but this one has to go to butterface for obvious reasons.

To keep our blood pressure at a safe level, why not just let this one rest.

BTW, Sean has posted what should explain the situation in the Politics forum. It's pinned at the top.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Pinned: Your topics won't be edited. Sean has spoken

Nono, I hope you will repost your topic, It was hard to discuss it with that glaring intrusion hovering over us.

[Vee]

seeing if I can raise this topic from butterface
Is US style neconservatism Machiavellian ?

[PatrickHenry]

Vee, you might be onto something new, but in my volconvo experience, Butterface is irreversible.

But what the hell, maybe you are the Jesus of volconvo... "Lazarus, come forth!"

Pat Buchanan's new book Where the Right Went Wrong has a lot to say about the neocons. They certainly aren't conservatives.

Here's a review from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...126266?v=glance

Although the George W. Bush administration is famous for being "on message," delivering a consistent and polished political perspective no matter what, such consistency apparently does not extend to every member of the conservative universe. In Where the Right Went Wrong, veteran pundit and occasional presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan offers up scathing criticisms of Bush's policies, the arrogance and boorishness of which, he warns, could ultimately dramatically destabilize the United States' superpower status. The problem, in Buchanan's eyes, is the rejection of traditional Reagan-era conservatism by an administration under the sway of the so-called "neoconservatives," who favor a pre-emptive military strategy and big government and don't mind running up dangerously huge budget deficits to support it. The war in Iraq, fought without direct demonstrable threat, alienates America in the eyes of the rest of the world, says Buchanan, squandering the global goodwill earned after the 9/11 attacks and creating exponentially larger numbers of terrorists who will threaten the U.S. for generations to come. The zeal over free trade among elected officials, a feeling notably not shared by Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader, is costing America jobs, Buchanan theorizes, and leading to a de-industrialized service-sector-only economy, an end to American self-sufficiency in favor of a reliance on global corporations, and a looming economic crisis. Refreshingly, and unlike pundits of his day, Buchanan crafts his arguments by examining world history, offering detailed analogies to the Roman Empire, the Civil War, and pre-Soviet Russia among others. Conservatives alienated by the Bush administration will find an eloquent champion in Buchanan and even liberals, who may not have known there was a conservative argument against war in Iraq, stand to learn something from a right side of the aisle perspective so different from that found in the Bush White House. --John Moe

I just finished reading it (Costco-$14) and was wondering where to talk about the stinkin' neocons...

From page 12 of Buchanan's book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312341156...266#reader-page
Charles Krauthammer(cursed be his name) calls for an end to US sovereignty in favor of a trilateral superstate, undoubtedly controlled and dictated to by transnational corporations. Hegemony for the New World Order...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Nono tried to revive this topic during troubling times when we were under seige and an authoritarian leader was hacking politically incorrect topics. Here is what he came up with: Volconvo: "it was a dark and stormy night...." I personally prefer "Bushistas: Machevellian or Moronic?"

[gr8fuldaniel]

Good post Patrick, looks like a good book.
What will it take to wake up half of America? It concerns me people rallying with a mob mentality behind the flag of Haliburton

[PatrickHenry]

Here's another slant from the right that disfavors Dubya: http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=114

I wondered why Hannity, who by his own admission prides himself on “intellectual honesty,” would argue day and night with ultra-left wing extremists, but when a right-winger calls the show with legitimate gripes about the Republican Party, he is yelled at and hung-up on. I finally realized what it was that Hannity felt so threatened by during that phone call. The caller was exposing the neo-conservatives for the frauds that they really are, and Hannity could not and would not allow that to happen. Could you imagine conservatives around our nation coming to their senses and realizing that they were being represented by a bunch of warfare-welfare socialists? The only real threat to the neo-conservative movement is traditional conservatives. And these people must be silenced at any cost by men like Rush and Hannity. As the Bush presidency wore on, I became more and more disenchanted with his actions. I began to realize that, although Bush and all of his supporters said he was a “conservative,” this man qualified more for the political title of “socialist.” I did my best to shed the neo-conservative paradigm that had gripped my mind and tried to look at what was really going on in American politics. I began to listen more and more to the little-heard voices from that right-wing political “fringe” that had scared me away before with all of their talk of a “constitutional republic” and whatnot. The more I listened to these voices, the more I realized that this was my true political home. BUSH, THE AGENT OF GOD? If there were any doubts about the socialist tendencies of Bush, these doubts ought to have been washed away in the floodtide of political propaganda that was Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. As I watched the speech on television, I was fully prepared for a monstrous and unconstitutional gaggle of new big-government spending programs, and Bush did not fail on this account. What I wasn’t prepared for was that Bush would make the stupendous and incredible claim that, as the Commander-in-Chief of our fine military forces, he sees himself working as an agent for the Almighty Creator God of the Universe. <snip> if other nations aren’t calling America to a specific destiny, then who is? In terrifying fashion, Bush elaborates on who exactly he believes is calling America to “lead the cause of freedom.” After omnisciently claiming that people in the Middle East “plead in silence for their liberty,” our mind-reading President goes on state, “I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” This statement is very profound in that it exposes the very root of the foreign policy thinking of this President. In the years to come, Bush has promised that America will be going to war around the globe to “advance freedom” in the name of God. He is going to force this “gift” from God on other nations at the point of the sword. If this kind of insane rhetoric doesn’t terrify Americans everywhere, then maybe I am the only one who has lost his mind. But I don’t believe this to be the case. Bush might as well have said, “In the future, we are going to go to war against nations who present no threat to America, and we will do this not only because it is for their own good, but primarily because God wants us to.” Going into unnecessary wars with nations around the globe is now seen in the beautiful and patriotic light of “advancing freedom” and promoting liberation, instead of war being a last resort and only necessary when our nation’s security is threatened. And at such a dreaded end lies the logic of the shame-faced neo-cons who found no WMDs in Iraq. With no evidence discovered to back up the claims of the legitimate threat to American soil that the invasion was founded upon, the neo-cons are trying their hardest to convince Americans that we invaded to liberate the populace of Iraq. The American people would never have supported the Iraq war solely to liberate the people of that nation. The war had support because Americans were told that there were massive inventories of WMDs in Iraq, and that these weapons were on the verge of being given to terrorists to use against our people. Now that no WMDs have been located, “advancing freedom” and liberation has become the rallying cry of the war-mongering neo-conservatives who are eager to invade other nations in the near future. <snip> I can’t imagine of anything more dangerous than a man, who is in charge of the greatest fighting force ever assembled on planet earth, believing that he is on a mission from God to invade other nations around the globe.

Bush has lost a lotta steam from those on the right who are waking up with a headache...

[Scribbler1]

I'm not so sure Limbaugh isn't a true believer, but Hannity, Gallagher and the rest are merely opportunists making a great deal of money spouting the far right line. And why not? For the money they make, I would prostitute myself for a couple of years and say whatever rakes in the moolah.
I think Hannity and others would be ESPECIALLY critical of honest to god Republican Conservatives who feel Bush is doing a poor job, simply because they may reduce his meal ticket.
Conservatives may have a hard time buying anything a liberal says but are more likely to listen to another Republican critical of Bush.
I honestly don't think most of these guys believe all they say, but say it because it sells.
Principled or very wealthy? Hmmm...tough call.

[PatrickHenry]

Even Bob Barr has begun to rethink the Bush agenda:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_fl...kingaction.html

Voting for president used to be so easy, at least for a conservative. There was the Republican candidate. You knew he generally stood for lower taxes, less government spending, giving fewer powers to the government, lower deficits and a zealous regard for individual privacy. Then, there was the Democrat. You knew he generally stood for higher taxes, more government and deficit spending, and a zealous regard for civil liberties. Throughout my own presidential voting history, the choices have rarely, if ever, been agonizing. Nixon vs. McGovern? Carter vs. Reagan? Reagan-Mondale? Dukakis, a Massachusetts liberal? Clinton? Al Gore? Ah, the good ol' days. Each of those races presented clear choices, easily resolved. Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone. What's making the contest so difficult? It's certainly not that both candidates are so conservative that we have a choice of riches. It's not even that John Kerry is sort of right wing compared to George W. Bush. The incumbent clearly is the more "conservative" of the two. But the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties). When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had -- through discipline and tough votes -- whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times. Instead, what we got were record levels of new spending, including nearly double-digit increases in nondefense discretionary spending. We now have deficits exceeding those that the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years faced when it convened in January 1995. The oft-repeated mantra that "the terrorists made us spend more" rings hollow, especially to those who actually understand that increases in nondefense discretionary spending are not the inevitable result of fighting terrorists. It also irritates many conservatives, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, that so much of defense spending is being poured into the black hole of Iraq's internal security, while the security of our own borders goes wanting. That brings us to the second major beef conservatives have with the president. He's seen as failing to take real steps to improve our border security. In many respects, because of his apparent desire to appease his compadre to the south -- Mexican President Vincente Fox -- Bush has made matters worse. More people are entering our country illegally than ever before, more than 3 million this year alone -- and most of them are stampeding across from Mexico. It seems as if every time an effort is made to implement measures that would crack down on illegal immigration, Fox complains, and the White House tells our enforcement folks to back off. Perhaps that is why intelligence reports indicate al-Qaeda is actively recruiting in Central America. At the same time, here at home, many law-abiding citizens accurately perceive that their own freedoms and civil liberties are being stripped. They are being profiled by government computers whenever they want to travel, their bank accounts are being summarily closed because they may fit some "profile," they are under surveillance by cameras paid for by that borrowed federal money, and, if the administration has its way, they will be forced to carry a national identification card. That skewed sense of priorities really rankles conservatives. Those are but three tips of the iceberg that signal the deep dissatisfaction many conservatives harbor against the president. Thus far, however, with Bush's political gurus telling him he's ahead and to just lay low and not make any major gaffes, he seems unwilling to recognize the problems on his right flank. Or he seems to have concluded that he doesn't need to address those concerns because the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign hasn't forced him to. But the race appears to be tightening again. It's likely to remain tight until Election Day. Those dissatisfied conservative voters will become increasingly important, but it's going to be impossible for the president to pull them back in with hollow, last-minute promises. Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda. History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?