Grab your crosses, flashlights and holy water:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html
Bush can’t possibly qualify as “dark one” in an administration containing both Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.
The UK speech of the other day was fantastic! He really handed the UN its ass for being such a pathetic dictator coddling piece of shit.
Yay Bush!
:D
You don’t even try to hide it when you’re trolling anymore, do you, Spoofy?
How is this trolling? This is exactly how I feel!
The only reason you can make that claim is because the vast majority of everybody here is a liberal and any conservative opinion is immediately attacked and ridiculed here…usually sprinkled with personal attacks and intentional misrepresentations.
So suck my balls quatoria.
:wink:
It’s like (the voice of) Kid Rock (in that very special “Behind the Music That Sucks”) said, “This kangaroo court can licky mah bawls!”
I apologize for not at all contributing positively to the conversation.
Especially with a dictator who(m ?) the US coddled for years, right ?
yes, that’s it! Damn the US for not doing anything. Then damn them for doing something. Perhaps we should have invaded the Soviet union instead of coddling Stalin during WWII. There is something to be said for consistancy, there’s something better to be said about wisdom. Perhaps we should take the French route the next time a dictator rolls over eastern europe and mind our own business. The world would be a better place were it not for the USA.
Yeah ! Act when you damn please (who cares about anyone outside the US, right ?), kill people to protect US interest, then blame other countries for not doing so ! We kill Saddam, we good. We don’t kill Saddam, we give him weapons to attack Iran, we good. Either way, we good, you, baaaad !
The UK speech the other day was indeed a good one. This editorial in The Telegraph really puts it well.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/11/20/dl2001.xml
A truly great one, though, was his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. The New Republic had a great editorial about it, which is unfortunately only available to subscribers online, but if you do subscribe you should read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
Crusade
by the EditorsPost date 11.17.03 | Issue date 11.24.03
If a profound idea can be attributed to George W. Bush, a profound idea must now be attributed to him. In his address to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)–an organization that was born in partisan strife two decades ago but has become one of the real glories of Washington–the president provided a thoughtful and stirring and momentous defense of the centrality of democratization to American foreign policy. It was a radical speech, and for once the radicalism of this administration did not seem small or sectarian. It contained arguments, not slogans; a sense of history, not a sense of politics. It was the credo of an idealist, but there was realism in it, too.
Speeches from some dark ones…
“We shall see if France has statesmen. If she does, she will not grant us time, but will jump on us.”
-Adolf Hitler, February 1933
“If the French had marched into the Rhineland [in 1935] we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs.”
-Adolf Hitler, 1935
“In 1933, a French premier ought to have said, and if I had been the French premier, I would have said it: 'The new Reich chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march! … They didn’t do it. They left us alone and they let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done and better armed – better armed than they were – then they started the war!”
-Joseph Goebbels, April 1940
that was beautiful, Morris. It brought tears of joy to mein eye.
We lead, we bad.
You do nothing, you good.
It all makes sense now.
It’s amazing how insane some people are. Polls have shown that the majority of the public is turned off by the kind of over-the-top rhetoric of the left that compares Bush to Hitler or Stalin, but the left keeps on using the same innefective slurs.
It’s quite fun to watch the left continually shoot itself in the foot!
On the other hand it’s quite worrisome that people are so blind as to think that Bush really compares to these monsters.
Oh yeah, and fuck France.
Its also amazing how insane how the right keeps trotting out these crazies and going “look at the left! They’re insane!” when in fact they don’t represent any of the left that matter.
I mean, shit, if you pull out those guys, I’m going to lump you with Falwell, the John Birch Society, and the Texas Republican Party. Do you really want that?
Sorry, they’re all pining for Donald Rumsfeld. You don’t have a chance with those folks unless you prove how manly you are by invading a few countries.
Its also amazing how insane how the right keeps trotting out these crazies and going “look at the left! They’re insane!” when in fact they don’t represent any of the left that matter.
Then why are a majority of the Democratic candidates going out of their way to pander to the leftie lunatic fringe groups?
Especially the front man Dean. If the dems aren’t really so far left of center, then why do they ‘represent’ themselves that way at every turn, every soundbyte, and every debate?
Obviously they have determined that the whacko left is the important demographic that matters.
I’m curious to know which lefties ‘matter’ in the big Xpav picture of things. Considering that the Democratic party is a hodgepodge of splinter groups each with their own narrow special interest, there really is no cohesive entity or majority to address when running as a democrat. You have to pick the groups that add up to a plurality of your base and focus on them. But many of them have no common political ground between them, or no consistant principle except the “give me mine” philosophy.
This is the only real diference between the parties: Dems cater to the “give me a piece” people while taking their own piece of pie, Republicans pander to the “give me nothing” people while taking their own piece of pie. Either way, the people who vote for laissez-faire get phucked.
You’re kidding, right? Bush caters to the “give me fucking everything” crowd. 90% of the wealth, 10% of the population, etc, etc.
no, I’m not kidding. Bush and all other Republicans always run on the ‘smaller government’ platform. When the take office, however, they spend just like Democrats.
Most Democrats believe in the chicken in every pot program. Most republicans prefer to buy their own chickens.
And letting taxpayers keep more or their money is not ‘giving’ them anything. It’s their money in the first place, or do we have to get into the private property argument again? How do you think wealth is made in the first place? Do you think it grows on government trees?
Do you think wealth exists independent of a society?
The wealthy can pay an increased share to support the infreastructure of this progressive society that allows them to become and remain rich.
There’s no law, moral or natural, that grants a right to wealth or private property. Society sets the terms for private ownership, and the wealthy can damn well contribute to society in a measure roughly equal to what they’ve gained from it.
Call it paying back interest on opportunity.