How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Will Bush be re-elected?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Will Bush be re-elected?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


25 posted 01-14-2004 01:36 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Opeth, that is a rather interesting opinion you've shared that I don't hear too often and is worth discussing, but I'm curious as of its significance here. Please continue.



Love,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


26 posted 01-14-2004 01:42 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

People are rendering their opinions based on what?

What knowledge do they possess with regards to politics - political science?

Have they studied political science in High School, as an undergraduate, at a graduate level or do they base their opinions from what others report and take those reports to be factual?  

Maybe they read magazine and other types of articles here and there - and now all of a sudden they understand the concepts of American politics?

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


27 posted 01-14-2004 01:50 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

ah the concept of american politics...

the question..will bush be re-elected is best settled in the electoral college after a popular vote.

All else is folly... and argumentative folly at that.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 01-14-2004 02:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hey, Ron, you're missing the boat! The Alley is designed to be argumentative folly!!
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


29 posted 01-14-2004 02:13 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

ah now 'Deer.. didn't say it was not appropriate in venue.. but my own argumentitive folly is to argue such folly is indeed argumentative folly..

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 01-14-2004 02:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Oh, and Noah, regarding these comments of yours...

"It is rather clear now that the whole Iraq war was commenced out of hatred and revenge.

And no, if Clinton four years ago had said just what Bush had said, I would be doing the same thing I did in reaction to Bush, scorning him as a bloodthirsty, arrogant pirate"


....may I offer these small articles which were all pre-Bush. It is not Clinton bashing; rather it is to show the stance of the government long before Bush came into office....and the folly of calling Iraq all his bloodthirsty decision..

Clinton Says 'Mission Accomplished'  By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON - Service members in the Persian Gulf did "a
difficult job with skill, dedication and determination,"
President Clinton said at the White House Dec. 19, the last
day of Operation Desert Fox.

Based on preliminary national security briefings, the
president said the 70-hour air strike campaign against
Iraqi military targets had achieved its mission. "We have
inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction programs, on the command structures that direct
and protect that capability, and on his military and
security infrastructure," he reported.

Overall, Clinton deemed the operation well planned and
executed. He pointed out, however, that even though the
strikes have ceased, the conflict with Iraq is not over. As
long as Hussein is in power, the president said, he remains
a threat to the world.

Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says


By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war
planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When
he failed to do so, the United States took action.

President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat
aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -
- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."

Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."

"President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations."
- Secretary of Defense William Cohen
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

The Anatomy of Clinton's Failure in Iraq
by Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. and James A. Phillips
Executive Summary #1161

• Developing a comprehensive long-term strategy to overthrow Saddam. The ultimate goal of U.S. policy should be to oust Saddam, not just contain him. Washington should help unify and rebuild the Iraqi opposition, which was weakened severely by Saddam's August 1996 invasion of the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. The United States should work closely with Turkey to cement an alliance between Kurdish groups and the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of democratic Iraqi opposition forces, and should help this coalition to set up an alternative government in northern Iraq, broadcast its appeals over a Radio Free Iraq, and lobby for international recognition.
• Preparing for the next standoff. Considering Saddam's track record, it is unrealistic to expect him to abide by U.N. resolutions. The U.S. goal in the next crisis provoked by Saddam should be to attack and undermine his base of power, punish him for his transgressions, and reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors and his own people. Toward these ends, the United States should prepare to unleash a robust and sustained air campaign as part of a long-term strategy to build up Iraqi opposition forces and oust Saddam from power. Under the right circumstances, perhaps in support of an internal uprising, the United States should consider even using ground troops to finish the job of toppling Saddam.

"
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


31 posted 01-14-2004 02:31 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Opeth, that is a rather interesting opinion you've shared that I don't hear too often and is worth discussing,"

~ I did not share a matter of pure opinion. I made a declarative statement or claim if you will.

~ Indeed, some opinions are so bad, so stupid, or so dangerous that it may be hazardous or even immoral to hold them. Example: How can one be "entitled" to the opinion that people should be allowed to abuse their children whenever they want to or that human slavery is a justifiable form of labor?

- Critical Thinking 301
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


32 posted 01-14-2004 05:09 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Opeth,

I suppose that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is now considered, what, heresy? And, of course, the American government was guilty of enslavement up until the 1970's -- it was called the draft.

Perhaps a bit more disturbing is this however:

quote:
Maybe they read magazine and other types of articles here and there - and now all of a sudden they understand the concepts of American politics?


or Balladeer's:

quote:
Interesting how easy it is to sit thousands of miles away and piece one's own version of the truth together by gathering newspaper headlines.


Though, of course, he actually posted some articles so presumably he meant those who only read headlines.

As long as they're not American? I'm not sure if that's a valid inference yet.  

Why not simply argue against the points, explain why the argument is untenable, or post your opinion and leave it at that? Why insinuate that another's opinon is invalid based on an assumption that you can neither prove nor disprove?

But, in all seriousness, what exactly is the correct way to form an informed opinion on the Bush administration?

What should we do? Given that some of us still have the vote, how should we go about employing this vote in a responsible way?

2writeis2be
Junior Member
since 01-11-2004
Posts 42
Live in London, but from TX


33 posted 01-14-2004 05:24 PM       View Profile for 2writeis2be   Email 2writeis2be   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for 2writeis2be

"hmmm...interesting. I'd like to add that althought the cards reveal the George W. will certainly be re-elected, he will wish he hadn't."

Gosh--I hope your cards are wrong about Bushyboy being reelected! But if they're not, I'll have a little more faith in the art of tarot I suppose. And a little less faith in voters. hehe.

Anyway, I'm glad I started this thread--it's interesting to read people's views on all this.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


34 posted 01-14-2004 05:43 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Again, like I said before, there is about eleven months until Election Day, so almost anything can happen. So much time for something quite radical to happen on either side that could determine a whole new fate to the public opinion. Secrets may be revealed, promises may be kept, forgiveness may be made, or the most unpredictable event of chance. It is hard to predict much right now, even hard to imagine.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 01-14-2004 07:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Brad, in the articles I listed, two are for the armed forces news services, one from an executive order, and one from the Dept. of Defense record. They did make some papers but were not headline material, interestingly enough. I tried to look up a speech Clinton gave to Congress in 1998 concerning US stance on Iraq but received instead a message from the White House that that particular document, along with several others, had been removed from public record. My only point in printing these was to show that the government's position in the late nineties was that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs and Congress was authorizing, and even encouraging, the President to use whatever force necessay (in one document Ted Kennedy said even including the use of nuclear weapons) to remove Hussein from power. That being the case I would like to know where all of these poeple who are screaming foul for not finding WMDs were then. It's hilarious to me that even the congressmen whose signatures are on that report urging Clinton to remove Hussein from power and stating that it was a definite that wmds did exist are now joining the chorus "Where are they?" LOL! Where was Mr. Noah's indignation then? Bush did exactly what congress wanted Clinton to do and for the exact same reasons, yet he is called a warmongering hater of civilization where there was not a word spoken about the congress that initially requested it. I also posted it because I knew it would not be commented on by the Noahs because there is nothing they can say. It's all a matter of official records. No one is contesting that it doesn't exist....so they simply ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist and go back to villification for its own sake.

How do we form an informed opinion of the Bush administration? Excellent question there. I don't have the answer. It's impossible to know if something has been avoided because if it doesn't happen there's no way to know. Perhaps our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our relentless pursuit and tightening of the noose around terrorist organizations,  forcing them to run and hide as a primary concern, our increased homeland security, etc. have prevented other 9/11's from occuring. There's no way to know. I will take the fact that that they have NOT occured as a positive for Bush's actions. I have little doubt that the terrorist groups, inspired by 9/11, would have continued with planning and attacks on the US and US interests. I believe the economy is recovering nicely and not only for the rich and high-interest groups. I think that the majority of the Americans feel fairly secure with both their personal and economic safety. Democrats are doing everything they can to convince the populace that America is in horrible shape under Bush and they are failing because they do not have the facts to back up their allegations.

So it's all personal feelings, of course. I think that, under Bush, America is in reasonably good shape and I'll vote for him. Noah may feel that America is in trouble under Bush and he will not....the beauty of the democratic way.

It's either that or flip a coin
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 01-14-2004 07:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Since we are on the subject of Noah's apparent main concern - the lying about saying Iraq had WMD's, I present the following quotes from others who seemed to share the same views.

Floor speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res.45,” A Resolution to Authorize the use of  United Staes Armed Forces against Iraq”, given on the senate floor, October 10, 2002.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


So how about if we stop the rhetoric that Bush invented the WMD theory to justify his blood-lust. It simply doesn't hold water...

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (01-14-2004 08:25 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


37 posted 01-14-2004 08:34 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



With over 15% undecided right now pre-election, the coin flip just might be their fate!

True about some of the info you've shared, but also how about not putting all the accusations on Clinton either. This is just before Bush's father's time we're talking about when much of this came about. It is known to begin with Bush Sr. empowered Saddam Hussein financially before the whole turn of events post-Kuwait.

Clinton could have taken account of this more seriously, but the dilemma began even before 1993. The Gulf War was a major disaster for Bush Sr, and though he might had gotten re-elected if not for Perot, those fatalities infuriated many to the point Colin Powell urged him to abort the mission. That folly made Saddam's first major resilience.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


38 posted 01-14-2004 08:44 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I think you're missing an important point, Mike.

I was pretty darn sure Iraq had at least some WMD, too. But I didn't do anything about it. Holding a belief implies relatively little responsibility. Actions, however, MUST be accountable. Our leaders either lied to us, or our leaders were wrong. I'm not sure what the consequences of each of those two alternative should be, but I honestly believe there should be consequences.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


39 posted 01-14-2004 09:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree wholeheartedly, Ron, that there should be. As far as the chorus I displayed above, they have already flip-flopped from certain knowledge of WMD's to "So where are they, W?". They are not going to claim any responsibility for promoting the certainty of such weapons.

Bush could certainly feel the consequences if he is not re-elected. I truly believe that the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place had it not been for 9/11. There are those who will disagree, claiming he was doing it for daddy. So be it. I feel he took the reports and information previously gathered and, because of 9/11, acted on it. The terrorists showed what they could do with boxcutters. The thought of what they could, and obviously would, do with WMD's is enough to boggle the mind. Clinton, Hillary and others claimed in no uncertain terms that Hussein was harboring and aiding terrorists groups. With all of those things taken in account, why is it so shocking to some that Hussein would be the appropriate target? I don't get it..

There used to be a lot of people screaming "It's all about oil!". They seem to have disappeared....how about that?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


40 posted 01-14-2004 09:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Noah,

Sometimes there are just dangerous characters on the world stage who have to be checked. Can you even begin to imagine what this world would be like if tyrants were never stopped in their tracks?

Any President worth the title will do all in his power to fulfill his foremost obligation to protect us from those tyrants.

Balladeer's point from the above quotations was to show you, clearly, that all the Democratic leaders who are now foaming at the mouth, spewing forth accusations against Bush and his policies, held the very same convictions, and supported the very same policies on the very same topic. Doesn't that make you want to at least question their integrity when they can do such an unexplained about-face on such an important subject? I personally don't know how they can keep a straight face when they open their mouths, I honestly don't.

Ron,

I think there is a third alternative. That WMD do indeed exist...some buried deep in the desert and some spirited away to neighboring areas for safekeeping.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 01-14-2004 09:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"This is just before Bush's father's time we're talking about when much of this came about."

Sorry, Noah.  All comments I listed were between 1998 and 2002, far removed from daddy Bush's time, all in Clinton's second term and beyond.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


42 posted 01-14-2004 10:25 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Denise, that is indeed every President's aim; to work to protect, enrich, and improve the lives of his or her people.

Then again, that too is a double-edged sword. Personally I believe in civil disobediance, which has been widely valued in humanities, from Antigone to The Decameron to the foundations of our democracy. I happen to be a fond lover of Walt Whitman and his philosophy. "Resist much, obey little!" is a quintessential proverb in my opinion, and yet I have the ability to see good in about everything and forgive.

While some may believe Bush is protecting Americans and the world from terrorists, they are so many who find Bush to be the greatest terror to world peace, which if not the greatest threat I find him to be a factor in interrupting the peace cycle. How then can you expect those who feel this to be protected from him?

Teddy Roosevelt, who was also a Republican president, said "Placing any president above criticism or argument is morally treasonable." Indeed many like this Bush, many dislike him. Therefore I think both sides should have the right to judge him while he does his job, and those who think Bush is the deeper threat to this world should not be silenced.

And as I already mentioned, I'm no Republican, but I'm also no "new democrat". I'm just a man of this world who believes in democracy. I question Clinton just as I do Bush, I judge the Dem nominees as I do Bush's cabinet, etc. I personally feel the Democratic Party has some kinks to work out, they need to unify again.

Don't just let the country govern you, find how you can govern the governor!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


43 posted 01-14-2004 11:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
  While some may believe Bush is protecting Americans and the world from terrorists, they are so many who find Bush to be the greatest terror to world peace, which if not the greatest threat I find him to be a factor in interrupting the peace cycle. How then can you expect those who feel this to be protected from him?


Noah, please give me your ideas on how to best deal with the terrorist threat. What do you think would be the most effective way to provide as much protection as is possible? How would you propose to deal with these very real threats (and remember, these folks have proven that appeasement doesn't work)?

And aside from the fact that Bush could not interrupt something that didn't exist in the first place (peace), don't you think that the conditions conducive to peace might sometimes have to be fought for against the tyrants of the world who have no concept of, nor respect for, peace? Do people really think that if  tyrants are allowed to overrun the world, having their way from one country to the next, establishing their despotic regimes wherever they wish, that there would be peace? I guess it depends on one's definition of peace...peace with your face under somebody's boot, or peace with freedom. You can't be advocating peace at any cost, can you?

I don't go along with civil disobedience as a legitimate tool of dissent. We have the right of dissent, but I believe that it should be done without the 'disobedience' aspect, within its proper outlined parameters. I think it is immature at best, and displays a lack of respect for the civil law, and by extension a lack of respect for one's fellow citizens, and at worst, it may also be the outworkings of an anarchist propensity in some people.


nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


44 posted 01-15-2004 11:39 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Just a simple reply remembering my younger years when it seems we were all so idealistic.

All those who fought or were civilly and sometimes not...disobedient and demonstrated on college campuses and wanted to change our society and were anti- establishment, are those before and who now are running our government, joined  the establishment to become wealthier and live more comfortably, no different than those before them.

It's great to be idealistic, Noah that we will have world peace someday, but it is the ideas and actions that will accomplish and not just words of hopes and dreams.

I had hoped when younger that all religions would come together so that I didn't have to worry about my family not  wanting me to marry someone of a different religion because love meant more to me...and at that time couples were having double marriage ceremonies or were going to churches that were non secterian and had Ministers, Priests and Rabbis together performing the ceremonies.

even that has gone backwards today...and religions are  more at odds now than when I was a young adult and there was hope. I know this is a bit off the subject, but I am trying to address that young people today are no different than we were years ago.
Then we grew up and realized that the President doesn't make all the decisions...and that sometimes even voting doesn't get us what we want.Itjust changes the landscape until the next vote.


Just my feelings when reading how passionate you are, Noah. Each generation tries and still there is no world peace...

Maureen
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


45 posted 01-15-2004 12:36 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

In the opinion of Hitler & his 3rd Reich, the Jewish race was worthy of genocide.

I wonder what facts they utilized to base that opinion on?

Will be Bush be re-elected? At this time, no one can know for certain, and that delcaration is a fact - not an opinion.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


46 posted 01-15-2004 01:01 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Opeth, you apparently don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Contrary to what you think, a fact isn't defined as "something Opeth believes" and opinions aren't "what everyone else thinks." You opinion on Hitler is hearsay, your opinion on the results of the election is a deduction, and neither can be considered facts because you don't have the resources available to prove either. All you can really hope to do is convince others your opinions count for something.

And that's exactly why everyone else is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how outlandish "you" think they might be. Opinion and credibility aren't the same thing. Others have a right to voice their opinions, you have a right to accept or not accept, and your decision to do the latter does NOT negate their freedom to keep talking.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


47 posted 01-15-2004 01:08 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Ron,

I do know the difference between what is a fact and what is an opinion. By you sayng that I do not, does not make what you say true.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


48 posted 01-15-2004 03:37 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Maureen, bless you for jumping in and expressing yourself too! I sympathize with so much of you and all your friends and peers when you were young and the ideals that continue to juggle on! Always remember even when you may not be the college girl on the outside anymore, that blossom of youth will always be in your heart, and every idealistic instinct you have must be right in some sense!



Truly I feel why so many young people are not interested in humanities, politics or social sciences today is because they either have witnessed history before their eyes and feel powerless, or they fear they'll be ostracized or suppressed for expressing themselves, fear of being made a living joke or radical out of. I have seen this myself and though much of what I may be doing may lead nowhere, I only wish to prove that the spirit lives on, the faint living colors of individuality that have been a cornerstone of this nation since the Puritans touched this soil and shaped American values.



I am not that kind of arguer who makes scrapbooks out of all the headlines of newspapers and goes back to draw references on and on! I am more of an intuitive arguer, and that is still an arguer. When I "feel" passionate about something that upsets me, I know something must be done, and I don't feel that way too often. I also hunt for facts, but I believe in rather digging up the graves to hear and look at people all around you! There are too many who feel desperate and vulnerable right now, and seeing such a polarized nation, I believe one should know pretty well that Bush is a pretty unsatisfactory peoples president! That also gives me the impression that anyone such as that who creates this kind of "schism" is incapable of meeting the needs of the "people". Aside from my resentment to his actions without asking or answering questions, that has been a huge criticism of mine to him, and why I find pretty much every president in the past fifty years to be mediocre at best. What can I do alone to change all that? I'd be quite limited, but it can amount to something of good use when amalgamated together.



Your comment really deeply touched my heart, Maureen! Angel hugs for you!



Love,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


49 posted 01-15-2004 03:53 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Noah, as much as I enjoy interacting with all the poets, this comment
quote:
There are too many who feel desperate and vulnerable right now, and seeing such a polarized nation, I believe one should know pretty well that Bush is a pretty unsatisfactory peoples president!
[emphasis added] makes me feel as if you are talking for me, and anyone else who might come across this thread.

Please don't.  You may know your thoughts/opinions on Bush's popularity, but not everyone will go along with your belief.  State how you feel, certainly, but general assumptions should not be made unless you have proof positive facts, and then they wouldn't be assumptions.

Based on your sharing over the last few years, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that you are not, and will possibly never be a Bush supporter, even if he turned around and did everything you asked him to do.  I believe you would find something else wrong with his presidency.  Perhaps it would be something akin to "waffling" because one person was able to "guide" him.

I'm going to use myself as an example.  I was elected into a state office, with some 200 members.  That's great.  What a chance to make a change...I thought.  But this organization was far older than my time and tenure with it...and guess what?  Sometimes a body of people only want a figurehead to get them from one year to the next.  "Keep things as they are"..."we tried that once, didn't work then, won't work now..."..."Oh, I like the idea.  I just don't think you'll get everyone on board for it."

Very frustrating.  And that was only 200 people.

I think it was asked before, I'm not sure [perhaps in another thread] but what would your suggestions be to the world situation as it stands today?  Better yet, go back to 911 - and tell me how you would have reacted in the face of what seemed at the time to be imminent danger?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Will Bush be re-elected?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors