If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Editorial)   "Intellectual poverty is the most striking quality of the Bush administration's new National Security Strategy statement, issued on Thursday." And it gets better from there   (iht.com) divider line 353
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

19125 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2006 at 11:57 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



353 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-03-19 12:47:23 PM
Weaver95

What do you want as a response to China?
 
2006-03-19 12:47:52 PM
The Billdozer: Yes, you are correct. If you are rational, you are more likely than not to be a conservative and then a libertarian then you are to be a green or a liberal.

You seem to have gotten the talking points mixed up. Liberalism places an almost extreme trust in the nature of rationality and human ability. Conservatism and libertarianism believe that tradition and liberty trump rationality.
 
2006-03-19 12:49:33 PM
The Billdozer: Coming from you, I don't know where to be impressed or shocked that you knew what talking points are, considering how much you regurgitate them on a regular basis.

What? You don't even know me! I'm so rarely in greenlit threads. I mostly dwell in TF, which you don't access.

If you are rational, you are more likely than not to be a conservative and then a libertarian then you are to be a green or a liberal.

Because political positions have little to do with opinions and values, but with people who are objectively correct and rational (conservatives) versus hysterical, irrational liberals who are objectively wrong?

I can't even imagine what it must be like to see the world in this way.
 
2006-03-19 12:50:05 PM
Billdozer: No, you are bullshiat. If you'd open your eyes, there have been many very reasoned arguments as to why this administration is a complete fallacy, made by...*gasp* liberals.

lets do a recap here:

- Bush was briefed shortly before the 9/11 attacks about intelligence that stated, in no uncertain terms, that Al Queda was going to make an attack attempt on American soil. This was not met with any sense of urgency. Whether or not this would have stopped 9/11 is a big what-if scenario, so im not going to weigh in on that aspect, but Bush was less than interested in terrorism, even while people around him were trying to get him to act.

- The Iraq war was based, at best, on shaky intelligence and on a premise that has since been proven to be false, that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE (key word there) threat to the United States. There was also the assertion that Iraq had extensive ties to global terrorism, Al Queda, and possibly even links to 9/11, all false.

- Then there is the handling of the war. It is becoming a quagmire, and the continued presence of our military is probably the only thing that's keeping the region from delving into civil war. He keeps touting that Iraq will become a stable democracy, but he offers no strategy on how to do so. Apparently as long as they have elections, eventually everything will turn out right, right?

And there you have it, a sampling of what I've found wrong with this administration, this is by no means a all encompassing list. No snide comments about Bush, 'red staters', neo-cons, or whatever. And im a liberal too.

Or you could go back to assuming that all liberals take their marching orders from some C-list loud mouth celebrity.
 
2006-03-19 12:50:20 PM
The world doesn't hate us! You're forgetting Poland.
 
2006-03-19 12:50:21 PM
LocalCynic: Almost

The Billdozer: Not quite

www.gwu.edu

That one.
 
2006-03-19 12:50:54 PM
Did somebody say propane?
 
2006-03-19 12:51:00 PM
Weaver95: Fixed it for you.

The 80's called, they want their slap bracelets back.

In other news:

www.osv.com

Defeat socialism, emphasized the problems of excessive hedonism and materialism

www.keble.ox.ac.uk

Drove up the deficit, created a US political climate of fear mongering, perpetuated the myth that greed is good and bigger is better.
 
2006-03-19 12:52:55 PM
Wake 'n Bake: How about this. Liberals oppose Bush for his giving people back their money, not pandering to liberal pet social projects, wiretapping suspected Al-Queda corroborators and his hawkish foreign policy of killing the boxer-stains of humanity. His breathtaking stupidty (even though he had better grades than John Kerry and better SAT scores then some of the liberals most cherised intellectuals) and reliance on straussian (a word I just looked up so I could sound cool) and neoconservative ( and original word I just came up with today!) ideology makes him even worse.

How's that, dickhead?


Cleaned that up for you a bit.
 
2006-03-19 12:53:27 PM
Guys, just relax. Bush isn't that bad, once he's gone we'll just work our asses off for the next several decades fixing everything he's broken, maybe we'll mortgage our children's futures, but heck, a little hard work never killed anyone. Oh and we'll all need to learn Chinese.
 
2006-03-19 12:53:53 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: That one.


Oh wow, I almost forgot about that!
 
2006-03-19 12:54:32 PM
2006-03-19 12:39:09 PM ChickenGeorgeVII

When I saw that beer can-"LIGHT DRAFT"--I thought you were making a commentary on upcoming military policy if we try to go into Iran anytime soon.
 
2006-03-19 12:54:35 PM
What do you want as a response to China?

For starters, I'd like to stop sending all our jobs there. For another, let's come up with an actual trade policy. something other than 'give 'em all our money and maybe they'll behave'.

And given a choice between North Korea and Iran, North Korea is clearly the bigger threat. Crazy starving commies with nukes! Hello!?
 
2006-03-19 12:54:37 PM
The money wasn't there, billdozer. He INCREASED spending and gave people their money back. Where is the sense in this move?
 
2006-03-19 12:54:58 PM
Yes, so journalists in Paris don't like Bush. What else is new?
 
2006-03-19 12:55:56 PM
farkncorey: which is the most important sign ... of an intelligent man.

An intelligent man surrounds himself with other intelligent people, this is true. But being surrounded by intelligent people does not make you intelligent.

It's no coincidence his core inner circle consists of people from his father's circle.
 
2006-03-19 12:57:04 PM
Americans ruled unfit to vote. Voting being outsourced to another country. News at 11.

PS. I love the use of conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. Its like you all believe you're born, and 0.00000001 seconds later, you have to choose an affiliation. Its the politics of division, and it plays into the hands of those you supposedly elect, from whatever party you do, in so many ways its not even funny anymore.

You poor souls.
 
2006-03-19 12:57:28 PM
The Billdozer: He had a C-average in an Ivy League school back when having a C-average meant something. He isn't anywhere close to being stupid. I'm sure your community college degree is impressive, however.

Yes, nice unfounded attack. That certainly makes you look like a rational participant.
 
2006-03-19 12:58:17 PM
Weaver95

As partisan and one sided as that article was, it does make one very salient point - nobody really knows WHAT our foreign policy is anymore. It seems to be changing on a semi-daily basis. Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran - what's next? spin the wheel and find out!

I'd like to see a coherent stratagy on China. For starters - they seem to be aquiring quite a lot of manufacturing power. all the multinat corps are building all their factories there around shenzen. Then there's North Korea - crazy starving people with nukes and nothing to lose. Iran, while a problem, isn't on par with some of what's building out East.


I just thought that bore repeating.

/quoting Weaver95 and my cat and dog are playing peacefully together. Oh, what a day!
 
2006-03-19 12:58:34 PM
And given a choice between North Korea and Iran, North Korea is clearly the bigger threat. Crazy starving commies with nukes! Hello!?

nothing wrong with that statement. the situation is much trickier, though, so if we ignore it perhaps it will go away.
 
2006-03-19 12:59:27 PM
Weaver95

I'm sure if N. Korea was 50 degrees west of where they are, we would pay attention. It's all about PROXIMITY to terror.
 
2006-03-19 12:59:35 PM
The Billdozer: The only people have seen put up calculated and logical arguments against W are conservatives or libertarians. I haven't seen liberal one who has put up a sound, logical and reason argument against the main.


Well, perhaps you should stop thinking of comedians as the liberal political elite. Try reading some economists that got better grades at ivy-league schools than Bush - like Friedman and Krugman.

Who are these conservatives and libertarians you identify with that put up such calculated and logical arguments to Bush - Dennis Miller and Carrot Top? Read a book.

Can't you see the writing on the wall? Republicans spent the last 30 years getting power back and the Bush administration (not to mention Delay, Frist, Cunningham, Abramoff) throws it all away in six years. Whether you like it or not, it's about time for the pendulum to swing back to the left.

I've been asking people for years to name one thing Bush has done right. At first it was tax cuts and the war on terrorism, but now that the effects of those policies have begun to come to light, I hear it less and less.

So, again, what has Bush & Co. done right?
 
2006-03-19 12:59:53 PM
billdozer: If you are rational, you are more likely than not to be a conservative and then a libertarian then sic you are to be a green or a liberal.


i'm guessing the thought behind this is that if someone agrees with you, they're rational? if the people you disagree with hiss and howl and never make a steady claim fine, but this isn't what we've seen among most people disagreeing with bush. There's venom to be sure, but thought behind it as well.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2006-03-19 01:00:07 PM
Weaver95 singlehandedly proves that resonable people on different sides of the so-called "political spectrum" can come up with the same conclusion.

The real "polictical spectrum" in 2006 is the corporate worshipers vs. the common man.
 
2006-03-19 01:00:13 PM
"intellectual poverty is the most striking quality of modern man"

There, fixed it for you. We also lack balls. On the plus side, if Bush hadn't ever become president I would have had a chance to become completely disillusioned with politics and 'the nation' and I wouldn't have had occasion to learn shiat about world history and economics. Stupid reactionary era.

\everybody's stupid but me
 
2006-03-19 01:00:53 PM
"If people read it to find a statement of American foreign policy's objective, they will learn that the United States has "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Good luck.

I'm going to do my bit to end tyranny right here at home in November. Starting by voting out EVERY incumbent on BOTH sides. The Republicans for being stupid, greedy and evil, and the Democrats for sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and letting this happen.
 
2006-03-19 01:01:09 PM
TheBilldozer the liberal mindset was summed up pretty well when Richard Belzer proclaimed

You "sum up" a political ideology with one quote from a B-list celebrity? For all your talk about logic and reason, that's obvious intellectual dishonesty.
 
2006-03-19 01:01:12 PM
The Billdozer
The only people have seen put up calculated and logical arguments against W are conservatives or libertarians. I haven't seen liberal one who has put up a sound, logical and reason argument against the main.

I have never sunk to this level before, but you, sir, are on the low end of the intelligence curve.

It is not worth my time to attempt to explain to you why such a statement is absurd and idiotic. Please cease and desist.


Weaver95
Don't look at me - as far as I'm concerned the Dubai port deal was the last straw. Have at 'em man, I'm done with them.

Much unlike many other Farkers who engage in political debates, your posts have always (at the very least) been worth the read. This one really gave me a chuckle. Rock on Weaver95.
 
2006-03-19 01:01:15 PM
bob.cheerful: So, again, what has Bush & Co. done right?

Protected the sanctity of marriage! Them queers were trying to GET MARRIED MAN!!

/these colors don't run.
 
2006-03-19 01:01:30 PM
matt2891: - Bush was briefed shortly before the 9/11 attacks about intelligence that stated, in no uncertain terms, that Al Queda was going to make an attack attempt on American soil. This was not met with any sense of urgency. Whether or not this would have stopped 9/11 is a big what-if scenario, so im not going to weigh in on that aspect, but Bush was less than interested in terrorism, even while people around him were trying to get him to act.

Dude, if you realized how many times the U.S. intelligence services gets a notice that there is going to be an attack on this country, you would wet your pants. It was like every other threat they get and unfortuantely, it was one of those that was a true threat. I don't defend the admin for that (however the seperation of the FBI, CIA, etc was the fault of administratons before theirs) but I don't fault them for it.

- The Iraq war was based, at best, on shaky intelligence and on a premise that has since been proven to be false, that Iraq posed an IMMEDIATE (key word there) threat to the United States. There was also the assertion that Iraq had extensive ties to global terrorism, Al Queda, and possibly even links to 9/11, all false.

Yeah, I guess all these new documents and audio tapes that are coming out that show Saddam was a player in the world terrorism major leagues is something that you won't gloss over anytime soon, huh.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2006-03-19 01:01:46 PM
 
2006-03-19 01:01:52 PM
Poor Billdozer :( Its tough seeing somebody root for a team that I oppose that even *I* think deserves a more mentally-equipped cheer leader. The republicans arn't that bad, the democrats are not the answer, but man, you're making yourself look downright silly in your fanatical defence. I think I'm beginning to understand why Austin folks note that Austin ain't like the rest of Texas.
 
2006-03-19 01:01:55 PM
Hanky: "so if we ignore it perhaps it will go away."

worth repeating... Basically N. Korea has been thumbing thier noses at us for the last few years saying "We have nukes, we're going to keep making them, stop us if you can" and we keep saying "hey, stop that, or we might just have to have another roundtable discussion, until you walk out again"

We seem to have a knack for going after those rogue states, so long as they don't look like they'll actually put up a fight.
 
2006-03-19 01:03:02 PM
down the with the long war. PLEASE. What's happening here is they're starting another cold war except with no enemy. PLEASE. read 1984.

I know I'm not being very helpful but, for the first time in a while, I've got an interesting life outside the internets. yay love affairs, yay beautiful girls. Very soon i'll be disillusioned again. praise/damn life.
 
2006-03-19 01:03:14 PM
patrick862: You "sum up" a political ideology with one quote from a B-list celebrity? For all your talk about logic and reason, that's obvious intellectual dishonesty.

Touche. Although the only reason I use this one in preticular is because I saw it happen on TV on friday and it was a good summoning up point for the way I believe liberals truly feel. Although I could have used Joel Stein's article about not supporting the troops in a pinch.
 
2006-03-19 01:03:43 PM
nothing wrong with that statement. the situation is much trickier, though, so if we ignore it perhaps it will go away.

Oh, I know it is...the more you dig into it, the worse it gets. Sure, you can try to blame all the problems on the Clinton adminstration (they did lay the foundations for much of what's coming) but Bush *knows* he's got a problem out East and has ignored it almost entirely. Rather than playing it carefully and using economy of force to achieve long term stability, he's commited us to Iraq and the middle east. I'm still at a loss as to why, however. I mean, even if it was something as basic as 'money for my corporate backers' that'd be something. But nobody is really making out on that situation. It's even bad for the arab fundies.

And why we're all killing each other over various patches of sandy desert, the Chi-coms are racking up all the money.
 
2006-03-19 01:05:24 PM
Billdozer

Reason number one why you look like an oversimplistic silly person:

"Liberal" and "Libertarian" are not opposed to each other. In fact, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are not opposed. For example, one can be a fiscal conservative, believing in a free market, privatization of the post office and school system, etc, and still be a social "liberal"-- i.e. believing that teh gays can marry.

Second, your generalization is so broad and sweeping it's obviously wrong. Your claim is that all-- every single-- liberal who has a problem with Bush is simply doing it out of party ideology or rank stupidity. Disallowing the possibliity of intelligent disagreement just makes you look ridiculous.
 
2006-03-19 01:05:48 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: Come on, Weaver95, Come back to us, Don't leave the family!

*Waves an enticing bundle of Halliburton Stock Options*

Don't go!



I own Halliburton stock (HAL ticker symbol). Is that close enough?

While everyone else biatches about oil prices, I purchase oil company stock.
 
2006-03-19 01:06:04 PM
howdoibegin: Poor Billdozer :( Its tough seeing somebody root for a team that I oppose that even *I* think deserves a more mentally-equipped cheer leader. The republicans arn't that bad, the democrats are not the answer, but man, you're making yourself look downright silly in your fanatical defence. I think I'm beginning to understand why Austin folks note that Austin ain't like the rest of Texas.


I don't care much for Republicans since most of the time when they are in power they spend like drunken schoolboys in Mexico for spring break. I'd rather have a few more viable parties in the U.S. (Libertarian, Green, etc), and I do my part to try and move that along, but it's out of necessity that I vote for Republicans.
 
2006-03-19 01:06:29 PM
So, Weaver, what do you think of the Bush administration openly dealing in nuclear technology with India?
 
2006-03-19 01:07:26 PM
The Billdozer: Although I could have used Joel Stein's article about not supporting the troops in a pinch.

You know, that's something I really don't get. Aren't you people supposed to be the "personal responsibility" crowd? When somebody signs up to either active duty or the reserves for the armed forces, they know the consequences of their actions. It's not scrabble at tea time, it's a military contract. The jerking off over magnetic ribbons and SUPORTOPST OUR TROPS! stuff isn't "rational discourse." It's a bunch of politically correct emotional badgering.
 
2006-03-19 01:07:27 PM
If you want to read an analysis of the NSS document from someone who isn't French, here you go:

POPS
 
2006-03-19 01:08:04 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: And if you want to talk about the deficit, let's get this out of the way early...is it the spending that bothers you?

It's massive deficit spending that bothers me. Clinton spent money on social programming, yet he had a budget surplus. I was just watching the National Debt Clock. By my calculations we'll reach the new $9 billion debt ceiling in less than a year.
 
2006-03-19 01:08:34 PM
Oh, and for the record - ignoring North Korea isn't an option. Their leader is a lunatic. No really, he's a lunatic. He's 'Lets invade canada on a whim and nuke wisconsin 'till it glows' kind of crazy.
 
2006-03-19 01:08:56 PM
I would like to say that Billdozer is a cheap-imitation no-name brand Weaver95 and frankly, its no fun arguing with somebody who is so lacking in substance that their supposed position feels like no position at all. Its like shadow boxing.
 
2006-03-19 01:09:02 PM
Obdicut: Reason number one why you look like an oversimplistic silly person:

"Liberal" and "Libertarian" are not opposed to each other. In fact, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are not opposed. For example, one can be a fiscal conservative, believing in a free market, privatization of the post office and school system, etc, and still be a social "liberal"-- i.e. believing that teh gays can marry.

Second, your generalization is so broad and sweeping it's obviously wrong. Your claim is that all-- every single-- liberal who has a problem with Bush is simply doing it out of party ideology or rank stupidity. Disallowing the possibliity of intelligent disagreement just makes you look ridiculous.


I speak out of generalities because it fits the methods of discussion: i.e. Fark threads. I would approach my arguments a bit different if I was discussing foreign policy with William Buckley or the like.
 
2006-03-19 01:09:10 PM
Weaver95

nuke wisconsin 'till it glows'

That's not a bad idea!
 
2006-03-19 01:09:38 PM
Weaver95: Their leader is a lunatic. No really, he's a lunatic. He's 'Lets invade canada on a whim and nuke wisconsin 'till it glows' kind of crazy.

You know, there are a lot of "glass parking lot" crazy Freepers who may get along with him, if they can get past the xenophobia and the language gap.
 
2006-03-19 01:10:20 PM
LocalCynic

You know, there are a lot of "glass parking lot" crazy Freepers who may get along with him, if they can get past the xenophobia and the language gap.

That and the cross-dressing.
 
2006-03-19 01:11:03 PM
The Billdozer: I speak out of generalities because it fits the methods of discussion: i.e. Fark threads. I would approach my arguments a bit different if I was discussing foreign policy with William Buckley or the like.

On a related topic, William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell are brothers in law.
 
Displayed 50 of 353 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report