Alex Jones: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Orj55fo1u9I

I guess it would also had been ok if they had stopped of somewhere to pick up some snacks and drinks before getting to "wherever the President would be heading"? Perhaps they could have even squeezed in a round of minature golf?



Next to saying I am inflicted with some kind of "bush hatred" bug, you seem to keep accuse me of not addressing your "point". Is this the same "point" you said I didn't address the first time or a new one from your last post? I pointed out I wasn't sure what point you were refering to the first time. So, unless you are beating a dead horse may I assume you are refering to your comments in the last post? Maybe this -

QUOTE

[/i]Frankly, the point here didn't seem to even be worth responding to as it really only seems to be repeating the same "crazy haters" rhetoric you overly use in your arguments. You claim not to be a "hater or lover" of Bush and I have allready explained that my self (and most americans) have judged him by his actions and he has earned our distaste. I guess since you keep pushing the "hater" button you wish to continue discussing why people criticise the president vs those who are his loyal subjects?

In contrast to what you describe as the "mindset that creates hatred of Bush" there is a mindset that renders people unable to question their leaders, no matter how wrong they might be. Even as Berlin was falling I bet there were still those stuck in this mindset who would call someone "deranged" for comparing the Fuhrer's golden words to the ramblings of tommy chong (hypothetically of course). Considering Bush's approval rating, its obvious most Americans don't fall into this catagory and have not forgotten the legacy of our founding fathers who dared to question the ruling authority.

Because you describe yourself as not "hating or loving" Bush, you are implying that you have a more nutral and balanced view of ol' dubya than those "deranged haters". If this is the case, I am curious if can you quote yourself on this forum where you offer criticism of Mr. Bush or even agreed with someone who criticised bush?

Now you're just being ridiculous...(no places to stop for snacks at FL 410, and besides, AF1 has a nice galley...)






Well, maybe not so ridiculous!
You have a point. There is a group of folks who don't ever question their leaders. They're in a small minority in the United States, but they do exist.

However, there is a difference between questioning one's leaders and fabricating outright nonsense about them. There's a difference between balking at the fact that gasoline prices are swiftly advancing to the $4.00 per gallon mark and asking the President, rightly so, what the hell he plans on doing about it, and calling him a murderer and a liar and a criminal.

One is constructive questioning (which still has no answer, and won't, unfortunately in the lifetime of this administration). The other is stupidity.





No, I can't.
The reason for that is simple.
No one in these threads is providing any constructive criticism of the President or the Administration, or the Congress, or the Supreme Court, for that matter.

The only thing I see is fabricated references to alleged drug use, and derogatory comments about his brain being dumber than Tommy Chong's, and accusations of lying, and stupidity regarding an illegal war, and Bush being a murderer and a criminal and hopes that he gets the worst type of cancer imaginable. Idiot stuff...

I don't agree with any of that nonsense, and thus there's no agreement with that herein from me--that's not criticism, it's imagination and hatred.
If there was something of substance actually said in critique of the Bush administration, I might well agree with it.

The absence of any discussion along those lines is because there's no reasonable content present in the ramblings herein.

No one wants to talk about the really important issues.
The war is the war. We're in it, we have to win it.

Now, I could argue that we haven't done enough to do so. I could argue that we prosecuted it the wrong way, without enough advance planning in the beginning, and I could argue that contracting the Bin Laden affair to Musharef was stupid--since he's obviously not going to do anything about him...but those real issues haven't been on the table, and I haven't much interest in silly mis-interpretations of U.S. law, or fabrications about administration criminality, or idiocies regarding Rumsfeld's planning another attack to advance the administration's "agenda".

I might be inclined to adress important issues, such as the price of gasoline and why the Bush administration has done little about American energy independence. I might be inclined to address the less-then-effective actions taken regarding the borders of the United States, and why two of our Border Patrol agents are serving 10+ years in prison for doing their jobs and shooting a drug dealer, and I might also wish to address the fact that Bush adressed the Saudi's recently, discussing their need to invest in alternative energy sources for the future--and how about American energy independence???

I could probably get into several other less-than desirable Bush actions.

But I don't, because all that's presented here is lunacy.

Well, I think alot of people feel like this administration is just being "ridiculous".

I understand your point about "constructive criticism". However, this is a "conspiracy" fourm. While I am not suggsting the type of criticism offered here is non-valid, I do think the context its offered in should be taken into consideration. In all honestly, Bush is a dope and I do consider Mr chong's oppinion in light of the BS that has come from this cabal of murderous, criminal, druged out, liars.

The trouble is concerning President George W. Bush, as I see it, is that, as far as this particular president goes, very many people find it very difficult to consider his actions in the international sphere since 2003 in any other terms than the deepest possible loathing. Very many people consider his war to be a criminal action, and consequently, consider him to be a criminal.

Is that mere "hatred", or is it based on consideration of the man, his adminsitration, and its behaviour and motivations?

Well, that's a valid consideration.
This is a CT site, more or less, and this thread is a CT thread.
I understand that alot of the opinions present come from the overtly emotional midset that tends to be prevalent in such folks...to wit:



In all honesty, you think, based upon the paradigm you employ, that Bush is a dope...and of course a murderer and a criminal and a drugged out liar. In all honesty, you actually have nothing to substantiate any of that...no one does who holds to such opinions.

I would no more call President Bush a dope than I would call Barrack Obama a dope...or Hillary Clinton a dope (although I've been temped as pertains to Obama at times...).
It's difficult to consider someone who graduated from one of the finest schools in the nation a dope. It's also difficult to consider any jet pilot a dope (trust me, I've known many, and you can't be a dope and be a jet jockey).

You may find fault in his demeanor, or on his occassional down to earth delivery, but the conclusions are not substantive, and are in fact completely unwarranted.

I don't think Obama is a dope either, as I said. Naive as all get out, lacking in reasonable judgement, and potentially dangerous, as well as largely unknown, but not a dope. Hillary is certainly no dope either. I wouldn't consider her the smartest woman in the world, as she considers herself, but I do consider her power hungry, manipulative, and emotionally on the edge--not an attractive person by any means.

But murderers, liars (well, Hillary has in fact lied outright...and Obama we don't actually know about in that respect), criminals, and drugged out? No, I wouldn't say that about any of them...no matter how bad they might be for this country...and both of them are.

Hell, for that matter, I wouldn't even call our subject, Mr. Chong, a murderer, or a liar. A criminal, and drugged out--definitely, but I have no evidence of the other two. He may well be a dope as well, but there's just not enough material to base such a conclusion on...

I think it's largely unintelligent hatred, based upon a lack of knowledge, and an impression largely gleaned from a deeply slanted mainstream media.

There is no quantification for your assertion that "very many people" consider his actions in the international sphere with "the deepest possible loathing". Asking just about any Iraqi would show the reverse of that statement.

It is true that alot of people consider this war we're in "illegal". At the same time, no one of them has been able to show any thing substantive which proves that contention.

This is because it was not illegal. Most people don't know what legal war is.
We're actually fighting one...at least on our side.
The actual illegal war was that launched by terrorists on 9-11-01.

His war is essential, as unfortunate as that may be (and it's not with Iraq, as many people seem to think...that war was won long ago).

including the several (although uncounted) tens of thousands who have been killed so far?

7...

Please consider what I said...




The dead don't count. They can't have an opinion or consideration about it, since they're rather un-opinionated, by definition, at present.

The ~ 30,000 enemy that have been killed have no say in Bush's international policy, although I'm sure if they were around to comment, they might not like it very much! And of course, we should definitely care about that!

The 4,000 Americans that have died in the effort?
Well, they died volunteering to sacrifice their lives for our safety and security...their opinions were well known when they assumed their burden...and that opinion is not subject to any debate. Strike those heroes from the list as well (and God bless them all while we're at it).

Many of them have been posthumously dishonored by Americans and their Congress...who don't exactly understand the honor that they've afforded themselves and should forever have.

Who else are you talking about? Perhaps those civilians killed in the conflict...the vast majority of whom have been killed by the enemy?


No...you're talking about "very many people", meaning Americans who have a skewed view of what's really happening (led by a majority of Congress)...and perhaps some in other countries of similar mind...many of whom have no involvement in the conflict whatsoever. When they count, let me know...