Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on December 02, 2010, 06:56:58 AM
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254262/smug-op-ed-george-w-bush-john-derbyshire
Disgustingly smug editorial by GWB touting how wonderful he is by using taxpayer's money to salve his rich man's guilt...taken down a notch by a former Brit.
"I wish George W. Bush would shut up and go away. He keeps reminding me what a fool I was ever to think that the man has a conservative bone in his body."
The Smug Op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113005167.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Something closer to reality:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/africa-is-giving-nothing-to-anyone--apart-from-aids-1430428.html
-
So you side with the guy who wants to control African population by starvation and rampant AIDS and not with the guy who ponied up compassionate assistance. Good to know about you.
TC
-
It's easy to call yourself "compassionate" when you're using other people's money.
It's gauche to point out that you got that money - in the final analysis - through the threat of violence.
It's even more gauch to show little - or even negative - results from the expenditures.
-
So you side with the guy who wants to control African population by starvation and rampant AIDS and not with the guy who ponied up compassionate assistance. Good to know about you.
TC
"Aid to Africa" hasn't helped Africa. Time and time again, aid to Africa had made things worse.
-
So you side with the guy who wants to control African population by starvation and rampant AIDS and not with the guy who ponied up compassionate assistance. Good to know about you.
TC
Last I checked, GWB took that money from us, under the threat of force, and gave it to people who think that raping a virgin infant will cure them of AIDS.
That is not compassion. That is theft.
Let him dump his fortune into that *expletive deleted*it hole. But taking America's treasure and dumping it into Africa? ;/
-
So you side with the guy who wants to control African population by starvation and rampant AIDS and not with the guy who ponied up compassionate assistance. Good to know about you.
TC
Wow. So withdrawing aid means you want to starve them and subject them to death by disease? That is a huge and dishonest stretch.
The African people have it in their ability to take care of their own problems. They don't have to if we dump truck loads of money on them.
-
I'm piling on Leatherneck, too.
Money from taxpayers should never be considered "charity." And no politician should ever have the gall to laud himself for giving taxpayer money to something he labels "charity."
Because if I don't pay it and I resist the State mechanisms to compel me to pay it, the State has the very charitable inclination, power and authority to kill me.
-
I'd like to take this opportunity to lob a concept into the field of battle:
AIDS quite often comes from a lifestyle choice. Sex, homosexuality, and IV drug use.
(Blanket statment, I understand that AIDs is transmitted to children and through rape, too, especially in Africa. BUT it is rampant because of lifestyle choices, and exasperated in Africa by ignorance of culture)
How dare anyone demand that I pay for the consequences of another's lifestyle choice?
-
AIDS is a disease. I will happily donate - and do donate - to defeat AIDS, like humanity defeated smallpox.
But I will donate out of my own free will. I do not owe it to the Africans, or anybody my else.
-
i'm guessing none of you are familiar with the program in question? or at least hoping that its so
-
i'm guessing none of you are familiar with the program in question? or at least hoping that its so
Yes, I am familiar with it.
45% of the expenditures go to treating existing AIDS infections, a proportion that will only grow over time.
You want to give you $$$ for that cause? Bully for you. I might even match you if you get me liquored up. Folks like GWB patting themselves on the back for giving taxpayer dollars, OTOH, I find sticks in my craw.
-
B.D.S. has reached a new low ... :facepalm:
-
So everybody who criticizes Bush is suffering from BDS now?
-
B.D.S. has reached a new low ... :facepalm:
Bush gave us alot to be deranged about:
Patriot act
Expansion of Chip and other entitlements
Supported amnesty
9 years of war in two seperate countries
TARP
"Philantrhopy" including increased funding for AIDS treatment in Africa
Increased debt and deficit spending
The man was not a conservative. NeoCon progressive through and through.
-
Bush gave us alot to be deranged about:
Patriot act
Expansion of Chip and other entitlements
Supported amnesty
9 years of war in two seperate countries
TARP
"Philantrhopy" including increased funding for AIDS treatment in Africa
Increased debt and deficit spending
The man was not a conservative. NeoCon progressive through and through.
And by doing so he set the stage for the Obamination. I blame him for that the most. :mad:
In retrospect, I think I should have voted for Kerry in 2004 [barf]
Maybe we would have reversed course again and be somewhat back on track by now ... =|
-
B.D.S. has reached a new low ... :facepalm:
I'm sure about low...
Maybe middle or sideways is more accurate, since I voted for the Lesser Evil (Bush the Lesser) in 2004.
So everybody who criticizes Bush is suffering from BDS now?
Apparently. Even folks like me who voted for the schlub.
-
So you side with the guy who wants to control African population by starvation and rampant AIDS and not with the guy who ponied up compassionate assistance. Good to know about you.
TC
Both are equally bad. The one who wants to hold a gun to your head to enact his plan of continuing the cycle of famine and death is the evil one.
Foreign aid cripples countries. You cannot hold a halo if you are making the problem worse. I don't think many of us would have a problem sending educators, books, technical advisors, etc. But we should not send a single dime or scrap of food. They will never be able to stand on their own two feet if we make them dependent. Which we have.
Funding towards a cure, inside the US? Marginally ok. Paying to fix other countries, ANY other country, that is systematically broken? Not so ok. Accidents and natural diseasters happen, and we as Americans tend to be compassionate with our dollars. But we need to learn when our compassion is hurting the folks we want to help. Freak earthquake or whatnot? Sure. Systematically starving country? No. Otherwise we feed a million and condemn ten million to death. That much karma should weigh heavy on a man's soul.
-
So everybody who criticizes Bush is suffering from BDS now?
Not necessarily everyone .... I just thought we'd get over it, eventually. At some point it will be like complaining about Chester Arthur.
Bush gave us alot to be deranged about:
Patriot act
Expansion of Chip and other entitlements
Supported amnesty
9 years of war in two seperate countries
TARP
"Philantrhopy" including increased funding for AIDS treatment in Africa
Increased debt and deficit spending
The man was not a conservative. NeoCon progressive through and through.
He was *not* a good conservative. What do you think Reagan would have done if Al Qaeda had done the 9/11 attacks on his watch? Give you a hint: AQ would not be getting flowers and a condolence card.
Whether Reagan would have avoided Iraq ...dunno; a lot of intelligence services thought Iraq had WMDs.
Now, the rest of the stuff ...yea, I take your point, really, even though I think under Gore and/or Kerry we'd have had it a LOT worse than under Dubya. I know what Dubya did in Africa about Aids is questionable from the POV of conservatives but it has done some good on a continent that is, in a lot of ways, pretty much a lost cause in many ways. Plus many Africans consider Bush a hero .... and even Shrubs oughta be loved somewhere ..... [tinfoil]
-
Not necessarily everyone .... I just thought we'd get over it, eventually. At some point it will be like complaining about Chester Arthur.
What?
This thread is about an editorial GWB published now.
If GWB himself his policies are still worth discussing, why shouldn't we discuss them?
-
What?
This thread is about an editorial GWB published now.
If GWB himself his policies are still worth discussing, why shouldn't we discuss them?
And we're doing that.....where?
Shrubby isn't the first ex pres to write (or have written by ghostwriter)an editorial or a book. I happen to have a copy of Decision Points and I will be reading it when I get there. I happen to like Bush as a person but I think he was a flawed leader, whose best claim to ... "fame" was that he was a better alternative to the demonrat dimwits who opposed him in 2000 and '04. I haven't read Shrubby's "editorial."
There's no reason to read it if you don't like Bush and want to get passed him. There's no reason to buy his book, either, and for the same reason.
BTW the last "sentence" in your post isn't -- a sentence, that is. "If GWB himself (believes) his policies are still worth discussing, why shouldn't we discuss them?" I think that's what you meant to say.
My point was that I am a little exasperated that every time
Bush" comes up, all the venom that piled up over eight years comes right back out.
I can't wait until Obama's through. That ought to be REAL interesting! [tinfoil] [popcorn] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
. . . I am a little exasperated that every time "Bush" comes up, all the venom that piled up over eight years comes right back out . . .
I doubt that folks on this forum are of the kind that blames Bush for tsunamis, melting glaciers, Charlie Rangel, the current administration's $1,300,000,000,000 annual deficit, loud commercials on TV, and a whole host of other problems unrelated to GWB's actions as POTUS. Legitimate criticism is not the same as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
But a lot of people here have a beef with his fiscal policies . . . and are not inclined to give him a "pass" by saying "Obama is worse!!" (Yes, Obama is worse. A LOT worse. But that doesn't make GWB "good." )
And we're not happy about his sinking us further into debt not for our benefit, but for the alleged benefit to those on another continent.
-
I can't wait until Obama's through. That ought to be REAL interesting!
It will set a world record for the use of the letter "i".
-
B.D.S. has reached a new low ... :facepalm:
You obviously don't know a whole lot about the majority of posters on this forum. I'd suggest you go back through the five or so years this forum has been in operation, or stop screaming "BDS!" when your favorite politician brags about how wonderful he is while spending other people's money and gets criticized for it.
-
Bush, like Obama, is a messenger boy. One is Skull & Bones, the other is just...poison. But both are minimalist candidates who, as far as I am concerned, are doing the bidding of those that pulled them up from nowhere and plopped them down into national prominence. Where's the substance? W. is a good ol' boy with powerful friends inside and outside of Texas. Obama, with a few tweaks, isn't that different. Bush rose on sweetheart deals; Obama was the Left's sweetheart. In both cases FOLLOW THE MONEY.
-
You know, one of the things that has bothered me about the last couple weeks and the interviews with W is the attitude he brings regarding his non involvement in the State of the Union since leaving office.
Now, I don't believe former presidents should be criticising their successors as both Carter and Clinton have. Carter has gone so far over the line that I think he ought to be charged with treason. Clinton is a fairly smart narcisist who just likes the spotlight.
But when W casually brushes of the State of the Union by intimating that he came in and just "did his best" and then walks away, it shows a lack of connection with the decisions he made, ant the people he stood for. He should own up and stand for why they were the "best he could do".
I'm finding it hard to describe my feeling and why I feel that way. All I know is that it pisses me off every time I hear him express his disassotiation. Your were our President, damnit, George. We made you Everyman. You stood in our place. If you think you're being humble, you're not. You're being an ahole.
-
Grampster, I suspect that Bush may be reluctant to say much more to avoid giving the media enough ammo to start a "Bush attacks Obama" story line.
If he explains why something he did was the best he could do, somebody is going to compare it to what Obama is doing in that arena right now. Afghanistan, for example.
-
You obviously don't know a whole lot about the majority of posters on this forum. I'd suggest you go back through the five or so years this forum has been in operation, or stop screaming "BDS!" when your favorite politician brags about how wonderful he is while spending other people's money and gets criticized for it.
Thank you for the terrific advice, I will get right on it. [tinfoil]
-
Bush is a likable guy. I and others thought he was fairly conservative based on his Texas Gov record. In the end as President though, his record is more like his father's; he was a moderate. He only looked conservative in caparison to the wacky leftist Democrats who ran against him. In retrospect, the reason he probably looked more conservative as Texas Gov was that his Democrat opponents were more conservative to start with.
-
I tried to reply further but had a host of internet issues yesterday.
Further, on GWB:
Iraq descended into chaos purely because of Rummy and Cheney. GWB approved the "limited" warfare strategy and they had absolutely no plan to occupy the country.
Not that I think the country should have been occupied.
9 years pissed away at war. Why? Because the taliban sent a dozen attackers into our country. Our response in Afghanistan was proper: Overthrow the unfriendly government that sponsored the terror, kill and capture droves of taliban and alqueida. Staying for 9 years? :facepalm:
As for Iraq, well, why in the hell did we enforce the sanctions of the UN when they wouldn't enforce them? We are not the enforcement arm of the UN. If the UN can't get its *expletive deleted*it together, we shouldn't go off and play cowboy.
We've pissed away our treasure and the blood of our troops for, for what? The UN? Eff the UN. Compassionate conservatisim is crap.
-
What Jamis said. Hindsight by another name is history. We should pay more attention to history before doing certain things.
-
I tried to reply further but had a host of internet issues yesterday.
Further, on GWB:
Iraq descended into chaos purely because of Rummy and Cheney. GWB approved the "limited" warfare strategy and they had absolutely no plan to occupy the country.
Not that I think the country should have been occupied.
9 years pissed away at war. Why? Because the taliban sent a dozen attackers into our country. Our response in Afghanistan was proper: Overthrow the unfriendly government that sponsored the terror, kill and capture droves of taliban and alqueida. Staying for 9 years? :facepalm:
As for Iraq, well, why in the hell did we enforce the sanctions of the UN when they wouldn't enforce them? We are not the enforcement arm of the UN. If the UN can't get its *expletive deleted* together, we shouldn't go off and play cowboy.
We've pissed away our treasure and the blood of our troops for, for what? The UN? Eff the UN. Compassionate conservatisim is crap.
Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...
When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message. We were bringing Democracy to the savages and fighting the terrorists there instead of here. After 9 years we have nothing to show for it and suddenly people realize the mess we're in. Shame we couldn't realize it sooner.
Not commenting on you specifically JJ, just commenting on how perceptions of this matter have changed...
Chris
-
Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...
When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message. We were bringing Democracy to the savages and fighting the terrorists there instead of here. After 9 years we have nothing to show for it and suddenly people realize the mess we're in. Shame we couldn't realize it sooner.
Not commenting on you specifically JJ, just commenting on how perceptions of this matter have changed...
Chris
My opinion of either has not changed.
We rightly went into Iraq as a warning to other rogue regimes that supporting terror and pursuing weapons of mass destruction are dangerous to their health. Then we showed we had no will after the fresh wound of an attack subsided, thereby showing the other regimes that they don't have to worry that much.
We further have tried to set up a functioning democracy in the Middle East. I don't know about the wisdom of such a plan, but as we have no taste for colonization, it may be the next best alternative.
My complaint about Obama's prosecution of the current wars is the restrictive RoE. If we're going to fight, destroy our enemies. If we aren't going to fight, why are we there?
-
Jamis +1
-
When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message.
You calling me a nobody...? :P =D
As I recall, certain of us were shouted down as being "Bush Haters" and "Damn Dirty Hippies" etc etc etc for not 100% agreeing with our glorious conservative leader.
-
Yeah, he's just another "nice guy." The country's full of 'em. How nice was he when was he selling his Harken stock? Geez louise.
-
Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...
When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message.
Funny how people forget all the ugly arguments that took place on this board, over those exact issues. I guess every person involved was just arguing with nobody.
I suppose next, mtnbkr will observe that conservative Republicans never cared about Bush-era spending.
-
Funny how people forget all the ugly arguments that took place on this board, over those exact issues. I guess every person involved was just arguing with nobody.
Nope, I remember them well, I also remember them ending much like Tallpine suggests.
I suppose next, mtnbkr will observe that conservative Republicans never cared about Bush-era spending.
No, we certainly did, but were constantly reminded that spending was necessary to fight terrarrrr and that the Democrats would be worse. That was always the argument, the Democrat would be worse.
Chris
-
I will admit that for awhile I believed the "fight them over there" bit. Some of it was also a belief that while I didn't support the need to go to war in Iraq, I thought we ought to finish what we started.
Several years ago, though, it occured to me that it wasn't about that. If there was a true need to engage in an extended war, then we ought to be willing to do everything necessary to win that war. Anything short of total war should be treated as retalitory action. Go in, decimate the enemy, leave behind stacks of propoganda that say "If you kill 1 of us, we will kill 100 of you. Knock it off or die.", return home vicorious.
And I will admit I had high hopes that Obama would get us out of Afghanistan. One of the (few) positive attributes he displayed during the campagin that, while I didn't support his candidacy, I did agree with. Turns out he is a liar to the tenth degree, but I kind of saw that coming.
-
Turns out he is a liar to the tenth degree, but I kind of saw that coming.
Chicago Politician - how could anyone not see that coming ???
If I had believed that he really was a "peace president" then I might have considered voting for him despite the other issues.
Instead I filled in the oval for McPalin, which is analogous to trying to grasp the rockface with your fingernails as you fall down a cliff =(
-
Nope, I remember them well, I also remember them ending much like Tallpine suggests.
So you were wrong. Thank you.
No, we certainly did, but were constantly reminded that spending was necessary to fight terrarrrr and that the Democrats would be worse. That was always the argument, the Democrat would be worse.
Still wrong. I guess you forgot about prescription drugs, African aid, and the dozen other things not even allegedly connected to terrorism? And you forgot the years and years of outcry and denunciation of Bush-era spending, even from GWOT-hawks? But, yeah, of course the Democrats are worse. That's one thing that's always true, even if Bush supporters say it.
But, hey, I guess when certain people exaggerate the support Bush received from other people, that first group feels good about themselves. =| It certainly serves no other purpose.
-
Oh, thanks, Fisty. I forgot the Prescription drugs deal. Add it to my list.
-
Wonder much we spent on that whole marriage counseling thing?
-
If I remember correctly, the War on Terror and our various wars cost a 100 billion to 150 billion a year. That was a small part of the increases in spending that happened under the Bush Presidency.
This was brought up in those past arguments more than once (by me at least part of the time).
-
Apparently. Even folks like me who voted for the schlub shrub.
fify. :laugh:
-
It seems several GWB-boosters took exception to the author's curt dismissal of their revered GWB and went after him with sharpened blades like fencers with parkinsons.
The author's response:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254540/response-peter-wehner-pepfar-john-derbyshire
Wherein he responds to the substantive & pseudo-substantive objections, including a very nice inclusion of Charles Murray's "Trendline Test" (http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Diaries/2010-08.html#trendline)
As for some of the more "speculative" and personal objections, I doubt the author would mind a small direct quote:
Then there are some impertinent speculations concerning what I do and do not care about. I shall surrender here to the temptation that always comes over me when I am the target of sanctimonious bullying by self-congratulating prigs: Bite me, pal.
-
Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?
-
Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?
This. We all know and agree that the man made some mistakes, did some things we don't agree with. But incessantly bashing the man, for things deserved and undeserved, just gets tiresome. Really, really tiresome.
Honestly, what's the point? If you have nothing new or interesting to add to the conversation, why open your mouth at all?
-
Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?
Did you read the links in the OP? I suspect not.
This. We all know and agree that the man made some mistakes, did some things we don't agree with. But incessantly bashing the man, for things deserved and undeserved, just gets tiresome. Really, really tiresome.
Honestly, what's the point? If you have nothing new or interesting to add to the conversation, why open your mouth at all?
In this case, there is cause and GWB added the "something new" his own self (GWB's patting himself on the back in the pages of the WaPo for spending billions of OPM in Africa).
I'd like for you or anyone else to demonstrate for a reasonable audience where I have "incessantly" bashed GWB. I was happy to rarely mention him since he left office and appreciated his avoidance of the media.
GWB has stuck his mug out there, again, and made a nuisance of himself.
-
roo_ster,
Your previous post started out with a cryptic comment about GWB-boosters and reverence. It was not immediately clear (or even eventually clear) that you were talking about some business at the National Review, rather than this thread. At first, I thought you were accusing some here of revering and "boosting" GWB, for our comments in protest of excessive Bush-bashing.
I don't know if that's what prompted HTG's reply, but if so you might want to take some of the blame.
-
Fisty nailed it.
Some seem to treat GWB and/or the Republican Party as some sort of verbal whack-a-mole game. When ever the topic pops up, they have to beat on it with a great big hammer. No reason, no purpose, no sense. Just do it. Again and again. And again. And again.
It's not just roo-ster, it's plenty of other people on APS. And plenty of people in the wider world.
Someone tell me what the point is. Surely the point isn't merely to express your opposition. That's been manifestly accomplished already. Really, we get it, you don't like the guys. No, really, we get it. We got it after the first 5,000 times.
Granted, I'm a strong supporter of the Rep Party. Been pretty heavily involved in local and some state politics for a few years. So that gives me some additional reason to take exception to the knee-jerk attacks on me and mine. But even if I had no extra care or concern, I'd still be sick and tired of it, just as everyone else is.
It's time to move on. Long past time, actually.
Now, if you want to talk specifically about the GWB bit in WaPo, fine. But can everyone leave out the tired old reflexive attacks?
What's so wrong with the WaPo piece, really? Bush makes a few syrupy ra-ra go-USA remarks about how helping people is good and how the USA helps lots of people, and then he goes on to advocate for a nice do-good cuase. Isn't this sort of thing that ex-presidents are supposed to do in their off-time?
If your gripe is that the US spent some tax dollars on African AIDs work, fine. I get it, and I mostly agree. But we spend gazillions of dollars on foreign policy and foreign aid all the time, in ways big and small, trying to further our own interests and those of others who matter to us. What makes African AIDs money so extra special evil compared to all the rest?
It doesn't seem any special or more noteworthy than the rest, at least not to me. It leaves me wondering if the gripe isn't about the AIDs money or advocacy, and just about some personal feelings towards the man behind it all.
-
But jumping up and down on Bush's head is what gives you conservative street cred. Ain't you know?
-
I must be living on a different street.
:lol:
-
roo_ster,
Your previous post started out with a cryptic comment about GWB-boosters and reverence. It was not immediately clear (or even eventually clear) that you were talking about some business at the National Review, rather than this thread. At first, I thought you were accusing some here of revering and "boosting" GWB, for our comments in protest of excessive Bush-bashing.
I don't know if that's what prompted HTG's reply, but if so you might want to take some of the blame.
If you had mashed the link I provided, you would not have made that mistake.
This new policy of not quoting much from the article requires a little more effort from readers to keep up.
-
If you had mashed the link I provided, you would not have made that mistake.
This new policy of not quoting much from the article requires a little more effort from readers to keep up.
No. The mistake was your putting the link below your comments about it. Personally, I was only confused until I saw the link, and realized you were ranting about something I (and probably most of us) hadn't seen yet. Maybe next time introduce the subject before commenting on it. A "little more effort," if you will. :P
-
No. The mistake was your putting the link below your comments about it. Personally, I was only confused until I saw the link, and realized you were ranting about something I (and probably most of us) hadn't seen yet. Maybe next time introduce the subject before commenting on it. A "little more effort," if you will. :P
Meh, RIF. My post was more pulp fiction and less Umberto Eco, level of difficulty-wise.
To that end, I explicitly referred to "to the author's curt dismissal"* (no italics in original) and kept things in chronological order* as they occurred, if not fMS (fistful Manual of Style).
Also, I don't think I have made it a habit to refer to myself in the third person* or the royal "we." When I write about myself, it is almost invariably in the first person.
And that is just the first sentence. If one were to, maybe, actually read the entirety of the post, it is about as clear as can be without providing crib sheet or a native guide.
* Context Clues: Not just for grade school. http://wserver.scc.losrios.edu/~langlit/reading/contextclues/intro1.htm
-
Oh for crying out loud. Please do not worry yourself that I personally misunderstood your post. I did indeed read far enough down to see that you were linking to something else. I merely pointed out that - no, forget it. ;/