Should the Pope apologize??

[Teejay32]

That's too bad, because I've been enjoying this.

I should qualify that. I enjoy the first 10 pages, sometimes more, of almost any debate...after that it belongs to the partisans, and way after that it becomes an anti-Bush podium. I don't have a big problem with this President, or his predecessor, and I refuse to hold them responsible for all the problems in the world today, so I don't do real well after 25 pages. lol.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yet so often just because someone believes the President is doing one thing right, they get jammed up and called a "Bush Apologist" or whatever the current phrase is rather than debating the point.

If it was just one, I'd tend to agree with you. But, it isn't and we both know it. It's NSA spying, lying about WMD's, torture, rendition, etc that separates the mainstream from the fringes. Even I will agree one good thing out of the Bush administration: The no-call list. That's it.

Sorry, there are people who excuse George Bush anything no matter how far it strays from American values.

I don't swallow the policies hook, line and sinker, I agree about the torture, but do we agree on the definition of torture? There are those who think incarceration is torture; that they have been forced to be incarerated so far from their homeland is torture. Others (and I am not one of them) do not belive waterboarding is torture.

I haven't met one person who calls incarceration or incarceration far from home, torture. You're going to have to point me in the direction of that person.

And waterboarding is torture as is forcing someone to stand naked for 24 hours in 40 degree temperatures and having cold water thrown on them. It is torture to chain someone to a floor, in a "stress position", lying in their own feces and urine. That behavior is sick and isn't worthy of the United States of America. Btw, IMO, loud music is just plain stupid and points to watching too many "007" movies.

However, no matter what Bush wants to claim, there is NO difference between an American torturing to gain information and an Iraqi torturing to gain information. It is NOT relative and there are no situational ethics involved.

Make no mistake about: there are some people, in this country, who will do anything in the name of security. My POV is when you're willing to compromise your values and your soul in the name of security, you don't have any security and you've lost your soul.

I don't advocate blowing up Mecca, but why is it ok for Islam to advocate blowing up churches? Not that I think you advocate it, but it is easy to lose site of who the bad guys really are. Some talk about blowing up Mecca, but these guys really are shooting up churches.

I don't know anyone, other than the nut fringe of Islam, who's said it's okay for Muslims to blow up churches. YMMV.

The walkign on the graves of 9/11 victims goes both ways. It was in either 2002 or 2003 (I'm almost positive it was 2002) that Hillary Clinton was asked what the greatest disappointment was for her since Bush took office. She didn't even think twice before she said "the economy". Hello! What is that but a complete and total rejection of 9/11 even happening. Wall Street was shut down for a month, several huge employers in the US had to be letting employees go because of the consequences of 9/11, companies that on 9/10 were absolutely solid were going bankrupt as a consequence of 9/11, but in the mind of the Senator from New York, it was all because of Bush's economic policies. And she wants to be our president.

I think you're grasping at straws here. Your contention is because Hillary Clinton didn't mention "9/11", she doesn't think about it. And yet you apparently have no problem with a president who exploited the 9/11 atrocity as a steppingstone to the war in Iraq.

Sorry, buddy, you lost me on this one.

Is he the one exploiting the differences? And the rhetoric that comes from the left has nothing to do with it? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in New Orleans stating that the reason the city was in the shape it was in was because Bush (and Republicans in general) is a rascist has nothing to do with it?

Neither Jesse Jackson, nor Al Sharpton, can claim the office of president of the United States. And when they do, you can then hold them to the standards of the POTUS. Up until that time, they're private citizens with an opinion.

Howard Dean, upon hearing that the threat level was raised, holding a press conference to call it a political front has nothing to do with it?

Link, please. Btw, Tom Ridge, the first head of Homeland Security, also wondered why the threat level was raised and lowered, apparently without his input.

Bush is definately not going to be the best president we ever had.

Bush has set the new standard for the worst president in American history. He makes people look at Nixon nostalgically. And that's saying something.

He has made some major mistakes, especially politically.

There are mistakes and then are mistakes that cost this country 2700 lives, 20,000 wounded, 450,000,000,000 American tax dollars, destabilized the Middle East, and cost this country the respect America once had. George Bush watched while NO was filling up like a soup bowl and then lied that his office had even been warned or that they received the reports. Those aren't mistakes: Those are impeachable offenses.

Honestly, I wish he had lost in 2000, it would have guaranteed a Republican president from 2004 on for the next 30 to 40 years.

If the Republicans lose power for the next 30-40 years, they have themselves to blame by allying themselves with the nut fringe and refusing to excersize their oversight duty mandated by the Constitution.

As it is now, unless Hillary Clinton is nominated for her party, the Republicans will have a tough fight in 2008 (she could never with the moderate vote).

Hillary Clinton isn't going anywhere in direction of the Democratic nomination. Aint' going to happen.

 

[LuvDuke]

Is that asking too much of them, to give up "Death to America"?

Apparently, for the Muslim extremists, it is. Let's all agree on it and move on.

However, we can't make policy decisions or define ourselves by the actions of the Islamic nut fringe. It appears to me that too many point to the Islamic nut fringe as some kind of excuse for their own behavior. Is it in our interest to aspire to be like them, act like them, and then claim the moral high ground because "they're crazy"?

 

[LuvDuke]

That's too bad, because I've been enjoying this.

I agree that President Bush has not helped the situation by jumping into the fray, and don't even get me started on Vice President Cheney and the Republican senators and members of congress. However, Howard Dean, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and a vast assortment of Democrats have done their fair share of jumping in to the fray as well. Debate is patriotic, insults are juvenile.
I'm waiting for someone, from either party or an independant (maybe Senator Lieberman?) to follow through on the promise to campaign/govern without negativity. They all start out saying that, but it doesn't take long before the name calling begins.

Here is the great difference: George Bush and Dick Cheney are respectively, President and Vice-President of the United States of America, and therefore do NOT represent a political POV, but the US and her citizens. They have chosen to use their offices, not as uniters, but to divide the American people for their own polical purposes and agendas.

OTOH, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and other Democrats do NOT represent the people of the United States, but do represent the party (Dean) and their constituency in the cases of Clinton, Kerry and other Democrats.

Let's not even confine this to Democrats. Rick Santorum, John McCain, and other Republicans represent their constituents and should NOT be held to the same standards as Bush and Cheney when it comes to uniting the country.

As far as negativity, it works. People claim they don't like it, but it works. And it will not change until it no longer works.

 

[Galahad]

George Bush and Dick Cheney are respectively, President and Vice-President of the United States of America, and therefore do NOT represent a political POV, but the US and her citizens. They have chosen to use their offices, not as uniters, but to divide the American people for their own polical purposes and agendas.

But this is only a matter of perspective. If they believe that their foreign policy is in the best interest of the country they represent, then it is their duty to push that agenda for their position on the global stage is as political as say Senator Kerry's position on the domestic stage. With respect to domestic policy, all presidents have played domestic politics with their agendas, whether it is economic or social or environmental. Either "side" can make a persuasive case that the other side are "dividing" the American people.

 

[LuvDuke]

But this is only a matter of perspective. If they believe that their foreign policy is in the best interest of the country they represent, then it is their duty to push that agenda for their position on the global stage is as political as say Senator Kerry's position on the domestic stage. With respect to domestic policy, all presidents have played domestic politics with their agendas, whether it is economic or social or environmental. Either "side" can make a persuasive case that the other side are "dividing" the American people.

Maybe I'm dating myself, but Ronald Reagan had a foreign policy and made policy and I don't recall him or anyone in his administration calling people appeasers, questioning their patriotism, or claim that any American was rooting for the terrorists because they disagreed with Reagan's policies. And Ronald Reagan had his terrorism problems too.

You can have a policy and not use your office as wedge. And, no, IMO a senator is not in the same league as a president or vice-president when it comes to representing all the people of the U.S.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Here is the great difference: George Bush and Dick Cheney are respectively, President and Vice-President of the United States of America, and therefore do NOT represent a political POV, but the US and her citizens.

True, and that makes them guilty of the greater sin. However, they still hold the office and even though they seem to hold little respect for me and my intelligence I will not lower myself by answering in kind. The same goes for the senators/congress and other political types who insult my intelligence by name calling and black/white answers to gray questions. My problem is when I get into that voting booth in November-who in the name of all that is holy am I going to vote for??? I'd say oust the incumbants, but the fresh meat doesn't seem any better!

 

[What the Heck]

If it was just one, I'd tend to agree with you. But, it isn't and we both know it. It's NSA spying, lying about WMD's, torture, rendition, etc that separates the mainstream from the fringes. Even I will agree one good thing out of the Bush administration: The no-call list. That's it.

Sorry, there are people who excuse George Bush anything no matter how far it strays from American values.

So if someone agrees with Bush on more than one item, then they are then a "Bush Aplogist"? And, of course, they didn't think their way to their ideas, they are just toeing the party line? That is my point - how is the calling someone a "Bush Apologist" make someones point more valid?. Some of the points you raised we don't even begin from the same starting location, while others I agree with you 100% (or maybe at least 80 to 90% lol - we've known each other to make it a complete 100%).

I haven't met one person who calls incarceration or incarceration far from home, torture. You're going to have to point me in the direction of that person.

And waterboarding is torture as is forcing someone to stand naked for 24 hours in 40 degree temperatures and having cold water thrown on them. It is torture to chain someone to a floor, in a "stress position", lying in their own feces and urine. That behavior is sick and isn't worthy of the United States of America. Btw, IMO, loud music is just plain stupid and points to watching too many "007" movies.

However, no matter what Bush wants to claim, there is NO difference between an American torturing to gain information and an Iraqi torturing to gain information. It is NOT relative and there are no situational ethics involved.

Make no mistake about: there are some people, in this country, who will do anything in the name of security. My POV is when you're willing to compromise your values and your soul in the name of security, you don't have any security and you've lost your soul.

Just because you have not met them does not mean they do not exist. I think if we went point by point of what has been done, most of us would agree on what is torture and what is not. The items you listed I could easily agree are torture and should not have been considered much less done, if it was. However, I disagree about the situational ethics, although it should not be used as a blanket policy. I can't say what I would do if faced with the situation where I knew someone was going to destroy a building that my kids were in the building and we needed a little more information with not enough time, if I was the interrogator. Would it right to torture? No, but I would still do it, if it was that extreme. But I see and value your opinion as well.

I don't know anyone, other than the nut fringe of Islam, who's said it's okay for Muslims to blow up churches. YMMV.

Then why have those who are not the nut fringe continue to allow it to happen? While those Muslims who believe in peace remain silent, those who would pervert their religion take that as a sign of consent.

I think you're grasping at straws here. Your contention is because Hillary Clinton didn't mention "9/11", she doesn't think about it. And yet you apparently have no problem with a president who exploited the 9/11 atrocity as a steppingstone to the war in Iraq.

Sorry, buddy, you lost me on this one.

No, my contention isn't that Hillary didn't mention 9/11, but that she ignored it for her own (and her party's) gain. How often has it been presented that George Bush is a failure because of his economics? Is there a month that has gone by since early 2002 that this hasn't been a rallying cry for the Democratic leadership? Was it not the rallying cry in 2002? in 2004? By listing the individual facts, by taking them out of context of the whole picture, you can make a strong case that Bush's economy was one of the worst we have ever had. Provided you ignore 9/11 and it's aftermath - and that is definately walking on the dead from that day.

Neither Jesse Jackson, nor Al Sharpton, can claim the office of president of the United States. And when they do, you can then hold them to the standards of the POTUS. Up until that time, they're private citizens with an opinion.

Al Sharpton was a contender for President in 2004, Jesse Jackson was a contender in earlier years. Why should they not be held accountable to the same standards? Why should they get a free pass for their comments, especially when they are there representing the Democratic Party in the eyes of many?

Link, please. Btw, Tom Ridge, the first head of Homeland Security, also wondered why the threat level was raised and lowered, apparently without his input.

Sorry, don't have a link. It was on CNN several years ago (I believe just before he became DNC) but don't remember exact year.

There are mistakes and then are mistakes that cost this country 2700 lives, 20,000 wounded, 450,000,000,000 American tax dollars, destabilized the Middle East, and cost this country the respect America once had. George Bush watched while NO was filling up like a soup bowl and then lied that his office had even been warned or that they received the reports. Those aren't mistakes: Those are impeachable offenses.

Are they? When are the proceedings going to be held? As for NO and Katrina, why is Katrina the only hurricane mentioned from 2005? Were there no other hurricanes that year? Or none that touched land? Why is Katrina touching down in Florida ignored as well? Granted it was the most devastating, with the worst response, but unless you are willing to give George Bush absolute dicatorial powers, there is no way you can blame the initial response on him. Ok you can, but you would be wrong. Initial response and preparation goes to the Mayor and the Governor. The Mayor who was recently reelected (yea, he was held accountable). And the Governor who the Democratic Party will probably also spend millions on to get reelected, because she wasn't so bad. Just because she couldn't handle any kind of disaster recovery. To say Bush should have federalized sooner (which he never did - the response finally did come from teh Governor by sending in General Honore - something she should have done a week earlier) to give him that much power, would give the office of the president theoretically the option to federalize if you have a power outage. Would you really want George Bush to have that much power? I know I wouldn't want Bill Clinton to have held that much power.

If the Republicans lose power for the next 30-40 years, they have themselves to blame by allying themselves with the nut fringe and refusing to excersize their oversight duty mandated by the Constitution.

Oh, I don't believe the Republicans will lose power for the next 30 to 40 years, I think it will probably be split something like 60/40, which could be a good thing for the country, depending on who the presidents are.

Hillary Clinton isn't going anywhere in direction of the Democratic nomination. Aint' going to happen.

From your mouth to God's ear.

 

[LuvDuke]

True, and that makes them guilty of the greater sin. However, they still hold the office and even though they seem to hold little respect for me and my intelligence I will not lower myself by answering in kind. The same goes for the senators/congress and other political types who insult my intelligence by name calling and black/white answers to gray questions. My problem is when I get into that voting booth in November-who in the name of all that is holy am I going to vote for??? I'd say oust the incumbants, but the fresh meat doesn't seem any better!

That dilemma over who to vote for is one shared by many. Sometimes, you've just got to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Or hold your nose, vote against the incumbent, and vote for change.

 

[What the Heck]

Apparently, for the Muslim extremists, it is. Let's all agree on it and move on.

However, we can't make policy decisions or define ourselves by the actions of the Islamic nut fringe. It appears to me that too many point to the Islamic nut fringe as some kind of excuse for their own behavior. Is it in our interest to aspire to be like them, act like them, and then claim the moral high ground because "they're crazy"?

I disagree. We MUST make policy decisions based on the actions of the Islamic nut fringe or risk another 9/11. I agree that it should not be an excuse for our behaviour, we need to hold ourselves accountable (and be willing to accept the consequences when we go too far) based on our beliefs, not theirs. When we lower ourselves to their leve, we are as crazy as they are.

 

[Galahad]

And, no, IMO a senator is not in the same league as a president or vice-president when it comes to representing all the people of the U.S.

Didn't say that - even a little bit.

Wedges come from all quarters these days. They are the lifeblood of politics and that problem was not caused by President Bush.

 

[What the Heck]

Maybe I'm dating myself, but Ronald Reagan had a foreign policy and made policy and I don't recall him or anyone in his administration calling people appeasers, questioning their patriotism, or claim that any American was rooting for the terrorists because they disagreed with Reagan's policies. And Ronald Reagan had his terrorism problems too.

You can have a policy and not use your office as wedge. And, no, IMO a senator is not in the same league as a president or vice-president when it comes to representing all the people of the U.S.

Neither did the first President Bush. I agree that a senator is not in the same league as president or vice president, but anyone who wants to be a contender for that office should be held to the same high standards. They may not respresent all of us, but they want to.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Neither did the first President Bush. I agree that a senator is not in the same league as president or vice president, but anyone who wants to be a contender for that office should be held to the same high standards. They may not respresent all of us, but they want to.

I also don't remember former Presidents publically criticizing the current administration until recently either. I thought there was kind of an unspoken understanding that it wasn't classy to do that. Former President Carter didn't do that with Presidents Reagan or the first President Bush, but he's doing it now as is Former President Clinton. Even when I agree with what they are saying, it feels icky that they're doing it.

I think any Senator or member of Congress should hold themselves to that high standard. I'd sure be lining up to vote for one that did.

 

[beachblanket]

Why are the so-called "peaceful" Muslims so silent? And not just this time, but always???

BINGO

 

[Fitswimmer]

Why are the so-called "peaceful" Muslims so silent? And not just this time, but always???

There is an article in today's Orlando Sentinel talking about a Muslim group condemming the violent actions and uprisings. They aren't all that happy with the Pope either, but they don't like what others are doing in their name.

 

[cardaway]

I also don't remember former Presidents publically criticizing the current administration until recently either. I thought there was kind of an unspoken understanding that it wasn't classy to do that. Former President Carter didn't do that with Presidents Reagan or the first President Bush, but he's doing it now as is Former President Clinton. Even when I agree with what they are saying, it feels icky that they're doing it.

Be sure to hold that thought. I have a feeling that our current President will be the king of smack talk about the admin if it's not one he agrees with.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Be sure to hold that thought. I have a feeling that our current President will be the king of smack talk about the admin if it's not one he agrees with.

And he'll probably feel justified because it was done to him, sending the message that the "rules" had changed.

 

[Galahad]

Be sure to hold that thought. I have a feeling that our current President will be the king of smack talk about the admin if it's not one he agrees with.

I'll take that bet.

 

[Teejay32]

Apparently, for the Muslim extremists, it is. Let's all agree on it and move on.

However, we can't make policy decisions or define ourselves by the actions of the Islamic nut fringe. It appears to me that too many point to the Islamic nut fringe as some kind of excuse for their own behavior. Is it in our interest to aspire to be like them, act like them, and then claim the moral high ground because "they're crazy"?

Our policy should be a) recognizing that there are plots against the US, b) finding out what they are and c) taking practical steps to thwart them. For some people it's not only the most important job of the federal government, it's the only job of the federal government they think is really necessary. Why is it so important now? Because of the Islamic nut fringe.

GWB can say if he's erred, he's erred on the side of protecting the US and against some vague definition of civil rights, and even more vague court of world opinion. Only people living the Loose Change, "Bush is a Fascist" soap opera would really have no idea why people want really effective interrogations. He can also say, with complete justification, that he's always held Islam the religion separate from Islamic terrorism. That's awfully nice of him, but for all their grandstanding his opponents never noticed, and by now his so-called "base" thinks differently and says so outright. He's doing his job, and a lot of what he does is a direct result of the Islamic nut fringe. It's nice to see them being picked apart for a change.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Our policy should be a) recognizing that there are plots against the US, b) finding out what they are and c) taking practical steps to thwart them. For some people it's not only the most important job of the federal government, it's the only job of the federal government they think is really necessary.

The most important function of the Federal Government is to protect its citizens, because if we cannot live in safety, our economy cannot grow, our children cannot be educated..nothing worthwhile can go on. (including trips to WDW) I would add that the policy should also include punishment for those responsible.