Bush To Ignore Voice of the People - Page 3

Drake Tungsten · February 19, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Bush once again shows that nothing will come between his mad bloodlust for the lives of innocents, not even the voice of a people united against him.

I don't understand how someone can write something this absurd, read it, and then decide that it is something they should post. I mean, there's hyperbole and then there's raving lunacy. I'm worried about you, monkspider...

orange · February 19, 2003, 02:08

we're worried about you, Drake.

Imran Siddiqui · February 19, 2003, 02:09

Don't worry, we're just as worried about you, orange.

And we'll keep worrying in circles!

Drake Tungsten · February 19, 2003, 02:09

I'm worried about you, Imran..

orange · February 19, 2003, 02:10

i'm worried about Iraq

Shi Huangdi · February 19, 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Bush once again shows that nothing will come between his mad bloodlust for the lives of innocents, not even the voice of a people united against him. Don't worry though my friends, God shall not let him get away with these crimes against humanity. If we do not hold him responsible, he will be held responsible one day and I would not like to be in his shoes when that time comes.

Ahhh monkspider source of eternal humor....

David Floyd · February 19, 2003, 02:33

monkspider,

Actually, Bush is most likely a Christian. He's still immoral, though.

Straybow · February 19, 2003, 03:02

Congressmen don't pay much attention to protest form letters unless you're talking about tens of thousands. Hand-written letters are worth far more. A few articulate, well-reasoned letters can have great impact. Also letters supporting the status quo are almost always far more rare than protests. It is just human nature.

100k protestors in San Francisco don't matter except to Feinstein. Left-coast granola-types do protest marches as a hobby, much as people in other parts of the country might do birdwatching or stamp collecting. Around the Bay old hippie burn-outs and young hippie wanna-bes treat protesting as a calling, like monasticism was to the medieval Church. 100k isn't even a blip.

In Chicago or Philly it would make a stir, unless it became obvious it was just a left-coast rent-a-mob. The only thing the hippies love better than a road trip to a protest would be a road trip to a "medical marijuana" clinic.

A protest of 1000 local people in the home district will draw more attention from the average Congressman. It takes a bit more to get average folks out on their feet.

Straybow · February 19, 2003, 03:09

Oh, I see, it is immoral to oppose an evil, oppressive megalomaniac eager to invade peaceful neighbors and use chemical weapons on civilians...

Nubclear · February 19, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow

Oh, I see, it is immoral to oppose an evil, oppressive megalomaniac eager to invade peaceful neighbors and use chemical weapons on civilians...

Assasination is such a useful thing to do.

Would you bomb New York to rubble to kill a few terrorists? I didn't think so.........

Would you do the same to Baghdad? Cause your about to.

Drake Tungsten · February 19, 2003, 03:36

Quote:

Would you bomb New York to rubble to kill a few terrorists? I didn't think so.........

Would you do the same to Baghdad? Cause your about to.

Why do people still believe that the US is going to carpet-bomb Baghdad? Are they being willfully ignorant to support their view, or are they just really dumb? Discuss...

Robert Plomp · February 19, 2003, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Oh wow. A conservative ignoring the people.....THATS a first

oh wow, a lefty who's confusing the big mouths on the street with the majority of the people...... THATS a first :rolleyes

Quote:

Thats just like saying that the voice of me is through my doctor or my lawyer or something stuipd like that.

No, the voice of me is through ME, and the voice of the people is through the PEOPLE. Not some beurocrat up in Washington.

and that's the end of democraty.

Quote:

Not only that, US support is based upon incorrect propaganda.

In fact there's more anti-war propaganda than pro-war.
Overhere in The Netherlands we hardly hear any pro-war explanation.

But we are driven nuts by stop-the war folders and demonstrations and all that kinds of big-mouth polarisation.

Pherhaps that's different in the US, but overhere in Europe, it's not strange that the majority is against the war.

We're flooded with silly folders with demagogic texts like "The poor children in Iraque will suffer under the bombs of the united states" and all that stuff that was easily copied and paste from the afghanistan folders.

Quote:

Floyd: The thing is, though, what Bush is saying is that he will ignore public opinion on the matter no matter what the polls say.

A silly 'the majority is against me but Im still right' way of argumentating.
If that's all you have against bush your case is getting weaker and weaker.

You first start with big-mouthing that Bush is ignoring the people. Later is appears that Bush is listening to the people, and you just simplisticly add that he wouldn't do it if the people were saying something else.

In fact you just say "Bush doesn't listen to me while he should"

to be honest, I'm happy that he doesn't listen to you, your arguments are empty. There are anti-war people that come with 1000 times better arguments than you. They are rare, but they do exist.

Quote:

Floyd: Not at all. The will of the people should be irrelevant when it comes to morality.

You're really laughable.
First he should listen to the people, but not it appears that the people don't say what you want them to say, you suddenly claim that the voice of the people is irrelevant.

Quote:

Floyd: Actually it's called murder and stealing.

What if you start to back your silly rhetoric up with some arguments?

Quote:

Floyd: This doesn't mean that the majority can't be right, though, and if the majority opposed war, they would be right.

another good example of an "I am right, and others are only right if they agree with me" argument.

Did you already notice the sun circling around you David?

Quote:

Urban Ranger: Isn't he silly or what? Aren't the weapons inpectors in there doing things?

What they are trying to do is inspecting,
but it has already been proven that the inspecting is being worked against by iraque.
that's been proven by Powel, and it's confirmed by Blix and Baradei.

It's cool though to see that you call Bush silly, and come with such a strange one-sided incomplete argument yourself.

Of course you can have the opinion that the iraque should have another another very very last change to work with the inspectors, but you can imagine that Bush starts to feel like doing that thing for the 12th time is something like 'doing nothing'

But again, you have a big fat plate in front of your head, thus you can't imagine that. You can only imagine your own opinion, and how important and well-argumentated it is.

oh well, I hope you are a lucky man, living that way.
Keep them coming, those arguments!

Quote:

Actually I'd say 1 protestor is worth 10 citizens since it takes effort to get off your butt to protest.

that makes it 30% is against the war

do the math: 30% < 51%
conclusion: 30% is the minority.

(this is the point where you adjust the 1 = 10 people into 1 = 20 people, do it quickly and no-one might notice)

Quote:

Monkspider: Bush once again shows that nothing will come between his mad bloodlust for the lives of innocents

You really lost sight of reality, didn't you?
It's not Bush who's after the blood of innocents, it's Sadam who is.

The question is if Bush is justified to fight against this criminal Sadam. You can think Bush is, and you can think Bush is not justified to do that. That's a good and legal point of view.

but it's rather pathatic to suddenly change the world upside down and name Bush the agressor.
I can't take people who say that seriously.

They fall in the same category as the "Nuke Iraque" people, but just on the other side of the fence.

Why can you anti-bush people not just talk about the issue itself? Is the world justified to invade Iraque to rid it from it's dictator?

Is that so hard?

Quote:

DuncanK: Polular mandates would be crazy. A don't want uninformed idiots making those kind of decisions.

Imagine people like Floyd or Monkspider making the decisions....... they don't even recognize an evil expansionistic dictator if he stands on their toes.

They would probably have demonstrated in the streets of Amsterdam against the allies who so blatant invaded the fine country of Germany in 1945.

They're just leftish CivNations.
Bush is an evil and expansionistic dictator

Of course he's dumb, and all his advisors are dumb.
The majority of the voters is dumb and polls are bad.
The inly well-informed rational people are those who think like me.
The rest of them should shut up.

The poor people of Iraque are better of with the current pacifistic regime of Sadam.
Down with Bush! Burn the american flag!
Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi are pvssies who follow Bush blindfolded.

Chiraq and Schroder are wise man! They make their own decisions, and see, if people make their own decisions they are automaticly against war.

Except Bush, he's pro-war, if makes his own decisions, but again, he's dumb. And so are all his advisors, and all those people who voted for him, and all those people who say they agree with him in the polls.

The polls by the way only represent 1% of america.
The demonstrations represent the other 99%.
For every 1 person who demonstrates there are 10 who agree with him! Oh wait, I mean 20.

And those east-european countries who agree with Bush should just shut up. France uh Europe has one solid opinion (except the blindfolded) and those east-european countries should follow France!

did I forgot anything?

Nubclear · February 19, 2003, 04:18

Quote:

oh wow, a lefty who's confusing the big mouths on the street with the majority of the people...... THATS a first

Worldwide polls have been conducted: The world does not want a war.

Quote:

and that's the end of democraty.

No, it simply means I have a mind and a voice. If we continue like this (Just write to your senator, dont protest!) will we soon let our senators do everything for us? Balance our buget? Run our LIVES?

Quote:

Why do people still believe that the US is going to carpet-bomb Baghdad?

Maybe not, (Though the number of explosives being shipped does indicate a few things....) however they are going to obliterate the country. Right now, even their presence in Kuwait is hurting the Iraqi people.

Don't kill thousands: Just assasinate Saddam. Quite simple, really.

Nubclear · February 19, 2003, 04:20

Cybershy is FUMING right now

Robert Plomp · February 19, 2003, 04:29

Quote:

Worldwide polls have been conducted: The world does not want a war.

conclusion: the polls are accepted if they agree with your point, and they're declined if they don't?

Most of the western-world agrees with a war if it's UN approved.

Quote:

No, it simply means I have a mind and a voice. If we continue like this (Just write to your senator, dont protest!) will we soon let our senators do everything for us? Balance our buget? Run our LIVES?

No, just controlling the governament of the country in your name.
It's impossible to have 250+ million run the country.

Quote:

Maybe not, (Though the number of explosives being shipped does indicate a few things....) however they are going to obliterate the country. Right now, even their presence in Kuwait is hurting the Iraqi people.

As if Sadam is good for the Iraqi people

Nubclear · February 19, 2003, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

Quote:

Worldwide polls have been conducted: The world does not want a war.

conclusion: the polls are accepted if they agree with your point, and they're declined if they don't?

When did I dismiss a poll as "non-representative" of something? Dont start with that fallacy now....

Quote:

No, just controlling the governament of the country in your name.
It's impossible to have 250+ million run the country.

So because a direct democracy isn't possible, we should give up our voice to 2 senators? I think not.

Quote:

As if Sadam is good for the Iraqi people

Ok, If I keep saying I want him to assasinated (ie, killed), does this mean I think Saddam is for the best? NO.

Stop creating these statements out of thin air. It REALLY destroys your arguement, both the one it pertains to and the credibility of your others.

Oerdin · February 19, 2003, 04:42

Cybershy: I've read your arguments and they are logical and well written; most of the people on the other side of this debate haven't been able to make rebutals which are as written as your. Good job man.

I'd join you but I've gotten tired of the lies and name call that poly's anti-war types seem to mistake for facts and reasoned arguments. I've seen people in the media make reasonable cases both for and against stopping Saddam but some how the reasonable arguments just seem to be drowned out by the teenagers hear at poly.

Robert Plomp · February 19, 2003, 06:37

Quote:

When did I dismiss a poll as "non-representative" of something? Dont start with that fallacy now....

sorry, it's not you who did. Others did though.

Quote:

So because a direct democracy isn't possible, we should give up our voice to 2 senators? I think not.

I think there should be a limit somewhere.
Meeting with 3000 senators will rather ruin the debate, which is the strength of democraty, than improve it.

But I can imagine that it's hard if your senator doesn't voice your opinion.

On 2nd thought, there are other senators, pherhaps not yours, who do voice your opinion.
They're a minority, but that appears to reflect the entire society, in which it's a minority as well.

I think you're free to use your voice, and demonstrate, but I think you should not expect the governament to base their decisions on your demonstration.

To be honest, I think that without the demonstrations the governament already knew that there is a large minority against war.

Quote:

Ok, If I keep saying I want him to assasinated (ie, killed), does this mean I think Saddam is for the best? NO.

My reaction doesn't imply that you love sadam, it's morely meant to make clear that there's only one problem: Sadam.

We ALL have several ideas on how to get rid of him.
I think your 'assinate him' idea is good, but has some flaws. Nevertheless it's a valid idea.

What I tried to make clear is that the coming war is indeed no good for the iraqi people, but if nothing happens that's not good for the iraqi people as well.

Something must be done, and I'm afraid that we, people from the western world, just can't imagine evil anymore.

It's hard, but most of the time evil can't be overtrown without casualties. I wish it could be possible, but it appears to be impossible.

Most of the time it even appears that waiting longer only results in more casualties.

Conclusion, I agree with you that the presence of the american soldiers in Kuwait puts the Iraqi people more under pressure and hurts their economy.
The thing is that I can't see any other possibility to free them from their dictator without pain.

To get back on the 'assinate him' idea,
that has been tried before. 2 doubles of Sadam have already been killed. They have tried to kill the real sadam for years already. It's impossible.

Besides that, it's unsure what happens after he might be killed. The Baath party is big (1 million members) and obviously they'll come with a new dictator, pherhaps even Sadam's son.

Robert Plomp · February 19, 2003, 06:38

Thanks Oerdin!

MarkG · February 19, 2003, 07:15

of course Bush is listening to the voice of the people!

it's just that it's these people he's listening to:

C0ckney · February 19, 2003, 07:52

pro-war propaganda, christ, you should be at my uni. every other day the usual loudmouths from the socialist worker lot are outside the main building whining about the war (and the fire strike, and this and that..and everything else under the sun.)

Urban Ranger · February 19, 2003, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

Quote:

Urban Ranger: Isn't he silly or what? Aren't the weapons inpectors in there doing things?

What they are trying to do is inspecting,
but it has already been proven that the inspecting is being worked against by iraque.
that's been proven by Powel, and it's confirmed by Blix and Baradei.

Cybie, that's an interesting spin, but cannot be further from the truth. Powell provided zero evidence for his assertions, worse yet, Blair copied his report from a decade old report by a student. What's worse? Blix axed Powell's sat pictures, reconfirming that they could find no evidence of CBN weapons.

It's information like this that makes me wonder what on earth do you read for news.

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's cool though to see that you call Bush silly, and come with such a strange one-sided incomplete argument yourself.

How's that one sided? W. was trying to use a false delimma to make his case, when in face his other choice turned out to be false.

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
Of course you can have the opinion that the iraque should have another another very very last change to work with the inspectors, but you can imagine that Bush starts to feel like doing that thing for the 12th time is something like 'doing nothing'

Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Is there any evidence that Iraq has CBN weapons? Any at all? If they don't have any, of course nothing can be find.

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
But again, you have a big fat plate in front of your head, thus you can't imagine that. You can only imagine your own opinion, and how important and well-argumentated it is.

oh well, I hope you are a lucky man, living that way.
Keep them coming, those arguments!

Are these supposed to be ad hominems? Pretty weak, I say.

OliverFA · February 19, 2003, 10:21

That "voice of people" thing would be a very funny one if it wasn't because we are talking about very serious things.

The other day I was taking a walk here in Geneva and saw a painting which readed: "Bush, Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi. Axis of the Evil". Then I started to wonder. "What do these four president have in common?" Oh yes! What they have in common is that they have been elected democratically. Three of them have been elected at least twice, and Bush have won the elections for the congress and the senate only a few months ago. It looks like people agree with them. So please, stop demagogic arguments about they not hearing people, because people like them and vote them again and again.

On the other hand, who has voted Hussein? What has happened to the German president in the last elections, when he has lost a lander in which their party traditionally always won? Why some very vocal persons keep trying to talk on behalf of me?

Please, stop the nonsense!

SlowwHand · February 19, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
WASHINGTON - Declaring that America's security should not be dictated by protesters, President Bush (news - web sites) said Tuesday he would not be swayed from compelling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to disarm. "We will deal with him," Bush said as U.S. and British diplomats weighed another bid for U.N. backing.

"War is my last choice," Bush said at the White House as echoes of anti-war protests circled the globe. "But the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option as far as I am concerned."

Ignoring some voices, David.
SOME.
Some ignorant people.

So pull your head out, and comb your hair.

Or, you can use it as an avatar.

Lefty Scaevola · February 19, 2003, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
The thing is, though, what Bush is saying is that he will ignore public opinion on the matter no matter what the polls say.

No, he just said he was not be swayed by the dipshit yammerhead demonstrators. Like the loud one in your town, Austin, proclaiming that Bush was planning to nuke Brazil.

SlowwHand · February 19, 2003, 10:37

That wasn't just any dipshit yammerhead.
That was David.

TheStinger · February 19, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That wasn't just any dipshit yammerhead.
That was David.

Lefty Scaevola · February 19, 2003, 10:42

My 13 year son and wife, up there for masonic youth goverment day, were laughing their heads off at that one and other bozo speakers there. They seemed to have happened upon a loonie concentration. The broadcast media apparently ignored that group which did not suit the presupposed image they were after.

Jac de Molay · February 19, 2003, 10:49

Yeah, I stumbled upon a pro-war rally just outside town. All those beer-swilling, NASCAR watching, mullet wearing wackos were sporting signs like "nuke Baghdad, Osama/saddam partners in crime, Anti-war/anti-patriot."

I never saw such a concentration of loonies. Then again, I wouldn't expect anything less of the pro-war movement.

SlowwHand · February 19, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
My 13 year son and wife,

I take it this is least your 2nd marriage?