Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

I think about what wireman would say if he saw me on this thread.

I am so ashamed of myself.

Naw you should be proud, you're surrendering to logic...or at least trying like hell.
Hey, thought you where outa here about five pages back, what happenned?

well I asked you about the mechanism or process of arresting Bush and you never answered well you answered with but ignored the question. So I figured ok. Then mnaz posted something about chewing gum, and I replied to him, then you finally came back and answered my question.

Not your problem that I am ashamed of myself for posting to this thread.

Not at ll.

You have nothing to do with it.

"I am my own stereotype, not yours"

see you around

and good luck with your petition I am looking forward to see how it proceeds. I wish you every success with it.

sincerely
jt

I guess some people don't like to talk about politics. That's their prerogative. Oh well. Who cares what someone would think who doesn't care about various issues? *shrug*

Still, why would you feel ashamed that you DO like to talk about politics?

Nazz wrote: I'm not saying the voters don't need to do their homework and be accountable for their vote. They do. I was all over the net in 2003-04 trying to get people to do just that. Just out of curiosity, since I recall reading that you lean Republican, if you'd been allowed to vote in 2004, which candidate would you have chosen according to your own homework?

I don't know where you recall reading that, but it certainly wasn't from me.

Your thinking on this point is logical. Perhaps too logical. You're neglecting the ominous psychological terrorism perpetrated by the Regime in its "Global War on Terror". If there's a bogeyman with a nuke in his briefcase behind every rock, then a lot of voters will figure "better safe than sorry" and not change horses in the middle of the stream.

Sort of like the jewish bogeyman in the days of the Weimar Republic?

We had a class at school once, and we were talking about the electoral success of Hitler, and I remember this one jewish kid in the class who would not have anything the teacher said.

You could say what you wanted, you could offer up any excuse, and he'd at the end of it turn around and say "Yeah, but I still can't see how they elected that monster".

Maybe my age does come into this after all.

Maybe that's the difference between me and everyone else in this thread.

Like stilltrucking said, I can't remember where, billions for this, billions for that, and trillions they are not even talking about, and that's ignoring the loss of human life, and liberties.

That's a great chunk of my future that's been pissed away, and no matter what excuses I hear I can't help hearing that little jewish kids voice in my head "Yeah, but I still can't see how they elected that monster".

It brings me back to that guy, dipping his hand in the cash register, to buy diamonds as big as his fist, for $100 a pop, I wonder what his attitude would be, when the fraud came to light?

"But it was all the fault of the evil conman, I can't be expected to feel guilty"

Maybe the view of Bush changes, depending on your perspective.

For those who were on watch, when he was elected, they see themselves as guilt free, and Bush is the only monster, and maybe, for those who hadn't yet reached an age, to take a watch, the view is different.

Maybe their view is "he was elected on YOUR watch, so sorry guys, but you got to share the blame"?

Because, try as I might, I can't see how me, and my friends, would have allowed him to be elected.

Maybe I'm being young, foolish, and naive saying that, but it's how I see it, and until MY Bush comes along, we'll never know.

Now, again, forgive me if I'm young and idealistic here, and via that a little on the naive side, but had everyone removed their custom and trade from GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., in protest at their support of a known liar, and a man they considered criminal, might GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., maybe considered removing their support from Bush too?

That sounds a little unrealistic to me, though in theory arguable I suppose.

Maybe it is unrealistic, maybe it would have fallen flat on it's face as a plan, but then again, maybe it might have worked, but the thing is we will never know, because no one tried, they just kept kicking the dollars upstairs, and Bush got his funding, and got elected.

We can play what if, from a myriad of angles, but that's the bottom line, Bush got elected, and it was the people who elected him (or in the case of the other 48.3% failed to mount the effective opposition, and campaign, to stop him being elected).

There are 1,603,027 children in the world today (Figures from August 2007), who lost at least one parent, during Bush's wars, and who I'm sure won't buy a single excuse, from a single person, as to how this happened.

I'm sure, just about everyone of those 1,603,027 children will see Bush as at least partially responsible, but a very large percentage will also see the blood of their parents on every single American hand.

The same is true with the economy, I have friends who are NOT about to go to college, or university, because their college fund got pissed away, to save the family home, or for some other economic reason, and I'll be straight with you, many of them hate Bush, but they also can't help saying "Yeah, but I still can't see how they elected that monster".

So, like I said, no fan of Bush here, but I do see a wider issue too, and many people are looking to get petitions signed, and to have witches burned at the stake, because they are angry about what's happened, but many are looking at it also as a way to scapegoat, and to wash their hands of their part in everything.

Ben Jackson killed himself, on Valentines day, this year, despairing of securing an education, as his parents business crumbled, in this economic meltdown.

I'm sure, had he been aware of that petition, Ben Jackson wouldn't have given a shit for it, because all he ever wanted was a chance in life, and the collective population, not just one man, ripped that away from him.

There are congressional investigations taking place, into Bush and Chenney, maybe those two will get lucky, because of a need for bi-partisan actions, to push through certain legislation, and if they do, then that in itself will be a crime of sorts, but, that's the avenue that's handling that.

We don't need a petition, covering something that's already being covered (or as a form of absolution), we need a long hard look at ourselves, we need to examine our crimes, and our role in everything, because we don't have a congressional comitee looking at that, and so we're the only ones who can.

Maybe it is my age, maybe I do see things different, but if that is the case, then it is the case, and I know I'm not alone.

doreen peri wrote:I guess some people don't like to talk about politics.

Believe it or not, I'm in that group, I hate political discussion, not least because they usually turn heated, and nasty, and rude, and people attack each other over the tiniest nuances, or differences.

A man becomes a monster, because he wants an extra half a cent on education, and a half a cent less on welfare, or because he wants to lock a man up for half a day more, or less.

It's a bitter world, where just about no two people have identical views, and so are prone, at the drop of a hat, to bash each other relentlessly, for no real reason.

On top of that politics brings us war, repression, receission, and a million other ession's, all of which are negative, and hurt someone, or other, who always turns out to be someones father, or mother, or sister, or brother, and it's a lose-lose environment.

That's not to say I am not politically minded, or that I don't care, it's just to say, that as a pastime, it's bloody, and brutal, so I prefer to leave it for the board room, rather than some room on a web board.

I think that's where some people see the shame, because, outside of the political arena, to engage in political discourse, requires you to flame, or at least question if sane, your friends, your colleagues, and your loved ones, and surely there's shame in that?

How dirty does a man feel, when he calms down, and looks back, and finds he accused his brother of smoking crack, and being a nazi, or commie, or whore, all over half a cent on education, or some other occupation, when he knew his brother cared, just as passionately as he did, and that he's not a monster?

stilltrucking

well I asked you about the mechanism or process of arresting Bush and you never answered

No, of course not, seeings how I answered you at least a hundred times, I can understand how you missed it.
Here for the hundredth and one time...see if you can see it.
Bush could be indicted by Iraq
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm
or indicted by the United States
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/prosecutorstatement
or charged in a International War Crimes Tribunals
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
http://www.beyondintractability.org/ess ... tribunals/
These are just for starters, let me know if you need more.

XPress wrote:I don't know where you recall reading that, but it certainly wasn't from me.

So you don't lean Republican? My recollection is faulty then, I suppose. So you never would have voted for Bush then, right?

... try as I might, I can't see how me, and my friends, would have allowed him to be elected. Maybe I'm being young, foolish, and naive saying that, but it's how I see it, and until MY Bush comes along, we'll never know.

I still think you're underestimating the profound effect of Bu$hCo's apocalyptic fear politics crusade on the public psyche in the wake of the terrifying 9/11 attacks. And while I agree in principle that the voters screwed themselves in 2004, I still think you might be a little one-sided and/or myopic in your matter-of-fact blanket condemnation.

Yes, information was available in 2004 that strongly suggested Bu$hCo was a gang of thieving, murdering con-men pirates, but don't forget that there was also plenty of information out there that made arguments in favor of Bush's agenda, including even material from heavyweight analysts like Christopher Hitchens. Political punditry in general in the US media has been dominated by a right-wing spin juggernaut until the last couple of years. Don't forget that fact either.

So, like I said, no fan of Bush here, but I do see a wider issue too, and many people are looking to get petitions signed, and to have witches burned at the stake, because they are angry about what's happened, but many are looking at it also as a way to scapegoat, and to wash their hands of their part in everything.

Yes, but at some point the liars, murderors and thieves should be held accountable for their lying, mudering, and thieving, no? I'm not sure if "scapegoating" is an appropriate word to use here. "Scapegoating" refers to punishing people who have no direct culpability, or something along that line, doesn't it? In the Iraq scenario then, Saddam was the primary scapegoat, Not Bush, similar to how the Jews were the primary scapegoat in Nazi Germany, not Hitler.

You're also trying to essentially scapegoat the 2004 voters somewhat. Sure, you can say that the voters allowed themselves to be duped, but I only give that POV partial credit at best for the reasons I've explained.

We don't need a petition, covering something that's already being covered (or as a form of absolution), we need a long hard look at ourselves, we need to examine our crimes, and our role in everything, because we don't have a congressional comitee looking at that, and so we're the only ones who can.

True. But maybe we also need a petition in this case.

Nazz wrote:

XPress wrote:I don't know where you recall reading that, but it certainly wasn't from me.

So you don't lean Republican? My recollection is faulty then, I suppose. So you never would have voted for Bush then, right?

It may have been the "Bush lover" accusations flying around earlier that lead to any confusion, but, no, Bush would never have got my vote, although, taking age into consideration, that's very easy for me to say, as I have all the hindsight in the world at my disposal

... try as I might, I can't see how me, and my friends, would have allowed him to be elected. Maybe I'm being young, foolish, and naive saying that, but it's how I see it, and until MY Bush comes along, we'll never know.

I still think you're underestimating the profound effect of Bu$hCo's apocalyptic fear politics crusade on the public psyche in the wake of the terrifying 9/11 attacks. And while I agree in principle that the voters screwed themselves in 2004, I still think you might be a little one-sided and/or myopic in your matter-of-fact blanket condemnation.

It may well be one-sided and/or myopic, but I can only see things from the place where I stand, and from where I stand, allowing Bush to become President is almost as inconcievable as allowing Hitler to become Chancellor.

I'm sure every kid, in every history lessons, says "WTF? How did they let that happen?" but maybe it would have happened anyway, no matter who was there?

It is one of those things, how much am I speaking, with the benefit of hindsight?

How myopic is my view?

I wasn't there, so I really can't speak from the perspective of someone who was, only from the perspective of someone here, and now, and from that perspective, I find it totally incomprehensible.

I mean I hear all these excuses, and I've heard a million more, but standing where I'm standing not one of them cuts it.

Yes, but at some point the liars, murderors and thieves should be held accountable for their lying, mudering, and thieving, no? I'm not sure if "scapegoating" is an appropriate word to use here. "Scapegoating" refers to punishing people who have no direct culpability, or something along that line, doesn't it?

Not always, the original scapegoats were jewish, perhaps fittingly, given some of the comments in this thread, and those goats were driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of Yom Kippur.

I am no expert on judaism, but if I recall correctly, the goats were meant to carry the sins of the people, and therefore, by sending the goat into the wilderness, to perish, you were also sending away your sins.

Now, based upon the concept, of this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, sent away to perish, the word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, but not always, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real, or other, causes.

In that respect I see it as a valid description, as that's exactly what I see a lot of people trying to do, they are trying to blame, and punish, Bush, not just for his crimes, but also for their sins, as well as his own, and in a lot of ways, not just as a personal release, but also to distract attention from their own involvement.

So, although guilty himself, Bush is also being used, in my opinion, as a "scapegoat", by people seeking to shirk their own responsability, for what was surely unnaceptable behavior?

XPress wrote:It may well be one-sided and/or myopic, but I can only see things from the place where I stand, and from where I stand, allowing Bush to become President is almost as inconcievable as allowing Hitler to become Chancellor.... I wasn't there, so I really can't speak from the perspective of someone who was, only from the perspective of someone here, and now, and from that perspective, I find it totally incomprehensible. I mean I hear all these excuses, and I've heard a million more, but standing where I'm standing not one of them cuts it.

Well, you were there too, weren't you? You're not that young are you? And now you're using 20/20 hindsight to damn the entire electorate without considering much of any sort of context. I know how that is, believe me. There were Bush supporters on some forums that I just stopped talking to; I was that pissed off at them.

But as pissed as I was and still am, I've tried at times to understand the chain of events and keep context in mind, though that isn't easy. Remember that Kerry got almost 49% of the popular vote-- almost half. If he'd eked out just another one point something percent, to 50.1% and managed to squeak by in Ohio would the electorate then suddenly be perfectly noble and wise, even if 49.9% still voted for Bush? What if the election occurred a year later or so, with all of the Bu$hCo sins that were increasingly revealed, post-2004? Would Bush still win? I really doubt it. Yet it's the same people, the same voters only several months later, right?

Again, there is some truth in your condemnation of Bush voters as a whole, and while we as a nation do some good on the world stage as well as bad, I think we still have a lot of growing up to do. So fine, we need to take a hard look at ourselves no doubt, but that doesn't mean the Bu$h mob can't or shouldn't be held accountable for their high crimes. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

So, although guilty himself, Bush is also being used, in my opinion, as a "scapegoat", by people seeking to shirk their own responsability, for what was surely unnaceptable behavior?

I suppose you could look at it that way. But again, that doesn't mean Bush and Cheney shouldn't be punished for their high crimes. We can admit that we allowed ourselves to be duped for a while, vow to be more vigilant, and punish the wrongdoers who grossly violated their oath and public trust-- all of the above.

Bottom line....if any other dictator pulled what Bush did, we'd be the first to invade that country and bring him to justice.
Could you just imagine what would happen if Castro lied and said Florida had wmds and invaded it, killing millions...then to top the cake they never found the wmds and Castro admitted to lying about it.
Don't tell me America would say..oh well, it's a time to heal, let's move on and forget the whole matter, yeh right.
Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people because of his outright lies.
There's nothing to debate, this is solid facts, we have the decayed bodies to prove it.
He destroyed an entire country, then had the gull to give the rebuilding contract to his buddies at Haliberton without bids.
This man is the greatest threat to world peace and prosperity, he rivals any terror group or dictator.
The sonofabitch needs to be behind bars period, this "debate" is offically over in my book.
Facts are facts, you'll never spin, lie or bullshit your way around them.

Nazz wrote:Well, you were there too, weren't you? You're not that young are you?

Well, I was alive, I'll concede that much, but in 2000 I was a mere ten years old, so I was at a slight disadvantage, when it came to the political arena.

And now you're using 20/20 hindsight to damn the entire electorate without considering much of any sort of context.

That's a rather sweeping, and innacurate statement, I have considered most of the context, but I find a lot of it to be excuses, from my view point.

Does, for example, fear and paranoia really excuse ignorance?

If I shoot a man tonite, and then tell the cops, well, I was scared, because there had been a spate of burglaries in the neighborhood lately, how well would that stand up as a defense?

Sure, it might act as mitigating circumstances, if the guy was creeping into my property, dressed in black, but if it was an innocent man, walking through the front door, in broad daylight, it probably wouldn't save me from serving a life sentance, or even possibly facing the chair.

I hear the excuses, but from where I stand most of them don't even begin to stand up.

So, although guilty himself, Bush is also being used, in my opinion, as a "scapegoat", by people seeking to shirk their own responsability, for what was surely unnaceptable behavior?

I suppose you could look at it that way. But that doesn't mean Bush and Cheney shouldn't be punished for their high crimes.

Nor has anyone actually argued their crimes should be ignored, that sort of came out as a strawman defense several pages ago, and some how seems to have stuck (it's still being spun in the post above me).

What was actually being argued was that perhaps there were a) better ways of handling it, than a petition, & b) we had to be careful that we didn't lose site of our role in all this, or the context of all this, in the here and now, so as to avoid making the same mistakes again.

It's like I said, in some previous post, politics is a funny animal, it causes people to lash out, get angry, flame, and argue, over the tiniest of details.

Just because one or two people were not standing in the angry mob shouting "burn him! burn him!" but instead wanted to perhaps look at a rounder picture, the thread devolved.

There's a lot of different angles you can look at this from, some of them are a million miles from other peoples views, for example I'm sure Bush see's things VERY differently from anyone else in this thread, but then again, many of those views are... maybe taken from within a step, or two, of each other, but because it's politics, they are blown up to seem a million miles apart.

No one in this thread has defended Bush, or called for him to get a Presidential pardon, all that happened was one or two voices said they didn't want what happened next just to be a witch hunt, and the burning of a "scapegoat" because, whilst it might allow some to wash their hands of the blood they accumulated, it wouldn't really be the most progressive answer.

Those congressional investigations are still going on, and I'm sure they'll rumble on for some time yet, but... who has been investigating our role, or calling on us to rethink how we act?

Maybe those one or two voices, those different voices, in this thread, have thrown that idea into the mix now, and maybe, whether a man agrees with what is said, or not, it's at least given people pause for thought, and maybe, by doing so, come 2012, maybe, just maybe, one or two people might think a little harder about what they do, and how they handle that election, and maybe, just maybe, if that's repeated, a million times, around the world, maybe, just maybe, the next Bush might not get elected.

In the long term, that could be a lot better for our people than a show trial, and the burning of a scapegoat, leaving every body feeling absolved for, and able to forget, and ignore their sins.

Who knows?

But it is something to think about...

Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people because of his outright lies.

As I said before in this thread, I agree with you, Tony, that he should be charged and tried for war crimes and also for other unconstitutional actions.

But... "millions" of people? y'think? wow!

I would think that he should be held accountable for a lot of deaths... but millions??? geez..... where do you get your figures?

doreen peri wrote: As I said before in this thread, I agree with you, Tony, that he should be charged and tried for war crimes and also for other unconstitutional actions.

The funny thing is, despite Tony's constant arguing against it, no ones ever said that Bush should recieve a Presidential pardon, a pat on the back, and be forgiven, and forgotten, just like, except in Tony's arguments, there are no "Bush lovers", or neo-cons here.

It's the constant exageration, and spin, that's perhaps sent this thread off course so many times.

As I saw saying to Nazz above, the only really argument was between a straight out show trial, and lynching, and the possibility of looking at the wider picture, to avoid it happening again.

The obvious, knee-jerk, emotional response is to "Hang 'em all", but maybe, through distance, via age, some see it a little different, and feel there's a bigger picture to be looked at also.

Maybe, if an analogy were to be made, it's like an argument between an over-emotional heart, and an over-analytical head?

I guess this might be getting a little off-topic, but I found Tony's Castro-invades-Florida analogy interesting. It seems to me the US has allowed the whole phenomenon/idea of being the "world's lone superpower" (military, if not necessarily economic preeminence) to give itself an inflated/distorted view of how much it could "remake the world in its image" with its military might.

With the Evil Empire out of the way, the US could finally be bold and go out and enforce a "New American Century" (neo-con-speak), in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else it deemed necessary in its infinite benevolent wisdom to put boots on the ground-- only to get bogged down in the same shadowy, asymmetric warfare that doomed the Russians in Afghanistan more than 20 years ago against the CIA-backed Islamists. I find that disturbingly ironic.

And now the US wants to ramp up its militarism in Afghanistan once again. It's Obama this time, not Bush. We need to "win" in Afghanistan, but no one can tell us what "winning" means, or how many troops it will realistically take, or how much it will cost and how long it will take. Doesn't that seem awfully familiar? I don't know. It almost seems as if that window, whatever there was of it, kind of opened and closed already.