|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2015 15:53:35 GMT -5
Katrina, the economy and the death toll of the Iraq/Afghan war are fair points but 9/11 seems more than a little off; there was no warning there, nothing that could have been done to prevent the attacks short of intervention from a time traveler with insight from the future. I don't put much stock in the, "He kept us safe" statement, and there are plenty of ways to dispute it but the 9/11 connection is a simple case of needless emotional manipulation that has no place in that conversation. Saying that George W. Bush did not keep us safe on Sept. 11, 2001, is not "emotional manipulation." It is a bare statement of fact. Jeb Bush is trying to say that his brother kept us safe on Sept. 11 when it is very clearly not true. His whole party is trying to act like Obama is so weak on national security, and yet the continually ignore the elephant in the room (Bush's lousy record on stopping terror) when they start another round of "Benghazi! Banghazi!" Whether or not there was anything Bush could do on Sept. 11 may be debatable. But to say he "kept us safe"? No way, no how. And Jeb looks delusional every time he makes the claim. Believe me, I wouldn't be bringing it up if Jeb had the sense to be a little more low-key on his brother's record. But there is no way he should get away with it when he tries to use his brother's woeful record on terrorism as some kind of a rallying cry for his own election. I seriously doubt he was thinking about the death toll of 9/11 when he said his brother "kept us safe" but was rather trying to play up his track record after the fact, which like I said, can easily be disputed in a 100 other ways that do not involve showing images of the aftermath of 9/11. It's a cheap move that only serves to needlessly lower the level of debate and I expect better from just about everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 21, 2015 16:00:25 GMT -5
The Republicans in general and the Bush family in particular have been using 9/11 for emotional manipulation as well as to invade foreign countries that weren't involved in 9/11 for 14 years. No it's probably not appropriate. But you reap what you sow. I'm against it when the nutjobs in the right use it as well, it's a cheap move that adds nothing to the discussion any way you slice it and I don't think trowing it back because they need to reap what they sewed does anything to heighten the dialogue. You'll note that even the scathing review of the actions of the Bush administration ends on a note of doubt as to whether it could have been avoided...which is pretty significant considering everything that preceded that statement. There's a huge difference between the threat of some guys hijacking plains and demanding ransom, which up until then was the assumed tactic and something we believed could be stopped or negated by the ordinary security measures of the time and some guys hijacking some planes and turning them into missiles targeted at high density civilian targets. The idea that someone would try that was unfathomable at the time and because of that I don't think that in hindsight we can really say that an effective counter measure to an unheard of source of attack could have reasonably been executed. There are plenty of legitimate failings that we can attribute to the Bush Presidency, but in the 14 years since it happened I have yet to see anything remotely approaching even a half way convincing argument that his inability to stop 9/11 was one of them...and barring some future declassified document that shows that Bush was given information that Bin Laden was experimenting with the explosive force of jet fuel on buildings in the year leading up to 9/11 I doubt that feeling will change. You said "there was no warning there." There was. That there was no warning at all is just a Republican talking point. And a lie. Could it have been prevented? Who knows. Were there warning signs? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Sept 21, 2015 16:04:06 GMT -5
I tell you what, thwhtguardian. As soon as Jeb stops talking about what a great job his brother did protecting the U.S., I'll stop disagreeing with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2015 16:13:24 GMT -5
I'm against it when the nutjobs in the right use it as well, it's a cheap move that adds nothing to the discussion any way you slice it and I don't think trowing it back because they need to reap what they sewed does anything to heighten the dialogue. You'll note that even the scathing review of the actions of the Bush administration ends on a note of doubt as to whether it could have been avoided...which is pretty significant considering everything that preceded that statement. There's a huge difference between the threat of some guys hijacking plains and demanding ransom, which up until then was the assumed tactic and something we believed could be stopped or negated by the ordinary security measures of the time and some guys hijacking some planes and turning them into missiles targeted at high density civilian targets. The idea that someone would try that was unfathomable at the time and because of that I don't think that in hindsight we can really say that an effective counter measure to an unheard of source of attack could have reasonably been executed. There are plenty of legitimate failings that we can attribute to the Bush Presidency, but in the 14 years since it happened I have yet to see anything remotely approaching even a half way convincing argument that his inability to stop 9/11 was one of them...and barring some future declassified document that shows that Bush was given information that Bin Laden was experimenting with the explosive force of jet fuel on buildings in the year leading up to 9/11 I doubt that feeling will change. You said "there was no warning there." There was. That there was no warning at all is just a Republican talking point. And a lie. Could it have been prevented? Who knows. Were there warning signs? Yes. No warning of an attack like what happened. There's a BIG difference between, "There's a lot of chatter about possible terrorist actions this year, we've stopped several known extremists from taking flight lessons in the country to which the FBI has stepped up its game and now has 70 active investigations" and "There's going to be an attack in the next few months where we believe hijackers will attempt to take over several long range jet liners and use them as explosives against civilian targets." On the one hand you can reasonably assume that the everyday machinations in place will sort it out where as with the latter the only response must be extreme action like we'd never implemented before. Unless you believe the Bush administration received a warning like the second one and chose to ignore it I just don't see how you can say they received a true warning of the events that would later transpire. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2015 16:19:32 GMT -5
I tell you what, thwhtguardian. As soon as Jeb stops talking about what a great job his brother did protecting the U.S., I'll stop disagreeing with him. You're free to disagree with him, heck I know I do. I thought my eyes would never work the same again after he said W kept us safe, that's how hard they rolled to the back of my head. I just think that trotting out the failure to stop 9/11 and pretending it's a legitimate criticism is just a case of simple mudslinging which I'll denounce no matter which side does it. The level of discourse in politics desperately needs to change and celebrating a transgression against that goal just because it supports the guys on "our team" does nothing to help. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2015 16:19:33 GMT -5
Jeb Bush upset about ad that points out that George W. Bush didn't keep anybody safe.He blamed Hillary Clinton and her supporters for the ad. Two things about blaming Hillary Clinton: 1. It's dumb to criticize Hillary Clinton for wanting a higher standard for "keeping us safe." By Jeb Bush's standard, 3,000 dead on September 11, 2001, is "keeping us safe." I'm going to vote for a president that thinks the U.S. can do better. 2. Hillary Clinton is not the only one with a motive to use facts to point out that 3,000 dead Americans on September 11, 2001, is a lousy standard for "keeping us safe." You don't have to be a candidate and you don't have to be a liberal to see how delusional it is to give George W. Bush a pass for September 11, 2001. Jeb! has been in politics for a while, right? He still does not realize that he is keeping this in the news cycles longer by not ignoring it? Whatta maroon. His even stupider brother got to be president through the criminal connivance of a corrupt Supreme Court, & then in the wake of 9/11 the corrupt corporate media aided & abetted said thug regime's every lie & war crime. I think he can be forgiven for assuming that the usual rules don't apply to his family. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Sept 22, 2015 8:55:41 GMT -5
You said "there was no warning there." There was. That there was no warning at all is just a Republican talking point. And a lie. Could it have been prevented? Who knows. Were there warning signs? Yes. No warning of an attack like what happened. There's a BIG difference between, "There's a lot of chatter about possible terrorist actions this year, we've stopped several known extremists from taking flight lessons in the country to which the FBI has stepped up its game and now has 70 active investigations" and "There's going to be an attack in the next few months where we believe hijackers will attempt to take over several long range jet liners and use them as explosives against civilian targets." On the one hand you can reasonably assume that the everyday machinations in place will sort it out where as with the latter the only response must be extreme action like we'd never implemented before. Unless you believe the Bush administration received a warning like the second one and chose to ignore it I just don't see how you can say they received a true warning of the events that would later transpire. If I wanted to see goal posts moved, I'd get a job on a soccer field. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 22, 2015 16:01:11 GMT -5
No warning of an attack like what happened. There's a BIG difference between, "There's a lot of chatter about possible terrorist actions this year, we've stopped several known extremists from taking flight lessons in the country to which the FBI has stepped up its game and now has 70 active investigations" and "There's going to be an attack in the next few months where we believe hijackers will attempt to take over several long range jet liners and use them as explosives against civilian targets." On the one hand you can reasonably assume that the everyday machinations in place will sort it out where as with the latter the only response must be extreme action like we'd never implemented before. Unless you believe the Bush administration received a warning like the second one and chose to ignore it I just don't see how you can say they received a true warning of the events that would later transpire. If I wanted to see goal posts moved, I'd get a job on a soccer field. This is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about the level of discourse. What does this comment accomplish? It doesn't dispute what I said in any meaningful way and it does nothing to support your own point of view. All it does is attempt to call into question my argumentative skills with a quick comical jab and for some reason that's seen as acceptable by society. But hey, to further support what I was saying; for a statement to be a warning it has to give you enough information for a person to be reasonably able to foresee the consequences and take adequate protection. What about the warnings that Al Qaeda had something planned and the FBI had detained several extremists who were attempting to take flight lessons would lead you to put a Marshal on every plane and radically redesign the security around airports? You simply can't get to that point B with the info given at point A. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 16:02:46 GMT -5
Nope, you're not alone, Shax. I'm hoping Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 22, 2015 20:45:55 GMT -5
What does this comment accomplish? This is a critical question to ask oneself when engaging in political discourse in general. On so many levels, this thread has devolved into liberals venting animosity towards conservative politicians. What does this accomplish? When one conducts him/herself in this fashion, anyone they had any chance of persuading on the other side of the debate stops reading all-together. I myself am generally very liberal leaning. Heck, I started this thread. But I'm truly disappointed by the general tenor of this discussion and would like to see us return to a level of discourse where neutral and/or conservative-leaning members feel comfortable engaging in the discussion so that a true transmission of ideas can occur rather than nonconstructive venting and preaching to the choir. Instead of calling a politician "dumb," "scum," or even "evil," stick to the facts and show us just how wrong or unethical these people are. and if you don't have the facts, then you probably shouldn't be talking. We are better than this, folks. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 10:20:39 GMT -5
Not to be cynical (he said cynically), but what does any of it accomplish anyway, no matter how how-minded a tone one might achieve? Variations on this meme are commonplace on FB, but it's no less accurate if you omit "facebook" --  The vast majority of people made up their minds politically at some point during adolescence, I trust (assuming I'm not just projecting my own experience on humanity in general). After that, we pretty much go out looking for info that shores up our position (see previous parenthetical clause). As it has so many things, I assume the internet has only intensified that tendency. I'm going to go out on a limb & say that "politeness" & "politics" don't have a lot in common, other than each word's first 5 letters. Whether they should or shouldn't is another matter altogether, but going out on another limb, I'm going to say that wishing won't make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 10:30:04 GMT -5
(I will note that I've yet to see anything in this thread that warrants any sort of pearl-clutching, to be honest. Probably the truly insufferable monthly politics thread at Baseball Think Factory has dulled my sensibilities beyond redemption: thousands of comments every damned month, all saying nothing different than the regulars in question were saying a year ago, mostly in as vituperative a manner as can be imagined ... truly a cesspool, & one I dip my toe into in for maybe 10 minutes every few weeks, & then only when bored even out of my mind than usual here at work.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,873
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 23, 2015 16:19:52 GMT -5
I've had my mind changed by what others have articulated sensibly and respectfully in the past. Yes, even on facebook. It's the folks who are convinced that they can't change anyone else's minds so why bother who end up building barricades that prevent them from hearing anyone else's viewpoint either  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 16:37:06 GMT -5
Note to self: Edit meme to add "except for that one guy."
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Sept 23, 2015 16:55:44 GMT -5
I would imagine all people look to find like minded people to further support what they want, whether that be the real truth, a lie one can't let go, or association with a party of group. It takes a lot for a person to look at what someone says and take it at least face valve when it's contradictory to already established beliefs. I'll say that one unnamed message board fell once and has again to theses tendencies making cliques in said community, where only people of like minds give other people of like minds consideration. I have to say that I don't see this happening to us at the moment and feel confident we can keep it that way.
|
|
