Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This schtick of calling non-conservative views of the world "conspiracy theories" is really, really tired. What's the conspiracy? I think a bunch of ideologues with preconceptions about how the world works took control of the federal government and saw their job as one of building public support for a war that in their hearts they knew was right. (Barry Goldwater reference intended.) As it happens, they were wrong, and we are all now stuck with the mess they created. Where's the conspiracy?
|
That is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is the ill intent you associate with these policy decisions (see, e.g., your repeated posting of "Bush Lied" shit). In order to believe your point of view, you would have to believe that Bush et al believed that this war, which, like any war, if very risky business, was going to benefit him politically (more than not going to war), and that was its only purpose. I submit that the better move, politically, would have been not to invade Iraq and ride high on the 90% or so support he enjoyed after Aphganistan and focus more on domestic issues.
But he didn't. He did what he thought was right, not what was politically convenient. Perhaps your problem is that you've got Billy Boy Hangover, where nothing is what it seems, and everything has a political motive. Luckily, there is a cure for that - watch any Al Gore speech. You see, Al is Billy without the smarts, timing, luck and je ne se qua, so you can see the political hack down to the core.
Quote:
|
When they found those trailers used to make artillery spotting balloons, you were posting articles about it as if they'd found the Lost Ark of the Covenant with conclusive evidence inside it of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden butt-fucking each other on top of missiles pointed at Houston with warheads full of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
|
You have me confused with SEF.
Quote:
|
The media on which you are relying appears to see its job as furthering the conservative movement, not as weighing and reporting the evidence. Which is fine -- there's a place for that -- but don't mistake it for something it's not.
|
This is laughable. Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now. It is rare that we get a story of all the good that the US has done in Iraq over the last 14 months. Rather, it is one calamity after another. Take the electricity problems, as just one example. We heard for months about these problems, but do we hear that electricity levels are now far better than pre-war? Or the schools, or the oil production, or . . .
Yet, only the media I rely on is focused on influencing a political agenda. Wake the fuck up man.
Quote:
|
You don't show any signs of thinking critically about what you are posting.
|
Pot/kettle. I routinely take positions on this board that are based on principle rather than party - that requires critical thinking. For example:
1. I supported "Clinton's War" in Europe
2. I have been highly critical of the Bush deficits
3. I have been highly critical of the Bush FCC
4. I have been highly critcial of the anti-gay marriage agenda (though, did not support the circumvention of process by Gavin).
On what issues do you break from the party line? My guess is that you'd have trouble coming up with 2. But I'm the one that doesn't think critically. What a fucking joke.
