 enbar says: Comments on the State of the Union address, in which Bush lumped together all sorts of groups and events that have no connection to one another as "the enemy." Reflects this administration's dangerously superficial understanding of what's going on in the world and an overriding reluctance to think critically about what causes violence. The connection is ignored. Did you notice the little line he slipped in about doubling the National Strategic Oil Reserves? This is not of little note. This is blast of reality when you realize what these reserves are for. It is amazing you assume yourself to have more credibility and knowledge than Bush, all his advisers, the think tanks which vet these issues, Intelligence agencies, Our allies, a majority of Middle-Eastern Countries, a majority of Congress, all the experts that have testified before congress and been called for panels on these issues, all Presidential candidates except Kucinich, a majority of Americans. Not to mention the evidence on the front pages of almost every news... wilhelm ... what are you talking about? What did I say that was ideological? The speech made some pretty serious factual blunders ... is that ideological? They are only blunders to the politically motivated. Bush has been very clear about our enemies. I disagree with Bush on just about everything and I think he is a failure as a leader. However, on this issue he has been very clear. As far as violence. 2 things cause violence. 1. The offense of evil and 2. The defense of good. I'll leave it to you to decide on which side you want to be. They are only blunders to the politically motivated.Facts are facts. The example the clip gives, namely that he seemingly connects "an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure", seems indisputably correct to me. Does any evidence exist that these events are connected? The fact that the perpetrators share a religion proves nothing by itself. About the causes of violence: philosophically and metaphysically, yes, perhaps. But politically and diplomatically, that sort of language is unlikely to solve problems. I'm thinking of things more along the lines of "sectarian tensions." To me, that's an explanatory concept. "Defense o... Ya, I think he left out the liberals at home who see those of us who want to fight the war against terror as a bigger enemy than the terrorists. Oh ... I guess you're referring to people like me. Thanks, n2sooners, for implying that I'm a treasonous criminal and worse than a terrorist; nice talking to you too. Personally, I'm all for defeating the terrorists. Unfortunately, it appears that we're going about it in so ham-fisted a way that we're making new enemies faster than we can kill them off. I'd like to see us going about it with a little intelligence, rather than having our policies be determined by strutting political posturing plus John Yoo-style "unitary executive" aggrandizement. Personally, I'd like to win, and I'd like to feel safe, but it looks like we're just going to fuck things up worse than before. Just remember -- ou... Hmmm, perhaps you misunderstood what I said, but it is worded almost as bad as an AP headline. I was speaking of those on the left who believe the Bush administration and anyone who supports it are a bigger threat than the terrorists. And we both know who they are, probably all watching Olbermann reruns on their DVRs right now or listening to Air America. We love enemies, can't live without 'em. n2sooners, I hear conservatives talk about those people all the time, but I've never actually met one. n2sooners, I hear conservatives talk about those people all the time, but I've never actually met one.I'm sure it's difficult for you to spot them. You're standing too close. Take a step back and look at this clip you just clipped yesterday. in this clip . This is mild. The tone of Clipmarks itself speaks to how prevalent this rhetoric really is. Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to know that hard leftists want Bush's policy in Iraq to fail. You're calling Reza Aslan and Dan Benjamin "hard leftists" and alleging that they sit around plotting against Bush and listening to bad talk radio? Evidence, please? The clip blames America for the actions of the Terrorists ! As for all the evidence, it is there, you just choose not to see it. Pretty amazing considering how many clips and comments you apparently read. Oh well, I guess we cannot all be objective thinkers. We seem to be carrying on parallel conversations on two separate threads ... I'm going to post my reply in the comments to the other clip. No, I meant for that comment to be in this thread. I linked to the other clip in my comment as an example of n2sooners comment about some thinking Bush to be more dangerous than the terrorists. |
View the Top Clips from January 25, 2007
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||
