Why The Left is Losing
Published on March 25, 2004 By Mr Right0313 In Politics
To All:

As a premier article for this wonderful, and I assume diverse community I thought I would write about something that seems so obvious to me, but perhaps not to all. That is of course the dominance of the Right, and the fading of the liberal left.

Now the upcoming presidential election is reigniting those leftist views that they can take down one of the greatest presidents of the last fifty years, and that is of course George W. Bush. Instead of simply stating what I see is the obvious, lets break it down.

Leadership: George W. Bush. Simply said he is a leader. This president has garnered some of the highest approval ratings in recent history. Now lets look at why this is of significance. First of all is 9/11. One of the worst acts in U.S. history comparable to Pearl Harbor. Nothing short of admirable was his leadership in these most difficult of times. Another very clear example: the War in Iraq. Now I will be the first to admit that this was not one of the most popular moves, and we have not quite found out what we fully expected in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall; but let me tell you this. It takes true leadership to follow your beliefs. I have no doubt that President Bush fully believed Hussein and Iraq to be deserving of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After seeing the horrors that that country endured for twenty plus years, how can anyone doubt the world is better off without him? We still have not found all that Hussein was up to, and you can believe that the Iraqi people will remember Bush with admiration. It takes guts and courage to follow through with what you believe in, and not cave to public and media pressure. George Bush is the unquestioned leader of not only the Republican Party, but of the Free World. When you look at the other side, where is their leadership? Who is it? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Bill? It's unclear not only who are their leaders, but where they stand.

Election 2004. George Bush vs. John Kerry. I am well aware that there have been some polls which show Kerry being able to win. But let me assure you this will not happen. Not only will John Kerry not be sworn in as President in 2005, he will not be close in the election in November. The biggest knock against Bush is an issue that the Democrats play to the public. Of course I'm speaking of the Economy. The democrats tell you that the economy is in a slump due to the President's actions. This is quite simply NOT THE CASE. The economy, as most people do not realize runs in cycles. It flows like water, sometimes it goes up, then others down. Clinton was very fortunate in having a high tide, and as the cycle runs, it began to slump during the early 2000s. This is not George Bush's fault, and it was equally not Clinton's brilliance. The economy flows, no President has that much control. Kerry is being painted (quite succesfully) as a flip-flopper who is distanced from the American people. This election is just beginning for the President who still has a treasure chest in fund raising, while John Kerry has emerged from a difficult Democratic Primary season worn. President Bush will win re-election.

Movement: Think of the past. There were certain places and people who were democratic, no questions asked. Look at the present. Republicans have made solid, and even extreme gains in nearly all of these areas. Think of California and Florida. Previous Democratic strongholds. Now both have Republican governors. Take my home state of Minnesota has a perfect example. For much of its history Minnesota was as democratic as could be. This is the home state of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. Now the current political all stars is Senator Norm Coleman (one of the highest profile freshmen senators in history), and our governor Tim Pawlenty. This is a state that the democrats won by just a few percentage points in 2000. Most indications point to this being a swing state, and a probable Bush state. The democrats are falling back in nearly all areas, with few promising points to brighten the way.

The State of the Union. Economy. Jobs. Taxes. Crime. Housing. Etc. There are numerous issues of concern in this nation. I will sum up the viewpoints quite quickly. Democrats feel that Americans are unreliable, but trustworthy. Its a little backwards. They create high taxes to implement their large amounts of social programs, but encourage early prison release, and easy social welfare programs. Yes I know a lot of this depends on the state, but democratic dogma is everywhere. Republicans on the other hand feel you need to be responsible for yourself. We'll give you tax breaks and see what you do with it. Welfare is mostly unneccesary; see who is on it and how responsible they are. Punishments should be severe. There are to many cases of repeate offenders to trust violent criminals. It seems pretty clear to me.

Media. Take a look at your average newspaper, newscast, or magazine. If you look close, and even more important listen close, you'll see (and yes, hear) how liberal they are. Their is such liberal spin on the media its ridiculous. It would require to much space to list here, but if you open your eyes and ears and listen to how things are worded, and how images are portrayed you'll notice the liberal spin on nearly everything. However when conservatives get a chance at the truth (or their truth if you wish) they thrive. Look at the current kings of the airwaves and bestseller lists. Guys like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the king Rush Limbaugh are undisputed in their arenas. They motivate and inform the faithful and the unsure alike. On the other side are literal goofballs Al Franken, and the king of make believe Michael Moorer. People like that simply make fun of the right, and dish out half-truths to the eager audiences.

America and the World. John Kerry says that several world leaders have privately told him that they want him to beat President Bush in the election. When asked to name them by someone no lower than the Secretary of State Colin Powell he refused. Democrats tell you that America is hurting, and we need to worry about ourselves first. They tell you that we cannot fight Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, North Korea, etc and etc. They are wrong. This is not the world of the 1950's with your Cold War Dualism. This is an uprecedented era of a singular superiority: the U.S. And this is nothing to be ashamed of, we should be proud. We left the 20th century as the strongest political and military power the world has ever seen. We therefore have the duty to respond, we need to, if not be the world's police, monitor the actions of the world. I do not believe in this relativistic viewpoint greys, the world is often black and white. Wrong is wrong. President Bush understands the need for the U.S. to remain the world's superpower. The world is better off with a Republican in the White House. If we do not take action when we should (as opposed to when everybody thinks so, which is never) we run the risk of being to late. We must stop terror and despots when we can, not when everybody finally understands. War in the 21st century needs to be preemptive, lest we run the risk of another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

The UN/World Allies. Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions. Last I checked France and Germany are nearly socialist republics still to scarred from the horrors of World War II to understand the realities of the 21st century. There is a reason we stand dominant over them. Plus, believe me they have clear understanding of what they stand to gain and lose in every action of the U.S. They know they have no physical authority over the U.S., so they use their diplomatic means and the world stage to oppose us. For example, we all know France vehemently opposed the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, but did you know that France received over 70% of their oil from Iraq, and knew they would lose out on authority over the region. The Administration also has publicly stated they will consider leaving the UN if they continued to stand in our way. John Kerry and the democrats would have you believe this is a horrible, world-threatening, action. But President Bush, and I believe in fact quite the opposite. The world is better off with the U.S. in control. If you think about the early to mid 20th century when there were several world powers, there were two World Wars with dozens of millions killed. Ever since the U.S. took over in the late 20th century to today, there has been nothing even remarkably close. And do not try to convince me that the wars in Iraq can be compared.

In closing, I have gone on longer than I thought. But I felt that those people who most often called themselves democrats had few strong reasons for that. Most of those reasons being based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Please feel free to comment.

I will try to keep future commentaries more brief.

Yours Truly,

Mr. Right

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 25, 2004
Guys like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the king Rush Limbaugh are undisputed in their arenas. They motivate and inform the faithful and the unsure alike. On the other side are literal goofballs Al Franken, and the king of make believe Michael Moorer. People like that simply make fun of the right, and dish out half-truths to the eager audiences.


i can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. franken and moore may not be better but to say that those right wing guys don't make fun of the left and dish out half-truths is unbelievable. why do you think rush fans are called "dittoheads"? for their willingness to confront their hero and hold him to high accuracy standards? and you curiously left out ann coulter, a best seller author, for some odd reason.

i recommend you take a look at this site: spinsanity.org

it has good articles calling people out who spout out unfair bs as fact. here's the article on hannity

and to show you it's a fairly balanced website: one from the same site on moore

if you think that rush and hannity are informative and don't dish out half truths, you need to look for some better news sources. if you read that article and have your opinion uchanged the slightest bit then i don't know what to tell you.

on Mar 25, 2004
I respectfully disagree with many areas of your article. I did not vote for George Bush Jr. in 1998, and I have no intention in voting for him in 2004. I do not think a leader is defined as one who is simply corageous and has guts. Many leaders who were courageous and had guts in the past were not at all intelligent and did not represent the will of the people. George Bush ignored many nations around the world and went on his own to do what he thought was right. Was he right? I don't think so, but time will tell. He constantly changed the goal of the war as the war when on. First it was to find WMD in Iraq, then it was to free the world from terrorists and dictators, then it was to free the people of Iraq. What was his real goal in all of this? He also reminded us that "this was the guy who wanted to kill my Dad." The biggest issue is that with all of his policy we may be creating tomorrow's terrorists. What about the children who lost their parents in Iraq or Afghanistan? What about those lost their homes? What will he tell them was the reason we did all this? Now Bush has given future Presidents the responsibility of having to monitor Afghanistan and Iraq and make sure that we continue to support them financially and through our military, because he has taken the role of policing their country and their people. Did he take the time to understand the issues as to why other countries don't like us and to correct those wrongs? War is not always the answer. Bush may have allowed this war to continue on and on throughout history.

9/11 was a horrible tradgedy in this country and has effected the entire world, but George Bush seemed to take that event as more of an opportunity for himself then he did to secure this country and the world against futher terrorism. You can't stop terrorism, it won't ever go away. He's created a war on terrorism, when in fact that war will never end. It seems to me that Bush thinks that there will be one definite day when we can all breathe a sigh of relief and know that terrorism is over. The only way to relieve terrorism is to promote common good and communcation amoung countries so that hurting one country, will then hurt their own country as well.

The USA does not deserve to police the entire world. No one deserves to police the entire world. Conflict among nations will go away only when there is a desired common good. Not when one person tells another nation what is good for them. Why should our president be able to tell a generation in another country what is good for them when our own president has not even been to that country and probably does not know simple geographic questions. There is something called "The McDonald's Theory" which states that no two countries that both have a McDonald's have ever gone to war. This theory has been proved to be true. The reasoning behind it is, is that the McDonald's represents the common good for their economy and the economic consequences of going to war. It's not worth the risk and therefore do not have the conflict problems that lead to war. One person, like George Bush Jr. cannot police other countries, because it will not promote a common desired good. There is no beneficial factor for the other country.

And let's not forget that a few years ago Minnesota was governed by a former WWF superstar and now failed talk show host. He could not even keep a Saturday night MSNBC show on the air for a month. People like Bill O'Riely go on their shows every night and attack cultures they don't understand or even know. O'Riely recently when on the attack of the "rap culture." Meanwhile, he cannot even recite one single rap lyric and has no basis for any of his thoughts. His only view is that he doesn't like it. It doesn't matter if many people do like it or understand it. Just because he doesn't, then it's wrong. If he has this much arrogance when it comes to music culture, think about his thoughts on politics and the world. People like Michael Moore and Al Franken are intelligent individuals because they know how to use humor and wit to get their points accross. They see the bizarre behavior of their opposition and provide insight in their commentary.

I think you have very strong views, and I know your a smart person, but it worries me that you are igoring the other part of this whole thing. The world can't be defined as Black & White. It's much more colorful then that.
on Mar 25, 2004
It flows like water, sometimes it goes up, then others down. Clinton was very fortunate in having a high tide, and as the cycle runs, it began to slump during the early 2000s. This is not George Bush's fault, and it was equally not Clinton's brilliance. The economy flows, no President has that much control.

thanks for re-iterating that... i wish more people agreed with this statement... i agree with every point of your article, and it was very well writtten...

as for responses so far...

George Bush ignored many nations around the world and went on his own to do what he thought was right. Was he right? I don't think so, but time will tell. He constantly changed the goal of the war as the war when on.

(Deep Sarcasm) O.K. you got him. George Bush was the only leader in the world that was in favor of a bringing freedom to the people of Iraq. No one in America was even in favor of it. He called all the shots, made all the decisions on his own, and drove the whole thing...

Are you F-ing kidding me?
on Mar 25, 2004
Woah. Some very direct, and hard points made. If I might add a few comments... mostly aimed toward the original article...

It seems to me that Bush's "War on terror" is going to be a very difficult, near impossible one to keep fighting. Terrorists are small, and very difficult to locate. Many of them are people living normal lives. They have advantages even over huge armies, which is why terrorists can operate around the globe successfully, with virtually zero chance of detection. I read that Osama bin Laden actually requires kidney dialysis. If you cant find someone who has to be in short range of a dialysis machine, then how are you ever going to find "anonymous terrorist #3032" who is about to fill his van up with fertiliser and drive in to a packed building, in the style of Oklahoma? Its just not feasible.

That’s not to say, that in theory its a great idea! Round up all the terrorists and lock them down in Guantanamo (without trial - they're a terrorist for Christ's sake!). But its never going to happen.

Your comments on Europe are nothing but arrogant, and the more people like you post blogs like this, the more people will start to believe that ALL Americans are like you.

Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions. Last I checked France and Germany are nearly socialist republics still to scarred from the horrors of World War II to understand the realities of the 21st century. There is a reason we stand dominant over them. Plus, believe me they have clear understanding of what they stand to gain and lose in every action of the U.S. They know they have no physical authority over the U.S., so they use their diplomatic means and the world stage to oppose us.

Perhaps it is because America has never really experienced war in the ways many Europeans remember it to be that people like you have such an attitude towards things. It also sounds to me, that when you say "The realities of the 21st century", you really should have said "The realities of the 21st century America" as you quite clearly have no conception of "Liberism".

I don’t think your topic is really anything to do with liberalism. It seems more to me that you are making a point about who you want to win in the elections.

Liberal: {Definition}

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favouring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Or....

1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Lateman made an excellent point about how our actions now are really shaping the future, and our children’s future. How many innocents were killed in recent conflicts overseas by US attacks? Missiles hitting civilian targets. Cars full of civilians opened fire upon...

These are stories that will be passed down from generation to generation, and it wont be something what will go away quickly. Not everyone will appreciate or even understand the concepts of "Operation Iraqi freedom" so how can you expect a young Iraqi man to understand that his parents and baby sister were killed as part of something much more important (low oil prices, and err... freedom of the Iraqi people).

Think of California and Florida. Previous Democratic strongholds. Now both have Republican governors.
Its absolutely hilarious that you mention these two states! The terminator runs one, and most people agree that voting was a complete farce in Florida. Some people were banned from taking part in the vote! Now THATS democratic!!! ha ha ha.

The Mac' theory is really interesting! I looked up a bit more about it, and it does sound as though its true! I couldnt find anything dated too recently though. However, I doubt that the answer to war in the middle east is simply to errect a Maccy-D's in Palestine.

Thats my two cents for the morning.
on Mar 25, 2004
My quotes didnt work for some reason in that last post, so sorry if it looks like I wrote some of those things....!! - Is there anyone out there who can tidy it up for me?
on Mar 25, 2004
That was a very long blog so I can't pull out all the bits that I disagree with. Here's a sample:

"First of all is 9/11. One of the worst acts in U.S. history comparable to Pearl Harbor. Nothing short of admirable was his leadership in these most difficult of times"

Do you think it was "admirable" to take half a day to get from Florida to DC when the country had been attacked? He certainly didn't seem like a leader that day. That mantle went to people like Rumsfeld and Guiliani.

"the king Rush Limbaugh"

That's a joke, right?

"Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions"

If you go around insulting other countries, don't expect their help when you make a mess.

I could go on but I won't. Agreed with your points on economic cycles and the shift to the right in parts of the US.

on Mar 25, 2004
We still have not found all that Hussein was up to

You state this as if it's no big deal. Sure we invaded a country, sure we SAID that they had WMD's and we can't back it up. We have spent billions so far on a claim we can't even prove as well as opened a quagmire, but you know what too bad. Is this the type of ideology Americans should emulate?

It takes guts and courage to follow through with what you believe in,

So impulsive action is considered courage now a days, or atleast in your mind...
I can understand that Bush had to act against terrorism but so quickly with Iraq?

George Bush is the unquestioned leader of not only the Republican Party, but of the Free World.

If he was unquestioned we wouldn't have any problems, but most of the rest of the planet disagrees with Bush's views. Even Americans question Bush. This is the reality of things

The economy flows, no President has that much control

This is the only thing that makes sense to me but I don't think it makes sense to you.

Now the current political all stars

What are you looking at politics like basketball or something, do you have an imaginary bench? Let me guess your reserves are Mike Powell, George Tenet, and supreme court justice Antonin Scalia.

Democrats feel that Americans are unreliable, but trustworthy. Its a little backwards

Those words are synonyms if they were backwards they would be antonyms.

the king Rush Limbaugh

It's funny how warped your view of role models is. This is the same guy that has a terrible drug problem that you call "King" but yet you call Al Franken a goofball just because his liberal ignoring the fact that Franken is a Harvard Graduate with actually witty and intelligent things to say. He's a regular guy who is intelligent enough to make inferences in politics.

They are wrong. This is not the world of the 1950's with your Cold War Dualism.

Right it's not the 50's, so why shove ethical views from that era down our throats when the world has cleary changed? Things as revolutionary as stem cell research are getting held back because they are viewed by "SOME" as morally wrong. This technology could heal and save millions yet it has been privatized...


I do not believe in this relativistic viewpoint greys, the world is often black and white

That is the problem the world isn't just black and white, there are too many different ways of thinking. If it was that simple all conflict would be resolved quickly.
The UN/World Allies. Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions. Last I checked France and Germany are nearly socialist republics still to scarred from the horrors of World War II to understand the realities of the 21st century. There is a reason we stand dominant over them. Plus, believe me they have clear understanding of what they stand to gain and lose in every action of the U.S. They know they have no physical authority over the U.S., so they use their diplomatic means and the world stage to oppose us. For example, we all know France vehemently opposed the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, but did you know that France received over 70% of their oil from Iraq, and knew they would lose out on authority over the region.

This is true to a point. All countries, sovereign-states, have their own interests which they must attend to. Look at Israel who recently killed the Hamas founder. It could have created revolt against the U.S. as well but they did it anyways.

The world is better off with the U.S. in control. If you think about the early to mid 20th century when there were several world powers, there were two World Wars with dozens of millions killed. Ever since the U.S. took over in the late 20th century to today, there has been nothing even remarkably close. And do not try to convince me that the wars in Iraq can be compared.

Last time I checked Bush has been around post 20th century, the rest of the work was done by Democrats as well as Republicans.

Please feel free to comment.

If Bush is left unchecked pretty soon I will not be free to comment.
You sound like a very influenced individual sir, even the government is capable of making mistakes. I like what Bush has done on defense but overall a lot of his policies are risky and dangerous. I try to look at it from both sides but you rely to heavily on the fact that this administration is right no matter what. Is he right on healthcare? What about technology? Is he a war vet? Does he give us thorough explanations on why he does things? Try to answer those questions with an actual answer with facts and you'll see that even your precious Bush is not flawless. With his focus on this war what about the mission to mars that Nasa has reportedly said they cannot afford? The economy is improving and jobs are decent I have to give him that but you give him way too much credit.

But I felt that those people who most often called themselves democrats had few strong reasons for that. Most of those reasons being based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.

This is awfully condescending on your part. I disagree with what you have to say but I don't disagree with every republican in the world. So you feel you are better or have more importance. That is terribly narcissistic.
on Mar 25, 2004
As an european guy, i can assure you, the USA under mister "double u" are on their best way towards isolation.
The issues like war on terrorism and the constant change of goals in iraq doesn´t make the thing better. No nukes, no AMD´s, no ties to Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden, nothing. But Halliburton and other american companies enriching them, by the blood of american soldiers and Iraqui civilians.
I only can hope, like my american friends living in europe, that the next elections will show GW that he was wrong. By the way: he didn´t won the 2000 elections: it was a pityfull exhibition of denying the poeple´s will. Couple of weeks of vote-counting, until it gave the result wanted by CNN, ABC and the other companies... SHAME on U, USA!
Kind regards,
Chris
on Mar 25, 2004

Senator Norm Coleman has a high profile becuase he is in the big shoes of Wellstone and all of Missouri is watching, lest he besmirch Paul's incredible legacy, not to mention that of HH.

In addition, it's not very ethical not to show some respect for the dead--even though liberalism is alive and well.

on Mar 25, 2004
The likes of Mr. Right and imajinit would do themselves a favor in trying to understand someone insightful like psychx.
on Mar 25, 2004
"The USA does not deserve to police the entire world. No one deserves to police the entire world. Conflict among nations will go away only when there is a desired common good."

If we don't then who will? The U.N.? I don't think so. The world is a dangerous place, and if you just let people like saddam and osama do what they want, the world would be in more danger than anybody could imagine.

"O'Riely recently when on the attack of the "rap culture." Meanwhile, he cannot even recite one single rap lyric and has no basis for any of his thoughts. His only view is that he doesn't like it. It doesn't matter if many people do like it or understand it."

Mr. O'Reilly has played lyrics of the rappers several times. You don't have to memorize the songs to know that most of them are violent and not good for children. His basis is that rap is promoting vilolence and many other things and he is against that. What is so wrong with that?

"As an european guy, i can assure you, the USA under mister "double u" are on their best way towards isolation."

I can assure you most Americans really don't care if we are "isolated" from the EU. Euro's have shown time and time again they would rather appease terrorists and dictators, and hope terrorism would just go away. Those days are over.

"By the way: he didn´t won the 2000 elections: it was a pityfull exhibition of denying the poeple´s will. Couple of weeks of vote-counting, until it gave the result wanted by CNN, ABC and the other companies... SHAME on U, USA!"

Bush did win the 2000 election. Here we go with the tin hat conspiracy theories again. Gave the results that ABC and CNN wanted? They wanted Gore to win, what are you talking about? I can say shame on you and the EU. You guys need to stand up and stop appeasing terrorists and stop being afraid of "offending" somebody. It will be great when it comes out how the leaders of the EU were being bribed by saddam to defend him.



on Mar 25, 2004
If Bush is left unchecked pretty soon I will not be free to comment.


I've heard this being said since Bush was sworn in, and I see nothing to indicate that people are going to be silenced for their views. Melodrama does not help one's argument.

As an european guy, i can assure you, the USA under mister "double u" are on their best way towards isolation.
The issues like war on terrorism and the constant change of goals in iraq doesn´t make the thing better. No nukes, no AMD´s, no ties to Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden, nothing. But Halliburton and other american companies enriching them, by the blood of american soldiers and Iraqui civilians.


I have to agree with island dog. Considering Europe's own hypocrisy (they had no problem invading Milosevic's sovereignty but are completely against invading Hussein's? Suspicious...), it's not as if we need to appease them. Besides, we have plenty of allies still. After all, not everybody was against the war to free Iraq.

I only can hope, like my american friends living in europe, that the next elections will show GW that he was wrong. By the way: he didn´t won the 2000 elections: it was a pityfull exhibition of denying the poeple´s will. Couple of weeks of vote-counting, until it gave the result wanted by CNN, ABC and the other companies... SHAME on U, USA!


Actually, the results were always in favor of Bush, including the first ones.
on Mar 25, 2004
this article was long winded, oversimplistic and the author couldn't have been more guilty of straw man arguements for the other side...i won't go on and on here,,,but if you wish to read the other side of the coin,,,go here,,,

Link

on Mar 25, 2004
Bush did win the 2000 election. Here we go with the tin hat conspiracy theories again. Gave the results that ABC and CNN wanted? They wanted Gore to win, what are you talking about? I can say shame on you and the EU. You guys need to stand up and stop appeasing terrorists and stop being afraid of "offending" somebody. It will be great when it comes out how the leaders of the EU were being bribed by saddam to defend him.


It's always funny to see someone condemn conspiracy theories, only to follow it up by launching a fresh one. Well done!

The root of the problem is in the "black & white" theory that the original poster referred to. As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. All nuance is out of the window, there is no room for discussion or for different insights. It is this completely polarised outlook on the world that is screwing up so many things right now.

From my European viewpoint, the most offensive thing about Bush and his supporters is their almost automatic claim of moral superiority. Basically, one of the first thing Bush did after 9/11 was turn to a quite brutal dictator in Pakistan and appease him to be able to use his country as a base of operations against the Taliban. Moral superiority my backside.
on Mar 25, 2004
"It's always funny to see someone condemn conspiracy theories, only to follow it up by launching a fresh one. Well done!"

There is more facts that the U.N. and euro leaders were bribed than any conspiracy theory about the 2000 election.

"As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. All nuance is out of the window, there is no room for discussion or for different insights. It is this completely polarised outlook on the world that is screwing up so many things right now."

You are either with us fighting terrorism, or are against us. I don't see what the problem is. Well I actually do see the problem. The euro's can't appease the terrorists and dictators like they used to under previous administrations. There is absolutely no room for discussion involving terrorism. You are either for or against it. Which side is the EU on?
3 Pages1 2 3