Bush = Hitler? You = Jackass. (6307 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: -0.26 on 60 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Eric Kinneary <eric_d_crackpot.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-04-05 21:49:13 EST
So apparently, somewhere in the course of this war Bush became Hitler. Of course, that makes perfectly logical and completely coherent sense. Bush is the president of the United States of America, which is a country based on free speech, capatilism, and judicial tolerance. Hitler ruled Germany, which was a country now based on fear, socialism, and racism. Certainly I can see the similarities. Let's further delve, shall we? And hey, lets even throw in another of our friends. Saddam!
A:
Hitler took over near-bye countries to expand the German empire.
Saddam attempted to invade Iran to expand the Iraqi empire.
Bush sends troops to countries in order to keep the peace and protect non-American citizens, while never asking for any land larger than that for a cemetary.
B:
Hitler killed millions of people who he believed not to be of the 'master race.'
Saddam has killed millions of Iraqi citizens in an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Bush has killed over a hundred murderers and rapists while Governor of Texas.
C:
Hitler put political rivals to death.
Saddam puts political rivals to death.
Bush was elected.
D:
Hitler had people taken from their homes at night and shot.
Saddam has people taken from their homes at night and during the day and shot.
Bush believes in free speech.
You know, after taking a good look at this table, I see some sort of pattern emerging. I'm not quite sure what it is, though. Can anyone help me?
User Reviews
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-02-20 06:21:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The legitimacy issue isn't going away anytime soon, and anyone who doesn't have his head up Shrub's ass should realize this & acknowledge it. Especially people to the right of Bush. No one can expect to maintain moral integrity while reaping benefits from having a drunken theiving deserter as their leader, certainly no legitimate policy can be built on this pile of manure.
And therein lies the tragedy & hypocrisy of the american right who, in order to support Bush & his deviant policies, HAVE TO abandon their mostly imaginary christian familiy values.
You cannot reconcile the plain & obvious theivery, shirking of the basic citizen's duties and means spiritedness so prevailing in this administration with any kind of moral stance, which for some unfathomable reason is an important issue to the american voter. Oh, sure, Biker Bob and cronies will continue to spit & froth at the mouth, but this is pretty much all they can do, which is why i expect that at least some of the religious right to eventually heed the pull from the pews and leave Bush to burn...
And therein lies the opportunity of the american centre-right( dems & the like) to sieze the moral high ground. There hasn't been an opportunity like this since Nixon, who btw. was a choir boy compared to Regan or the shrubs. It is unfortunate that the american centre-right are totaly unprepared for this. It is of course understandable that, if you are accustomed to being in opposition to people who believe in their monopoly on ethical behaviour, the american opposition embraces various groups which are just as unreconcilable with the incredibly tightasses, claustrophobic vision of "traditional family values" being currently propagated.
And
this is the crux, me hearties, the fact that despite constitutional injunctions to the contrary, In america Religion has gone into politics with a vengence, and done so long,long ago, in a galaxy far away.
This leads me to the reflect that the opposition _ought_ to be beating the Bush like a gong ( pardon the mixed metaphor) on domestic ethical issues which are of signal importance to his core constituency instead of attacking the war effort.
Don't let yourselves be manouvered into a position of supporting foreign interests and especially multinational efforts which oppose the vested interest of americans, viz the war effort. This is a politically and practically untenable position, political suicide.
In conclusion: Throw the Bums Out!!! You have nothing to loose abut an ignorant, drunken AWOL yahoo, and your own self respect to gain....
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-02-20 04:17:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously. Only crybabies care about democracy and the legitimacy of a presidential election.
Remember, only terrorists demand recounts.
Submitted by BikerRob (user info) at 2004-02-20 04:01:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Lucifer_Industries (user info) at 2004-02-20 03:19:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
GEORGE BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED. Don't you or anyone ever forget that.
Malone
Lucifer Industries LLC
http://www.luciferindustries.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Go take a Midol and change your napkin. Friggin crybaby.
Submitted by Lucifer_Industries (user info) at 2004-02-20 03:19:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GEORGE BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED. Don't you or anyone ever forget that.
Malone
Lucifer Industries LLC
http://www.luciferindustries.com
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2004-02-20 03:04:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bush sends troops to countries in order to keep the peace and protect non-American citizens, while never asking for any land larger than that for a cemetary.
That, and billions in dollars of revenue from Iraqi oil fields.
You are right, George Bush is nothing like Hitler. But, George bush IS a homophobic, egocentric, reactionary, pushy, unintellegent asshole. Am I the only one who's noticed that we stopped going after the man that KILLED NEARLY 4,000 OF OUR FELLOW AMERICANS in order to pursue Saddam Hussein and secure all that oil?
Submitted by enraged_baboon (user info) at 2004-02-20 02:34:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I THINK GEORGE BUSH IS AWESOME
ALSO: I LIKE TO KICK BABIES
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-02-20 02:31:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-02-20 02:31:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by BikerRob (user info) at 2004-02-20 02:23:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sold out to who? Wetbacks?
Now wait a minute.... I don't remember Bush being in office when NAFTA was signed, making it easy for large companies to aquire cheap labor outside our borders (thus eliminating American jobs).
I think his initials were "Bill Clinton".
Submitted by ElectricLights <samh1974.at.msn.com> at 2004-01-07 09:51:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hitler would never sell out to wetbacks, which is what shrub did today. Thanks for everything, SHRUB!
Submitted by Shay (user info) at 2004-01-06 14:08:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Bush is nowhere near Hitler of course, but he still SUCKS with a capital S!!!!!
Submitted by Perplexd (user info) at 2004-01-06 13:54:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2
Submitted by Perplexd (user info) at 2004-01-06 13:54:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
another brainwashed bush fan. I hope your expired before election day.
Submitted by Sublimed (user info) at 2003-04-27 00:58:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bush does NOT believe in free speech. On Maddox's site, he has a quote were he says somethign to the effect of "There ought to be limits to freedom" When somebody critiszed him. Yeah, sounds like he really loves the free speech.
Submitted by JimmyHahr <plutoniumkamikazeechickenfeet@> at 2003-04-27 00:44:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
A:
Hitler took over near-by countries to expand the German empire.
Saddam attempted to invade Iran to expand the Iraqi empire.
Bush took over Iraq to get his greedy hands on fossil fuels.
B:
Hitler killed millions of people who he believed not to be of the 'master race.'
Saddam has killed millions of Iraqi citizens in an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
C:
Hitler put political rivals to death.
Saddam puts political rivals to death.
Bush stole the election. Jeb gave him Florida. He used some bullshit absentee ballots,
and he faxed lists of felons from other states to Florida so that anybody who had ever committed
a felony couldn't vote.
D:
Hitler had people taken from their homes at night and shot.
Saddam has people taken from their homes at night and during the day and shot.
Bush: So does dropping bombs on their houses make it any different?
By the way, Captain Yee-Haw, Rednecks are fucking stupid.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-08 05:02:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And another thing, lo_sal, the second link has nothing to do with aid - which we do not need - it has something to do with Poland buying your reconditioned fighter aircraft You'd have had to give away or scrap. I don't know how much you kow about contracts as such, but an offset (in this case) is the amount of money/investment the seller promises to funnel back to the buyer in exchange for accepting his goods. Poland picked the F16 mostly because Poles are quite uncriticaly proamerican & because you offered us money to take your merchandise - you competed for those 3.5 Billion in cash & your bid won over the swedish Gripen & the french Mirage. Fighter Jets aren't hamburgers - once you make a commitment to buy them, you have to invest in very expensive parts & maintenance, moreover you have to either import or produce those parts localy. It is eminently in the interest of america to have alternative sources of components & having us produce them localy makes it easier for you to sell more jets to countries which would otherwise not consider buying them.
If anyone is extending aid here it is Poland which is helping the US ... you take our aid & criticise? go ahead - that's what freedom of speech is all about...
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-07 18:14:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's too bad that you're a bitter little boy who had a bad experience with texas roughnecks, though I am glad you decided to share your pain which might thereby be somewhat mitigated.
My memories of The Great State of Texas are good ones - I have plenty of friends & family there I keep in touch with & occasionaly visit ;) I'm glad that you agree with me that the shrubs are worthless, evil scheeming bastards & that you deem to compare them to Polish politicians the article you linked to critiques, who are equaly worthless, if not quite as evil, corrupt, purjured or rich. I don't know if you actually read the piece, but for your edification the SLD - the politicians who are involved in the Lew Rywin scandal - are the ex-communists who are currently in power.
I am mostly in agreement with Jan Maria Rokita, a centre-right politician & elected representative who is essentaily leading the comission lookling into their ( the SLD's ) connection to the KRRITV commision. You are also correct about finding dumb rednecks in Poland which is a country with a long & proud rural tradition. Fully a third of Poles are farmers/rural folk. Over here we call them "Burak" which is also generic name for red beets, a comparison which evokes similar images as redneck does in your country.
This is neither here or there as far as the subject of our exchange is concerned, because Bush - that Burak supreme - is no less a Burak, liar, deserter, purjurer or drunken bum for all the ridicule you might bring on Poland's ruling elite ( which are for the most part Burakspawn since they are ex-communists & as is well known the commies didn't trust either the middle class or the hereditary nobility.
That's right - Poland's ruling elite are unfortunately ( until the upcoming early election anyway ) rednecks & corrupt slimeballs, but none of them ever had the temerity to suggest that by sending our special forces & ABC countermeasure units to the gulf we were fighting for the freedom of the poor indiginous people of who gives a fuck where. No one would believe them because Poles have an experience with wars of liberation & propaganda. Like you & the Brits, Poles are there because we stand to gain something from this excursion - in all likelyhood reconstruction contracts for iraqi infrastructure ( something largely built by Polish companies in the 70's & 80's anyway ) - we just don't have to lie to ourselves about it nor try to convince the world that an offensive war meant to sieze control of the second largest developed oil producing nation in the middle east is a war to liberate anything but money & power from the evil hands of saddam.
IMO the second iraqi oil war is a splendid example of incidentaly doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. I fully support the notion of disarming saddam since I as a Jew consider him to be truly the only viable threat to Israel's security, I support the fact of destroying his military & I look forward to the economic recovery which should follow the lowering of oil prices - I could only wish that the coalition of the lying might tell the truth for once instead of hiding behind empty platitudes & meanigless catch phrases such as freedom, WMD's or terrorism
If you want to know what this war is really about - and I can tell that you don't - then you perhaps ought to look at a simple graph representing oil price as a function of time & accompaning world events -- http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/crudeoilprice4797c.gif
or the source http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-04-07 17:23:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My sister is stationed at Fort Bliss. She sounds so depressed when she calls--she hates the desert.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-04-07 17:11:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i hate texas... i hate it... i hate it, i hate it, i hate it.... everything in texASS is made especially for texas. they now have a texas edition dodgoe ram. what if i rolled up in a rhode island edition ram? i know this is completely off the subject, but i really do hate texas, and i couldn't hold it in. and bush is a piece of shit, too.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 16:07:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm a bitter little dude who got ruffed up and pick on by a bunch Texan macho boys when I was young and I've never gotten over it.
Yeah, in the same ABC news documentry the interview with George Sr. showed him crying over the decision he had to make. He couldn't understand why Saddam didn't think he was serious and he wasn't sure if he was going to able to make that decision to go. And besides....the President of the United States is the only job in the world where everyday you open up the newspaper and everyone is writing about how much you suck at your job. Would you watch TV or read the paper everyday? Could you take that much critizism without it effecting your job? This concerns all the Presidents, not just the two Shrubs.
And besides...I live in the NorthEast United States and even I don't have to travel that far to find a bunch rural yahoos. I bet there's plenty of red-neck idiots in villages around Poland.
And like your politicians don't cause enough trouble.
http://www.poland.pl/articles/view.htm?id=37042
Criticize and take our help too -
http://www.poland.pl/articles/view.htm?id=26452
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-07 15:33:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Having grown up in Texas, I can say with some authority that I know something about texas rednecks, drunken, white-trashy or otherwise. I was there when UU became the governor of the state & to date, the defining statement he made about the death penalty in Texas stands alone as the second dumbest remark ever made by a texas governor. Bush said: "As far as I'm concerned, there has not been one innocent person executed since I've been the governor". It's not that Bush didn't know of any cases where DNA evidence discounted the convicted man - he simply refused to accept that as a qualification.
Bush has, on more than one occasion, stated that his viewpoint is the only correct one - he also considers himself to be chosen by God almighty to lead the free world iuncluding this pearl: "our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world of justice". Next we'll hear that he's the messiah come again....
Actually, when people responsible for making political decisions share the loot with their cronies it's called the spoils system or corruption, kickbacks - there are many words for what is going on & none of them would be complimentary. I feel no hatred for Bush or for his cronies - what motivates me is disgust & a deep conviction that american people will one day wake up & send the ugly redneck yahoo back where he came from - to Yale. It is my fervent hope that America, the country I grew up in & learned to love, will rebound from this nadir of white trash despair & show the world once again the values & the character that forged a new nation. Unfortuantely neither the present administration nor any of the preceding ones going back at least to LBJ would be able to do it. Leadership is done by example; unfortuantely the examples that UU bush can set for you are all throughly in the negative:
He could teach you how to desert from the air force & not get caught
He could teach you how to screw your investors & how to break SEC regulations
He could teach you about nepotism & being a spoiled rich frat boy
He could teach you about purjury & lying under oath
He could teach you how to be a mean, heartless & cruel ( by making fun of people pleading for their life)
He could teach you to drink & drive you to it without having to face the consequences of a DWI
He could teach you about the power a well connected family has to make drug arrests disappear
He could teach you how....you can fill in the rest - I have an idea that you won't have to wait too long to find out. No wonder - here is where UU got his family values, respect for life he flouts & a sense of what is really important:
"The following is from an immensely interesting transcript of Barbara Bush on an ABC-TV morning show. She was asked if she and her husband, the former president, watch television.
"He sits and listens and I read books because I know perfectly well that - don't take offense - that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it's, not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 15:13:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i guess ill take your word for it...but if it was me i would be pretty pissed, and that would not only hurt my morale, but everyones morale around me. Thats what i was going from at least.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-04-07 15:04:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bush is a fraud, a politician who's first leagal act in office as the governor of the state of Texas was a tax increase to subsidize his baseball stadium."
How sure are you on this Yidele? My mom said that right after Bush became gov. she recieved a raise and her ghetto school started getting more funding. Every room got a brand new apple computer, not to mention 2 whole computer labs, benfits became better, test scores were going up. That was statewide too, not just in Amarillo. That could of had something to do with it. But alas, I am not extremely educated in these matters.
Peace,
STREETPUNK
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 15:03:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
poison - Trust me. The protesters are really not hurting the troop's morale. Just as long as there are those who support them too.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 13:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant "tangent"
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 13:44:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow! What hate we breath and go'wno we spit. What president did you like? Clinton? He was a money laundering slut-chaser. Oh, that didn't matter since it didn't involve you. You could say that Nixon was a racist. Or that Jefferson slept with little boys. We don't stereotype like that: "A mean spirited redneck doofus whose constant gaffes & inarticulate white trash stupidity" - yidele. I forgot that all Americans are gun toting, trigger happy yahoos. What are the stereotypes that involve the Polish. Let's see....man, I would fill this post up so fast that the server would crash. Being on the other end of stereotyping drivel is not fun. I know. My family is Polish! (And let me say that my grandmother makes killer kielbasa)
I love it when people say that it was preplaned and they show the documents and make the connections to other companies. It's called a government and contingency plans! All governments do it (any government that is successfull). You have an administration that is constintly making plans. Independent officials and different party members are always writing about policy and "with if" plans. It's called being prepared! All real governments do it! It's called being flexible! You have be able to change. To adapt. When something happens you call on the reports that have been written and determine which is going to best suit the situation. This is why most Tolitarian and Monarchy governments fail in the long-term. Because they stick to one person's ideology and they don't adapt. That is why Western culture is so successful. It goes back to the Greeks.
Sorry for the targent. - kurwiec
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 13:23:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
low sodium...i think thats what i was trying to get at. If the majority of people in the US were against the war, we would have no business being in it, but right now most of the US is for the war, so protesting isnt doing anything except lowering our troops morale. This small majority of people is dominating dommestic news and it seems like they are distorting the public view through the media, because when i turn on the TV it seems like everyone but me is against the war, when in actuallity its not...but still...i think you were dead on because protesting at this stage is counterproductive...just like you said.
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-04-07 12:57:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Monkeys with low sodium are better for you.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-07 12:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
actually, low_sal, It was eric kinneary who made the original dumbass post. So you're surprised that someone from Poland might compare Bush to Hitler? Did I compare Hitler to Bush? What I actually said was:
"Bush isn't Hitler - While they do have some things in common, they differ on a few key points: Hitler was smart. Hitler served in the armed forces & risked his life. Hitler wasn't a drunk yahoo Hitler never choked on a pretzel. Hitler was upfront about his ambitions for world domination. George W. Bush isn't any of those things, he isn't Hitler, hell he's not even a Nazi, but his Granddad was. Yup, the Bush family has a long history of supporting & investing in totalitarian & racist regimes - George Bush isn't Hitler but you have to be pretty sad as an individual to loose an international popularity contest with Saddam....."
Are you having difficulty understanding this? Let me make it plainer for you:
Hitler was smarter, braver & more honest than your president.
1)Bad as he was, Hitler didn't shirk military duty & fought in the trenches of WWI.
2)Hitler was a cunning politician, an inspiring speaker & a smart politician who almost completely dominated german politics from the Beer-Hall putsch in munich untill his death.
3)Hitler was completely up-front about his designs for conquest, laid out the path to german domiantion of europe for years before the II war.
Hitler was also a monstrous criminal responsible for the deaths of millions, he was an evil man I wish that someone had the balls & opportunity to wack his evil ass before any of this happened, but - and this is the killer - he was undoubtedly smarter, braver & more honest than your president
This is the issue, not the war, not the election, not even 9/11 in all its horror - you have allowed a terrible man to rule you. A creature from the drunken redneck lagoon sprawls in your white house, a deserter AWOL from his unit whom you allow to lead your men to battle, a thief, liar, purjurer & corrupt inside trader whom you allow to preach to you about fiduciary responsibility & holding CEO's accountable ( the same CEO's from whom bush accepted multimillion dollar election cotributions). A mean spirited redneck doofus whose constant gaffes & inarticulate white trash stupidity are the stock joke for the rest of the world represents the interest of a small inner circle of the priviledged who can't even disguise their open looting of your economy & their commercial designs on the resources of other countries enforced by your military. Chaney's Halliburton won the contract to rebuild Iraqi oil fields even before any action was "officialy decided" on - doesn't that tell you how corrupt your administration is? They are dividing the loot before they even "oficialy decide" the course of action that makes this loot remotely accessible.
Yes - Your pressident can't be compared to Hitler - they aren't in the same class when it comes to any of the benchmarks - on the whole, Hitler was more of a man, more of a leader, more forthright & more of a criminal than Bush - so far. Let's give UU Bush some more time to develop those criminal tendencies - i feel certain that he is bound for bigger things - genocide, the overthrow of your republic, certainly more wars & maybe even a cosy little police state, but unless he unleashes armageddon on us, he can't even compare to hitler as a criminal.....
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 11:21:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just to clarify. I never said I was, "for War". I never even voted for Bush. But if this administration concluded that this action is necessary than I respect that decision. Just to note: There is a fine line with protesting in a democracy (well, we're really a republic). Currently these protests strengthen this current admistration's stance. As long as they remain the way they are the government can easily say, "Well, we accept this group's views and their right to free speech. Unlike other country's where your opinion would be oppressed." The current protesters are actually being counter-productive. It's not until a major majority objects and the protesting starts to effect the infastructure of government. Like what happened in the sixties.
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 10:57:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All these anti war people i talk to always bring up the fact that we helped the taliban and we put saddam in power and try to use that as their argument. They couldnt have a worse one, because by fighting this war we are admitting our mistake and trying to fix the problem we caused. Low sodium...i gotta say you are right on track.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 10:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
And yeah we armed and helped trained the Muslim Mujahadeen guerrillas to fight the Soviets. Everyone can admit the U.S. turned their back when the Soviets left. And modern history obviously showed that they went nuts and broke into civil war and the rise of the Taliban happened. We are paying the price for this and now we trying to correct that action. It will take long term involvment and obligation. If the people just give time and patience maybe the U.S. and the U.N. can help improve these countries. Wow! What a concept! We are actually taking responsiblity. Unlike countries of the past.
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 10:39:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
when i lived in germany i went to dachau...that place was fucked up. they did some pretty gross stuff to people there.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-04-07 10:22:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
O.K.
I have to requote this:
"I have been living in Poland after repatriating & have since then built a family & professional life. I am married with two kids......I like the south/southwestern part of US best, my favourites being Texas & Lousiana. Nothing surprises me more consistently than stupidy & meanness, I intensly dislike bullies & ignorant yahoos. I do think that some people ought to be shot & would have no compunction in using lethal force in defense of the things I hold dear. I am not a pacifist. I do believe that certain principles such as personal freedom or the right to choose your government deserve to be defended at the cost of life. I do not value human life in and of itself as something inherently more important than quality of existance." - yidele
I find this really weird. The fact that someone from Poland is actually making this comparison. The one country that was completely f'd by Hitler and Stalin. It's also strange that the last couple sentences sound like a description of Bush. I'm a third generation Polish-American and my GreatGrandMother went through hell because of that sick fuck. And my GrandFather helped liberate Dachau. I'm not saying I'm Polish (I'm American), but the fact is that in reality and in International Relations (and your own personal life) everything can be linked to something that is not acceptable or bad. Everyone here on this board is guilty of something. And everyone here could find someone else that would make up condemnable accusations about them. (Heck. The U.N. was collecting over 50% from the profits of the oil for food program in Iraq. And Jordan pipelined plenty of oil out of Iraq with plenty of the U.N. officals aware of it.)
rebuttal links (concerning Saddam and the people of Iraq):
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iraq.html
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ink/iraq/fkurd1991.htm
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ink/iraq/firaq1991.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/iraq/
http://home.achilles.net/~sal/Iq_rulers.html
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/history/gulfwar.htm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_126884.html
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/Test/KURDS
http://www.msnbc.com/news/895233.asp?vts=040420030630
http://www.britain.org.nz/news/iraq17mar03.html
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000733.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/newsweek032398c.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/03/otsc.irq.sadler/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.khazar.kurds/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/03/sprj.irq.kurd.opposition/index.html
(note: variety of sources: independent and mainstream)
It's also about doing the right thing. No matter what people think. Are kids not taught this anymore? They weren't taught it in Nazi Germany. The fact is that in 1945 the United States had the world in the palm of its hand. If it was any other world power the planet would be much different place. That was the first time in history that had ever happened. The U.S. controled a majority of Europe and the Pacific and we had the Bomb. We didn't have any obligation to rebuild our enemys. The League of Nations even refused that for Germany in WWI. If the U.N. wants our assistance in helping provide the hammer for the nail they're going to have rethink the way they behave to. It's 2003 and no major government on this planet should be this immoral. You know it. And I know it. Millions died last century over this shit. And this type of systematic killing of civilians cannot be permitted to go on.
Yeah. It must be about the oil. Ten years age we really went in there and stole the Kuwait's oil. Our companies own their oil fields and are bleeding their country dry. Not! The standard of living is now higher then before 91'. And rising. Have you forgotten the picture of the dead man hanging from a crane in the middle of Kuwait City. A friend of mine is collecting rats in Kuwait right now because Saddam released vermin infected with bubonic plague right before the war started. But he and friends know they are going to be saving more lives in the long run.
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2003-04-07 09:50:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Cheers Poison... heard other ppl go on about all that and never knew what they were on about!
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 09:06:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
basically it is me just bitching on a monday morning..dont take anything i say really seriously.
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 08:55:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Because... In all actuallity Gore won the popular vote by something like 395 votes (or something like that) and bush had the head of the florida electoral committe in his pocket. He had them not only deny the votes of felons (which is legal) but the head of the flordia elctoral committe had them deny the vote to people with names and social security numbers simmilar to those of felons. He got late ballots and improperly submitted overseas servicemens ballots that were in his favor, but had others in gores favor discarded....if you really want me to go into detail i can explain all this but i dont feel like it right now...but basically gore won the popular vote, bush went to the supreme court (full of old republicans who wanted to end their career under a republican majority) etc....i dont think either of them should have been president to tell the truth...but thats another story entirely.
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2003-04-07 07:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok.... Im English so excuse my ignorance on this subject but why was Bush not elected?
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 07:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
and by didn't i mean wasn't.
Submitted by poisonyourkids (user info) at 2003-04-07 07:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
C:
Hitler put political rivals to death.
Saddam puts political rivals to death.
Bush was elected. <----------------- No he didn't.
Submitted by NicTheMaster (user info) at 2003-04-07 07:01:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2
Having wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all the replies to this topic, I feel obliged to offer the following. The arguments and comparrisons themselves are so badly formed and constucted I wonder why anybody bothers to argue with you at all.
Example :-
Hitler- Liked blue painted trains. Didn't know Charlie Chaplin.
Saddam- Doesn't eat Fish on a tuesday afternoon, did like the early MASH series.
Bush- Went to Idaho on a visit in 1978, but also watched Ghostbusters with the rest of us in 1985.
Hitler- Spiky
Saddam- Bouncy
Bush- Slightly worn.
I feel the above points have prooved beyond a shadow of a doubt that....................
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-07 05:50:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<an employer in most european countries can't even ask you questions regarding your private life that aren't pertinent to your job such as drug use history, past convictions or trouble with the law, sexual preference and other such private matters on pain of being sued for breaking the law. >
cat: Well I guess that says a lot there by itself, doesn't it Yidele?
Yid: it sure does. What it does say, cat, is that privacy & individual's rights to it are better protected & respected in most european countries than they are in the US; I have yet to be stopped by some nosy, gun toting dick who could shoot me at his discretion & be sure of a no-bill by a grand jury. By some weird coincidence, gun & violent crime statistics are a fraction of those in the land of the free. coincidence? I don't think so.
CAT: They were not manufactured by public demand, but they were words that the public was wanting to hear. A President cannot just run off and do whatever he pleases - he cannot tell the public he wants to free the Iraqi people and use that as a justification for war. Similarly, in the post 911 era of paranoia, the public wanted SOMETHING done.
Yid: You can try to invert the cause-effect relationship all you want, but the facts speak for themselves & those facts are:
The attacks of 9/11 were executed by terrorists trained by your government, paid by your government & maintained by the grace of the CIA. Osama was a company employee in afghanistan during the war against the russians, he was trained & supplied by you for the express purpose of blowing things up. This is a perfect example of how American foreign policy breeds the monstaers you are later convinced you must fight. You have created your own monsters - now you try to convince the world that you must react to this "unprovoked agression" on behalf of freedom loving people of Iraq, Afghanistan & other, as yet unnamed , nations. Your government plays you like a cheap harmonica, the notes of rightious indignation, concern for other's freedom or global disarmament are false & tinny. Yes, the president can do what he pleases - no, despite openly breaking the law of your land he is not being prosecuted or made accountable - yes, the checks & balances are meaningless when a loaded supreme court always rules in favour of the executive. No, the power of congress do declare war is not being excersized despite the fact that you are yet again at war.
<You claim that there are no urine samples being taken, no surveilance being used against american citizens? You have to be kidding>
CAT: No, I didn't claim that. I said (or intended to say) that the epidemic rape of American liberties is not as widespread as rampant as seem to make it sound. I have yet to see a Gestapo patrolling the streets and hey! I can even bitch about the government on Ubersite! Surely, in the Gestapo world you project I would not have such a right.
Yid: Thank you for confirming what we both know to be true - you are loosing your liberties one by one & while you don't yet see the gestapo marching ask yourself this question: To what purpose iare the provisions authorising surveilance of american citizens & open gathering of personal data about the same aimed? what good purpose can they serve? How does creating a department with broad ranging powers over domestic affairs & unaccountable to anyone except the president enhance your security against external threats? Don't you realize that the first step & most important milestone towards creating a totalitarian or authoritarian state is the creation of an internal security apparatus which answers only to the would be dictator? If you are a student of history then take a good look at both Nazi Germany & the soviet union - in both cases, the security apparatus was the first structure created which made further gains in power possible. Hitler's SA , SS, Gestapo were all political tools to be used AGAINST the population of his own country first & foremost. Stalin's CZEKA, NKVD and eventually KGB were used for the same purpose. Look to south & central america where every tinpot dictator has his own death squads used primarily for eliminating domestic dissent.
The time to react to encroachment of your freedoms is now, while you still can do something - not when your Ameri-Gestapo is goose stepping down main street. Take advice from your founding fathers and other thinkers, they had some interesting things to say about this subject:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
--William Pitt (1759-1806
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
CAT:The system of checks and balances is still in place. Unless a President attempts to override that system, a totalitarian regime isn't happening. Let's remember when FDR attempted to eliminate the power of the SC (essentially): he failed.
Yid: the system you are refering to no longer works. For this system to work, the supreme court would have to rule against the continous demands for more power & authority by the federal government. All powers not specificly enumerated are reserved to the states - there is no constitutional basis for either the power or authority of most of the federal beaurocracy - certainly none exists for a federal police forces with no clearly defined jurisdictions such as the BATF or the FBI. Their very existance is proof enough of the fact that the power o the federal government is unchecked.
<You can't return the rights of folks dead & tortured to death & no amount of apologies make up for the fact of being incarcerated>
CAT:Alright - but we also have always elected politicans who have not necessarily had the choice to do what was best for the public - rather, they had the choice to do what the public THOUGHT was good fort them at the TIME. At the time immediately following 9-11, a frighteningly large amount of Americans wanted to nuke the Middle East. Some clamored for mass genocide of Muslims, some even bombed a mosque in Dallas (if I recall correctly). If France or Germany had gotten attacked in a similar manner as America was, their citizens would react the same way - that's not to say those countries haven't experienced terrorism, because they most certainly have, but they have not experienced in recent times the large attack that 9-11 was. If they did, they'd be just as a war-thirsty and paranoid as Americans are now. It's not even a matter of politics - it's a matter of human nature. But of course, in cozy Europe you are not about to be attacked as America was - Europeans have thrived quite well under the American military umbrella and have no need for military power. As such, they are not perceived as a threat and subsequently, they do not treat the 'bad guys' as a threat. Why should they? It sucks for the saloon keeper when the rogue states are cozying up at the bar for a drink and the sherrif comes in and guns them down.
Yid: Poor politicians ... are they the same ones who made the disaster of 9/11 possible? Aren't they the ones who voted in favour of finacing the mujihadeen & flirting with radical Islam -- oh, right, they didn't know, because your congress intelligence oversight comitte is a bad joke meant to convince the plebes that you actually have some control over the actions of special forces & black ops folks who take their orders directly from the president....9/11 was an event which happened as a direct result of lack of accountability by the executive & the people they serve. As to terrorism & terrorist threat, you are either extremely uninformed, joking or a kinghell Hypocrite, after all, it is europe that has to live with the aftereffects of your foreign policy. Lockerbie Bombing? Monachium Olympics? The Bloody Micks? Bader Meinhof? Red Brigades? ETA? ELAM/ELAS? UCK? Albanian mafia? Sarin in british mosques? Cyanide (almost) in Rome's water supply? The Balkan Conflict? All of that happened/happens in europe & has been pretty much since the end of the II world war. Your military umbrella hasn't done a thing for europe as far as terrorist action is concerned - except supplying the terrorists with weapons & explosives. Europe is alot closer to the middle east than America & europe has alot more to loose when a war happens in hat region - you lost 3000 people? That's sad, now count all the europeans & middle east natives who died as a result of your foreign policy -
<Yid: You have got to be kidding. As well you know, the media does not show uncomplimentary footage of the president - it is carefully edited out >
CAT: YOU'RE the one that has to be kidding on that one. It happens, but the media chooses not to show or is not allowed to see it? Right.. that doesn't exactly sound like concrete evidence to me. Why don't we look up all the urinalyses and wiretaps of the President (it's a federal job, isn't it?) and see what they say? Now I'M the one who's kidding.
Yid: I'm glad you are - but I am not kidding. There are plenty examples of "proactive self censorship" in your media especilly where your prez. is concerned - i gave some examples before regrading Regan - I will give more examples regarding Bush, a man so insecure that he refused to speak to the E.U. assembly unless he was guaranteed a standing ovation & no voices to dissent. THAT speaks volumes, cat, THAT is the nature & a fitting description for your president - a man who'd defend Freedom by stifling dissent...
a couple of interesting quotes:
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.
--Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The USA was founded in the name of democracy, equality and individual freedom, but is failing to deliver the fundamental promise of protecting rights for all
--Amnesty International, 19 Jan 2001
Submitted by seosamh (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:56:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll explain Yiddle's tactics here. Yiddle's tact is this: I'm looking to boost my ego as a psuedo-intellectual; so who can I pick an argument with that can no way be possibly won and go on forever. Oh, here's some poor sap. I'll write some 5 pages of bullshit that I will back with one-sided, non-peered reviewed bullshit on some random websight that has been written by some random person with the capability to create a webpage. By overwhelming this person with pure shit, he/she will most likely not respond. Thus I win by default, but... if they do respond I will continue my verbal blitz of bullshit until they do one of two things: not respond or call me an asshole. Either way, I win.
Here's an example where that tactic failed:
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=10443891888624224
It will take about three rounds of common sense to bring Yiddle down. Good luck.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:38:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<an employer in most european countries can't even ask you questions regarding your private life that aren't pertinent to your job such as drug use history, past convictions or trouble with the law, sexual preference and other such private matters on pain of being sued for breaking the law. >
Well I guess that says a lot there by itself, doesn't it Yidele?
<The WMD acronym, the antiterror hysteria, the war on Afghanistan & later Iraq did not happen by popular demand - >
They were not manufactured by public demand, but they were words that the public was wanting to hear. A President cannot just run off and do whatever he pleases - he cannot tell the public he wants to free the Iraqi people and use that as a justification for war. Similarly, in the post 911 era of paranoia, the public wanted SOMETHING done. All fingers were being pointed at Osama, and what country do many associate Osama with? I bet Gore could answer THAT one. Hence the attacks in Afghanistan. Not manufactured by public demand, but cut and tailored to fit the public's clamoring calls for blood. Same thing with the WMD and Iraq, except there is a bonus: Not only can the American people think that the world is being made safer for democracy, but also prices at the pump fall pretty rapidly. Two birds with one stone. Not to mention the whole dependence on Saudi Oil issue, but why would the public need to hear that anyway? Dressing issues up to make them attractive to the public eye is nothing new, and is in fact a necessary part of a politican's existence.
<You claim that there are no urine samples being taken, no surveilance being used against american citizens? You have to be kidding>
No, I didn't claim that. I said (or intended to say) that the epidemic rape of American liberties is not as widespread as rampant as seem to make it sound. I have yet to see a Gestapo patrolling the streets and hey! I can even bitch about the government on Ubersite! Surely, in the Gestapo world you project I would not have such a right.
<. With each iteration you are getting closer to a totalitarian regime. >
The system of checks and balances is still in place. Unless a President attempts to override that system, a totalitarian regime isn't happening. Let's remember when FDR attempted to eliminate the power of the SC (essentially): he failed.
<You can't return the rights of folks dead & tortured to death & no amount of apologies make up for the fact of being incarcerated>
Alright - but we also have always elected politicans who have not necessarily had the choice to do what was best for the public - rather, they had the choice to do what the public THOUGHT was good fort them at the TIME. At the time immediately following 9-11, a frighteningly large amount of Americans wanted to nuke the Middle East. Some clamored for mass genocide of Muslims, some even bombed a mosque in Dallas (if I recall correctly). If France or Germany had gotten attacked in a similar manner as America was, their citizens would react the same way - that's not to say those countries haven't experienced terrorism, because they most certainly have, but they have not experienced in recent times the large attack that 9-11 was. If they did, they'd be just as a war-thirsty and paranoid as Americans are now. It's not even a matter of politics - it's a matter of human nature. But of course, in cozy Europe you are not about to be attacked as America was - Europeans have thrived quite well under the American military umbrella and have no need for military power. As such, they are not perceived as a threat and subsequently, they do not treat the 'bad guys' as a threat. Why should they? It sucks for the saloon keeper when the rogue states are cozying up at the bar for a drink and the sherrif comes in and guns them down.
<Yid: You have got to be kidding. As well you know, the media does not show uncomplimentary footage of the president - it is carefully edited out >
YOU'RE the one that has to be kidding on that one. It happens, but the media chooses not to show or is not allowed to see it? Right.. that doesn't exactly sound like concrete evidence to me. Why don't we look up all the urinalyses and wiretaps of the President (it's a federal job, isn't it?) and see what they say? Now I'M the one who's kidding.
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I love you.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:25:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Titinita - your last post is why I love to read what you have to say.
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:10:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anybody who tells anybody else here they have no life is automatically a hypocrite.
Submitted by SantonioSpur (user info) at 2003-04-06 20:01:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Holy Jesus on a stick Yidele, get a life. Any response that requires me scrolling down more than eight screen lengths to see (emphasis see, not read) automatically means that YOU HAVE NO LIFE. If you have nothing better to do than write some God knows how long post on something, do something else. Read a book. Sleep, eat, make me a sandwich, anything. I don't even know what your opinion of the matter is because the sheer length of your comment sent me into a mad rambling of pi digits spoken in tongues
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-06 19:43:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<Cat: Why does something have to be popular to be right?
Yid: Does it? How is this pertinent to the issue at hand, the lame & inept attempt at "defending" busah against equaly unsound accustations?
>
was addressed to: "George Bush isn't Hitler but you have to be pretty sad as an individual to loose an international popularity contest with Saddam....."
Yid: Are you suggesting that Bush is somehow right? To the right of whom? Saddam Husain? I'm sorry, cat, but your remark makes no sense at all. Bush' popularity in the international arena or for that matter at home is an indication of how "right" ( whatever that means in this contexet) people at large think bush is or isn't. I don't know what "right" it is you're refering to, I personally believe that the immortal bard had it "right" when he wrote something along these lines: "There is nothing right or wrong, but thinking makes it so". If we are to take the prevaling world opinion of bush as the "right" opinion, he is all the things I described him to be & a babykilling vampire to boot. If we are to judge him by some other arbitrary standard, say the judeo-christian ethic he seems to be so fond of, he is a moraly dubious man, a thief, a deserter from his country's armed forces & a mean spirited baboon ( do read about his mocking Carla Faye tucker). Just what standard of reference should we judge him by? Riight....maybe he's just right out of his mind...
I haven't observed one day, while Bush was in office where he had even the slightest appearance of inebriation. Have you? If you have, please point it out to me. Your characterizations of Bush are wildly exaggerated - so the guy used to drink (hardly a sin) and got a crumb lodged in his throat so now he's disqualified because of that? Bullshit. No one can be perfect under the media microscope - judge the man's actions for what they are, not who makes them.
Yid: You have got to be kidding. As well you know, the media does not show uncomplimentary footage of the president - it is carefully edited out Just as Regan's off the cuff amnesia/parkinsons samples were ( the fameous one in which Regan declares Russia illegal, and another in which he does not remember the name of his aide or his dog were in the network feeds but somehow never made the news). Regardless, it is enough to hear the man speak or try to extemporize on any issue except capital punishment, baseball or war to realize tnat the confused mumbling & dyslexic neologisms he coins are a product of a mind much fuddled. UU bush is a man who not only has a drunk driving arrest record & a cocaine posession arrest to his name, but also a man who lied about the same. for those of you interested in the poop on the goof in office i suggest http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
Judge him by his actions? but sir, you make my work so much easier:
Drunk -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk
lying under oath -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral
Nepotism, incompetence, desertion from armed forces -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam
corruption -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corrupt
drug use -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine
insider deals -- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insider
<Bush is a coward who, like so many of the present administration, got preferred treatment to get him out of having to go to vietnam. --- yet you allow him to preach about patriotic duty & ultimate sacrifice for someone else's freedom, a sacrifice he could not bring himself to even consider. Bush is still effectively AWOL from his Texas National Guard unit from which he simply walked away in dereliction of duty shielded by the political power of his family. By a small comparison, Gore actually went to vietnam... >
So, since Bush didn't go to war personally, his calls for war become a sort of hyppcracy? Yet, if Gore were in office, he would be calling for the same war? Again, the action is the same be it performed by a Donkey or an Elephant - I reiterate, judge the performance,not the performer.
Yid: Gore served in vietnam. Tom Dashle served in vietnam. Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz et. al did not. Judging by the record, the present administration is filled by chickenhawks who never had the nuts to go into action. These are the men whom you trust to lead you to war? In this case, as in many others, the donkey acquited itself with aplomb while the elephant hid in the Bushes...please, perouse http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html for more reference data ....
<Bush is a fraud, a politician who's first leagal act in office as the governor of the state of Texas was a tax increase to subsidize his baseball stadium. Bush is a corporate fraud, something which is not pointed out nearly often enough, he is intimately tied to the enron fiasco by the expedient of having accepted huge election campaign contributions, Bush is linked to insider trading & violating the SEC's rules regarding the same. http://www.bushwatch.com/insidertrading.htm . --- yet you allow this thief & fraud to preach to you about campaign reform & holding corporate giants accountable for financial misdeeds >
You say this as if Bush is the first President to have ever done these things - Clinton and Whitewater found familiar? No? How about the entire Harding administration? Or the Grant administration? What about the entire spoils system? I'm not condoning these actions, I'm not saying they are acceptable - they aren't. But bringing up past corporate fraud does not invalidate Bush's entire foreign policy stance (as some would have you believe it does) - especially since someone without the corporate fraud history would have the SAME position.
Yid: Burning a straw man on my door step does nothing to detract from the criminal nature of the present administration. While Bush isn't the first, I wish to God that he were the last of both his breed & his ilk. I'm glad that you're not condonig these actions. Now that you're not condoning them, you can expose them for the downright fraud & theft they are unless you consider this kind of behaviour normal & acceptable in a president. Take your own advice here, be the one to call for an independent prosecutor to look up the family Bush. Beat that fraud like a gong.
Again, the cries of liberties being infringed upon are not in touch with reality. Yes, it has happened - but I tell ya what, I wake up everyday and there's no wire tap, no government camera in my home, no monitoring of my activities, no urine samples -
<---cut--->
These episodes are all different, but one important element is common to all of them: After the fear and paranoia died down, the rights of these people were fully returned to them.
If we apply this historical lesson to today's current events, what parallel can we draw?
Any student of history knows that during times of war, sacrifices of liberty tend to be made. If that student looks further, he will note that those liberties tend to be returned once the war is over - especially in American history.
Yid: Unfortuantely that isn't so. You can't return the rights of folks dead & tortured to death & no amount of apologies make up for the fact of being incarcerated. Wartime is the signle easiest way to concentrate power in the heands of the executive & it has been successfully used since the american civil war to do just that. With every conflict your federal government grows stronger & the states weaker, with each war more powers ( supposedly reserved to the states according to the conmstitution) are being granted to federal agencies whose authority is not enumerated in the constitution. With each iteration you are getting closer to a totalitarian regime.
You claim that there are no urine samples being taken, no surveilance being used against american citizens? You have to be kidding. Aside from the most obious domestic intelligence gathereing done by your government, almost every federal job is subject to random uinalisys testing, police officers, ems technicians, soldiers, train drivers etc. United States Labor law & privacy laws do not protect its citizens from this unwarranted search & seizure since almost any private employer can require you to drug test. In my entire time in Europe, in all the jobs I've held here as an adult I have never been required or even asked for a urine specimen or asked prying questions about my personal past on a job application. Furthermore, an employer in most european countries can't even ask you questions regarding your private life that aren't pertinent to your job such as drug use history, past convictions or trouble with the law, sexual preference and other such private matters on pain of being sued for breaking the law. They have to have your written permission to even process your data - no such protections are afforded to americans who can pretty much like it or lump it when it comes to applying for work. Facts are that it is In America, Land of the free, that more people are incarcerated per capita than in any other in the world, excepting south africa I think. More people are on work release, mandatory supervision or probation than anywhere I've ever been. It is perilously easy to go to prison in the states, and once in I am told that recidivism is assured by the mechanism of various supervision schemes. The point here being that it certainly wasn't that way a hundred years ago or even thirty ears ago - but you have progreseed form a society of mostly unlettered if mostly free folks to a society of partialy lettered if sadly put upon folks who think that slavery is freedom, that war is peace & that a heavily manged, self censored & uniformly brownnosing press somehow constitutes a "microscope" capable of holding its masters to account.
The chief issue here, as you said, is Bush's lack of competency to hold his office. I think we can both agree that his family history is but a side note - I'm not about to assert that character traits and personal flaws have no relevance to the President, but I do stand by the statement that episodes which the media blows out of proportion and exaggerated vices are not relevant to a President's actions and shouldn't bias them as such.
Yid: I'm surprised that you can dismiss issues of principle so easily. Personaly I don't think that Bush' Alcohol or drug use affects his competence but I do think that his consitent pattern of lying about it does, as does his pattern of lying under oath about other issues. What disualifies him in my eyes is the fact that he is a thief, a deserter & a man who lies under oath - Clinton's wrong doing was in essence lying under oath about an illicit if not illegal affair with a staffer. Bush has lied under oath about issues concerning his job as a governor & specificaly by covering his campaign donor through the swearing of an affidavit proven false. Clinton lied about blowjobs. Bush lied about money - specificaly he lied about knowing the findings of an investigation he killed in order to protewct his wealthy donor. Ther is no comparison here, really - the iomproprity Clinon lied about is moral, not legal - the one Bush lied about is a matter of liability & corruption. Purjury is purjury - if you treat them both the same, I guarantee you that the Bush family name or family business cannot stand 1/10 the scrutiny that was applied to the Clintons
(with a net result that cleared Clinton of wongdoing in all cases except the blowjob purjury)
I have not seen Bush drunk at any point during his role as President and I challenge you to provide proof that you have. Moreover, Bush, as any President, is limited as to what he can and can't do. He's not the Supreme Court - he's bound to the will of the public, so if the public wants lower gas prices and less terrorism, he'd damn well better do something about it if he wants to be re-elected, even if it involves spoon feeding the American public WMD rhetoric.
Yid: The proof of his lifelong susbtance dependency problems can be had easily - I alredy gave links to the page that recounts it in detail, also you can always search the public arrest record to be fund on TSG site http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html or view this insteresting clip filmed in 1992, a time when by his own statement he'd given up alcohol... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush_movie.html what is sad is that you are apparently sold on the idea that "the public" demanded less terrorism when this issue did not exist to most americans at the time dubya took office. The WMD acronym, the antiterror hysteria, the war on Afghanistan & later Iraq did not happen by popular demand - they happened by decree, manipulation & your own chickens coming home to roost. To date no links between Al-quaida and Iraqi regime have been uncovered - terrorism isn't what this war is about - it is about oil & incidentaly so is UU bush & his administration. UU bush isn't bound by the will of the public - if he were, he wouldn't have had to manufacture issues such as the WMD scare to goad you into supporting his war - he wasn't reluctantly forced to go to war - war was planned & executed despite international opposition to an issue mostly manufactured and wholly the child of the US foreign policy & arms industry.
Regarding his foreign policy "gaffes", off the top of your head, who is the top ranking official of Uzbekistan, Eritrea, the Solomon Islands, Angola, Laos, and San Marino? Don't know? I sure as hell don't. As you are likely thinking, shouldn't the man in charge of foreign policy know these things? Maybe we should pose the same question to Al Gore?
Yid: if you were to ask Al Gore he'd be sure to know. Not because he is a walking encyclopaedia but because as vice president he dealt with these people for 8 years. Your or mine ignorance is not an excuse a candidate for president could use. They are supposed to know, not insulting foreign dignitaries & knowing the name of the PM of the country with the longest common land border is really the least to expect - This minimal requirement was too much for UU. Could Gore do better? he could hardly do worse, unless he decided to puke all over the president of japan as Bush Senior did.
enclosed please find the many witty aphorisms of Bush -- http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=102901922991222507
and an earlier info piece about Bush-wacking investors -- http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=102772724657311857
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2003-04-06 12:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
<Cat: Why does something have to be popular to be right?
Does it? How is this pertinent to the issue at hand, the lame & inept attempt at "defending" busah against equaly unsound accustations?
>
was addressed to: "George Bush isn't Hitler but you have to be pretty sad as an individual to loose an international popularity contest with Saddam....."
<Bush is an out of control drunk who nearly "choked to death on a pretzel" while in office. Known for his "hard partying style" Bush is the last man ( after Keith Richards) to be an authority on saying no to drugs or alcohol. A lush, a tweaker, a drunken redneck nightmare.
Bush is a horrible parent, something apparently common in his family, patently unable to keep his teenage daughter from trying to buy liquor or drive under the influence - what with all those conservative family values and all... >
I haven't observed one day, while Bush was in office where he had even the slightest appearance of inebriation. Have you? If you have, please point it out to me. Your characterizations of Bush are wildly exaggerated - so the guy used to drink (hardly a sin) and got a crumb lodged in his throat so now he's disqualified because of that? Bullshit. No one can be perfect under the media microscope - judge the man's actions for what they are, not who makes them.
<Bush is a coward who, like so many of the present administration, got preferred treatment to get him out of having to go to vietnam. --- yet you allow him to preach about patriotic duty & ultimate sacrifice for someone else's freedom, a sacrifice he could not bring himself to even consider. Bush is still effectively AWOL from his Texas National Guard unit from which he simply walked away in dereliction of duty shielded by the political power of his family. By a small comparison, Gore actually went to vietnam... >
So, since Bush didn't go to war personally, his calls for war become a sort of hyppcracy? Yet, if Gore were in office, he would be calling for the same war? Again, the action is the same be it performed by a Donkey or an Elephant - I reiterate, judge the performance,not the performer.
<Bush is a fraud, a politician who's first leagal act in office as the governor of the state of Texas was a tax increase to subsidize his baseball stadium. Bush is a corporate fraud, something which is not pointed out nearly often enough, he is intimately tied to the enron fiasco by the expedient of having accepted huge election campaign contributions, Bush is linked to insider trading & violating the SEC's rules regarding the same. http://www.bushwatch.com/insidertrading.htm . --- yet you allow this thief & fraud to preach to you about campaign reform & holding corporate giants accountable for financial misdeeds >
You say this as if Bush is the first President to have ever done these things - Clinton and Whitewater found familiar? No? How about the entire Harding administration? Or the Grant administration? What about the entire spoils system? I'm not condoning these actions, I'm not saying they are acceptable - they aren't. But bringing up past corporate fraud does not invalidate Bush's entire foreign policy stance (as some would have you believe it does) - especially since someone without the corporate fraud history would have the SAME position.
<Bush is an unabashed a fan of runaway federal power, huge government & legislation which encroaches on & limits your constitutionaly protected rights. It is his criminal administration which has created your own version of a domestic security apparatus, a gestapo if you will, - it is his administration which has supported the passage of laws which give federal agencies powers wider & further reaching than any such laws in the past including the war powers act. It is his administartion which holds POW's in conditions universaly decried as inhuman, his admionistration which presides over the death of Habeas corpus, Client-attorney priviledge, right to face one's accuser, right to a speedy trial... It is his administration which has for the first time in american history asserted that constitutional protection is not extended to non-americans. >
Again, the cries of liberties being infringed upon are not in touch with reality. Yes, it has happened - but I tell ya what, I wake up everyday and there's no wire tap, no government camera in my home, no monitoring of my activities, no urine samples - this is not to say that it doesn't HAPPEN, but rather that events of it actually happening are blown out of proportion. The rape of civil liberties is a scattered occurence, not the rampant epidemic which many say that it is. This statement in particular caught my attention:
"It is his administration which has for the first time in american history asserted that constitutional protection is not extended to non-americans. "
Have you no knowledge of American history? The debate over whether or not the Constitution follows the flag is over a century old. Ever since the question of the Phillipines came up after the Spanish American war this has been an issue. As for more lessons of the past, let's consider this:
A. After World War I, there was the Red Scare - Palmer's raids, Sacco and Vanzetti (I misspelled that one). American liberties were taken away from many people accused of being Communists, nihilists, and anarchists.
B. During World War II, a select group of people were incarcerated during the war because of the color of their skin (the Japanese). Their liberties vanished.
C. After World War II, McCarthyism became widespread and another Red Scare ensued - this time everyone was targeted. There were wiretaps, letters were intercepted, and suspects were interrogated. The liberties of people were taken away.
These episodes are all different, but one important element is common to all of them: After the fear and paranoia died down, the rights of these people were fully returned to them.
If we apply this historical lesson to today's current events, what parallel can we draw?
Any student of history knows that during times of war, sacrifices of liberty tend to be made. If that student looks further, he will note that those liberties tend to be returned once the war is over - especially in American history.
My point about the election was, how can someone who lacks competence perform an act that requires competency? However, applying logic to an illogical species is always potentially faulty, so I must retract that point.
The chief issue here, as you said, is Bush's lack of competency to hold his office. I think we can both agree that his family history is but a side note - I'm not about to assert that character traits and personal flaws have no relevance to the President, but I do stand by the statement that episodes which the media blows out of proportion and exaggerated vices are not relevant to a President's actions and shouldn't bias them as such. I have not seen Bush drunk at any point during his role as President and I challenge you to provide proof that you have. Moreover, Bush, as any President, is limited as to what he can and can't do. He's not the Supreme Court - he's bound to the will of the public, so if the public wants lower gas prices and less terrorism, he'd damn well better do something about it if he wants to be re-elected, even if it involves spoon feeding the American public WMD rhetoric. Regarding his foreign policy "gaffes", off the top of your head, who is the top ranking official of Uzbekistan, Eritrea, the Solomon Islands, Angola, Laos, and San Marino? Don't know? I sure as hell don't. As you are likely thinking, shouldn't the man in charge of foreign policy know these things? Maybe we should pose the same question to Al Gore?
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-06 11:14:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Cat: Why does something have to be popular to be right?
Does it? How is this pertinent to the issue at hand, the lame & inept attempt at "defending" busah against equaly unsound accustations?
Cat: And what impact does the fact that Bush is not noveau riche have on his presidential ability? What do you expect Yidele, a rags to riches fairy tale president? Or does it upset you that Bush puts on a public persona that he does not live up to?
I think that the relationship between morons inheriting fortunes & their inability to spoon feed themselves is fairly established - history is rife with examples of microencephalic madmen & deviates who, having inherited money & position from their betters, squander their inheritance or turn it to evil use. Old money on new money isn't the issue, in any case "old money" in terms of American politics is an oxymoron. The issue here, cat, is - and you know this - that the Bush - Hitler comparson rings true on more than one historical precedent. Specificly, Bush, a certifiable example of the real ugly american, is a scion of a wealthy & influential family which got much of its present day wealth from dealing with the reference standard when it comes to totalitarian regimes ( in direct contravention of american law). This ( i hesitate to write person, 'cause I consider it nobilitating) has displayed most of the tragic flaws which are in direct opposition to what are commonly considered citizenly virtues. To wit:
Bush is an out of control drunk who nearly "choked to death on a pretzel" while in office. Known for his "hard partying style" Bush is the last man ( after Keith Richards) to be an authority on saying no to drugs or alcohol. A lush, a tweaker, a drunken redneck nightmare.
Bush is a horrible parent, something apparently common in his family, patently unable to keep his teenage daughter from trying to buy liquor or drive under the influence - what with all those conservative family values and all...
Bush is a moron incapale of remembering names of the world leaders he is supposed to deal with, uneducated despite his stint in college, incapable of understanding that questions about issues aren't "tricks" and that foreign languages aren't a ploy designed to make him look dumb ( frankly, i think that making him look dumber than he is isn't easy or perhaps even possible)
Bush is a coward who, like so many of the present administration, got preferred treatment to get him out of having to go to vietnam. --- yet you allow him to preach about patriotic duty & ultimate sacrifice for someone else's freedom, a sacrifice he could not bring himself to even consider. Bush is still effectively AWOL from his Texas National Guard unit from which he simply walked away in dereliction of duty shielded by the political power of his family. By a small comparison, Gore actually went to vietnam...
Bush is a fraud, a politician who's first leagal act in office as the governor of the state of Texas was a tax increase to subsidize his baseball stadium. Bush is a corporate fraud, something which is not pointed out nearly often enough, he is intimately tied to the enron fiasco by the expedient of having accepted huge election campaign contributions, Bush is linked to insider trading & violating the SEC's rules regarding the same. http://www.bushwatch.com/insidertrading.htm . --- yet you allow this thief & fraud to preach to you about campaign reform & holding corporate giants accountable for financial misdeeds
Bush is an unabashed a fan of runaway federal power, huge government & legislation which encroaches on & limits your constitutionaly protected rights. It is his criminal administration which has created your own version of a domestic security apparatus, a gestapo if you will, - it is his administration which has supported the passage of laws which give federal agencies powers wider & further reaching than any such laws in the past including the war powers act. It is his administartion which holds POW's in conditions universaly decried as inhuman, his admionistration which presides over the death of Habeas corpus, Client-attorney priviledge, right to face one's accuser, right to a speedy trial... It is his administration which has for the first time in american history asserted that constitutional protection is not extended to non-americans.
Bush is a moraly corrupt man, financially in hock to big business & what is more, incapable of steering the course himself. Saying that bush is merely a politician & that all politicians dissemble, lie & project a false image is not an excuse for accepting such a substandard example of drunk white trash ugliness as a president, the supposedly highest office in the land.
When the issues which are central to leadership - such as integrity, incorruptibility or ability to read/comprehend basic text are suspect, the act of pointing out these very deficiencies is not an irrelevant adhominem attack - it is supremly relevant to the issue to be certain that your president elect will act with the best interest of his electors in mind, that he cannot be bought like so many pounds of cheese or that when he is called upon to represent your country, he will not make a fool of himself & by extension of you. George Bush fails on all three counts. He has a long history of dodging responsibility & duties of a citizen, a history of crooked financial deals & cheating the people he supposedly represented ( his investors ) and a history of foot-in-mouth step-on-own-dick submental redneck gaffes & faux-pas, equaled but not surpassed only by D. Quayle, which are a matter of public record. If Forest Gump had a drunken evil twin, his name would be George W. Bush
Cat: Another interesting: Bush at ONE time is 'stupid' yet also manages to 'steal the election' or 'rig the election'. How can someone 'steal' a nationwide election, no small accomplishment for certain, if they are stupid? And if your answer is, "He didn't rig the election, the Supreme Court did", then I Guess Bush didn't do it, did he?
An interesting thing about two valued systems of logic is that they invariably fail when faced with reality. such is the case here. That UU. Bush is dumb need not be further prooved, it is obvious. That he consented to be president despite obvious lack of qualifications is also true; what matter who physicaly rigged the election? as long as it was with UU. Bushes willfull support, it changes nothing about Bush - you seem to claim that one cannot be both Dumb & corrupt....
Cat: I, for one, don't give a shit what Bush's family did. I don't know what his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's doctor's lawyer's son's cousin's dog's veterinarian's grandson had to do with the Third Reich and I really don't care.
You may not care - your family likely did not suffer 85& fatality rate as a result. I care because mine did & it may well happen again when old chestnuts about "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it" come true. Reduccio ad absurdiam doesn't work too well especially when it is at odds with the facts. It was his granddad & great-granddad that raised money for the Nazi in the states & organized/financed arms shipements, steel & explosive manufacture.
Cat: I also don't give a shit if his dad propped up his oil company and I don't give a shit how many pretzels he choked on. I don't give a shit how many episodes the media blows out of proportion - they've done it with every President before Bush and they're going to do it with every President after Bush - what I'm really curious about is what would YOU (the reader) do in Bush's spot? What would YOU do that would illustrate how much better you are than he is? And let's not forget the political realities of the situation here..
To start with, I wouldn't nor couldn't be a president of the United states even if I were the beneficiary of election fraud as UU. Bush was. I am a citizen of a european country, not of the USA, and as such cannot hold elected office in your fair land, but assuming it were possible, I would start with the dismantling of your newly created department of homeland gestapo, the gutting of such ineffectual & legaly dubious institutions as the Federal Marshalls, The FBI, The BATF & that least of all usefull federal agencies, the CIA. I would propose that, in accordance with existing law, all people held unlawfully be released. I would suggest a campaign reform bill making impossible most of the funding abuses now tolerated. I would declare January the 8th a national holliday ( elvis' birthday ya know), I would command the excavation & restoration of the white house pool ( now the press centre room) & I would invite Willie Nelson to smoke a fat one with me in the rose garden - but enough about me - let's stop digressing from the essence - this isn't about the war, the economy, what I or anyone else might have done in his stead - this is about that creature from the drunken redneck lagoon that inhabits your white house.
The essence of the thing is that UU. Bush is unfit to hold the office he abuses by any reasonable reference standard, unless you in your wisdom decide that no minimal standards apply to presidents, especially when it comes to issues such as incorruptibility, integrity, character or intellect. There is one criterion he does meet for holding office in your country - he is a citizen of age & apparently not a felon by the grace of God & prompt taction by his well connected family.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote much about Nixon & some about Regan whom he called the quintessential evil old bastard. "...The black Irish are allways with us, evil & besotted..." he said, and he was right, except not just about the irish. He forgot the texas Nazi whose most memorable foreign relations gaffe was a question he asked Fernando Henrique Cardoso - the president of Brazil: " Do you have blacks, too?"
The Bush Dislexicon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393322963/qid%3D1027222996/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F1/104-2113704-2948723
Submitted by GhostTown (user info) at 2003-04-06 05:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I hate to jump on the "Yeah what he said" Loser Wagon, but cats response summed things up well enough that I don't need to add more turds to this pile of shit post.
Submitted by dasteve (user info) at 2003-04-06 05:05:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Will everyone please give this shit a rest already. Bush is a fucking idiot; the entire world is aware of this fact. The comparison to to tic-tacs is closer to reality. Hitler could at least read a speech without sounding like a moron.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2003-04-05 23:25:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why does something have to be popular to be right?
And what impact does the fact that Bush is not noveau riche have on his presidential ability? What do you expect Yidele, a rags to riches fairy tale president? Or does it upset you that Bush puts on a public persona that he does not live up to?
News Flash: Bush is a politician. He's not the first nor will he be the last elected official to gain his post for some reason other than his merits alone. And projecting a public persona for voters to see is hardly anything new - it's no worse than a President projecting a persona of strong family ties and then committing adultery. Bush only has money because of his dad and avoided Vietnam blah blah blah - ad hominem. If we're going to base a President's ability on his irrelevant personal anecdotes, I'd rather have a President who got a crumb lodged in his throat than one who went around fucking fat interns.
The interesting thing is that were Gore in office, the same events would be transpiring, and the same WMD rhetoric would be being fed to the public. Of course, not necessarily on the same time table, but coming to blows with Iraq was going to happen regardless of whether there was a Democrat or a Republican in office.
Another interesting: Bush at ONE time is 'stupid' yet also manages to 'steal the election' or 'rig the election'. How can someone 'steal' a nationwide election, no small accomplishment for certain, if they are stupid? And if your answer is, "He didn't rig the election, the Supreme Court did", then I Guess Bush didn't do it, did he?
I, for one, don't give a shit what Bush's family did. I don't know what his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's doctor's lawyer's son's cousin's dog's veterinarian's grandson had to do with the Third Reich and I really don't care.
I also don't give a shit if his dad propped up his oil company and I don't give a shit how many pretzels he choked on. I don't give a shit how many episodes the media blows out of proportion - they've done it with every President before Bush and they're going to do it with every President after Bush - what I'm really curious about is what would YOU (the reader) do in Bush's spot? What would YOU do that would illustrate how much better you are than he is? And let's not forget the political realities of the situation here..
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2003-04-05 22:35:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I fuckin swear if I see another thing that compares Bush to something/someone, I am going to go for a swim with a hairdrier. We get it Bush is stupid, so is saddam so is hitler, so is chef boyardee, so are the Taliban and now thanks to this horseshit everyone who just read this is now just a little bit stupider. Fuck you and have a nice day.
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-04-05 22:28:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
^.^
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-05 22:28:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The roots of the Bush - Nazi connection, or how UU bush isn't Hitler part zwei
"...the Bush family fortune is old, and it's big, and comes from a century old alliance with the most powerful interests on Wall Street and in industry. Worse, part of Dub-a-Ya's money comes from grandfather Prescott Bush's financial alliance with the Nazis.
On October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. The largest shareholder was E. Roland Harriman. (Bush was also the managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, a leading Wall Street investment firm.)
The UBC was established to send American capital to Germany to finance the reorganization of its industry under the Nazis. Their leading German partner was the notorious Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who wrote a book admitting much of this called "I Paid Hitler."
Among the companies financed was the Silesian-American Corporation, which was also managed by Prescott Bush, and by his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, who supplied Dub-a-Ya with his name. The company was vital in supplying coal to the Nazi war industry. It too was seized as a Nazi-front on November 17, 1942. The largest company Bush's UBC helped finance was the German Steel Trust, responsible for between one-third and one-half of Nazi iron and explosives.
Prescott Bush was also a director of the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, (this one owned largely by Roland's brother, Averell Harriman), which owned about a third of the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, the rest owned by Friedrich Flick, (a member of Himmler's "Circle of Friends" who donated to the S.S.).
Republican Presidential candidate Bush's great-grandfather, Bert Walker, helped organize the Harriman investment in the Hamburg-America Line of ships, of which grandfather Prescott became a director. It was seized on August 28, 1942 because it was used to give free passage to Nazi propaganda and propagandists, and had earlier shipped guns to the Nazi's private armies to assist their takeover of Germany.
Further examples would be more tedious than shocking. But, given these evil financial dealings, how did Prescott later become a Republican Senator, and George H.W. become President? Well,the two leading attorneys for these Bush-Harriman-Nazi deals were John Foster Dulles, later Secretary of State under Eisenhower, and Allen Dulles, future head of the CIA..."
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-04-05 22:20:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Bush isn't Hitler - While they do have some things in common, they differ on a few key points: Hitler was smart. Hitler served in the armed forces & risked his life. Hitler wasn't a drunk yahoo Hitler never choked on a pretzel. Hitler was upfront about his ambitions for world domination. George W. Bush isn't any of those things, he isn't Hitler, hell he's not even a Nazi, but his Granddad was. Yup, the Bush family has a long history of supporting & investing in totalitarian & racist regimes - George Bush isn't Hitler but you have to be pretty sad as an individual to loose an international popularity contest with Saddam.....
Submitted by BongZilla (user info) at 2003-04-05 22:04:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
haha I can't wait to see the responses for this.
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2003-04-05 21:52:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with the sentiment, but the reasons given are readily ridiculed on Uber.