10 Reasons why GWB could be a tyrant
 

by Sherwood Ross

As public sentiment begins to build for impeachment, it might be illuminating to examine the many ways President Bush operates in a manner reminiscent of history's tyrants. Here are 10 areas that come readily to mind.

• First, tyrants tend to see themselves, as Hitler did, at the head of some kind of "master race." President Bush and his backers would deny it, but their drive for a "New American Century" betrays them. They're world-beaters, and won't sign the global warming treaty or any other cooperative document. Republicans at their last Convention jeered the very mention of the words "United Nations." Those who see it differently get slandered. Recall how Bush's hatchet men impugned Senator Kerry's Vietnam War record. This was reminiscent of Nazi claims Germany's Jewish veterans of the Great War did not deserve their medals. Another manifestation is Neocons would reduce gay and lesbian Americans to second-class citizenship status. Bush's backers are convinced of their superiority at home and globally.
  
  
  
• Second, tyrants tend to be congenital, brazen liars. Bush lied about Iraq's threat to America just as Hitler lied when he claimed Poland attacked Germany first in 1939. The UN told Bush there was no WMD in Iraq, yet Bush said there was and made war. He knew better. As many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, 2-million have fled, and a nation is being destroyed before our eyes.
  
  
  
• Third, tyrants engage in outright suppression or manipulation of the news. The Bush Administration has paid off newsmen to plug its achievements, sent out video press releases disguised as news stories, banned photographs of coffins returned from Iraq, and even planted a phony journalist in White House press conferences. And it's spending millions to bribe Iraqi journalists.
  
  
  
• Fourth, tyrants will use a "crisis" to grab total power. After the massacre of 9/11, President Bush pushed through the Patriot Act. Recall 1933, when Hitler declared a "state of national emergency" after the Reichstag (Parliament) fire, which likely was set by the Nazis. The new law gives Bush the power to arrest any American citizen on his say-so and he has allowed his intelligence agencies to spy illegally on American citizens without a court order.
  
  
  
• Fifth, tyrants torture. Of all people, Bush picked Alberto Gonzalez for the top legal position in the nation, the very man who rationalized the torture of captives. Bush also lavishes billions on dictatorships such as Egypt, whose Gestapo obligingly tortures individuals the CIA kidnaps from other countries. Bush has turned back the clock of history to the Spanish Inquisition.
  
  
  
• Sixth, tyrants tend to make serial wars. Soviet Russia's Stalin attacked Finland, Poland, and Hungary. Japan struck Korea, Manchuria, China, America, and U.K. One war is never enough for a tyrant. Recall Napoleon invaded nations to liberate them from kings, only to put his relatives on their thrones. Having invaded Afghanistan and setting Iraq ablaze, Bush now threatens Iran --- three countries that are oil-rich or geographically sited for oil transmission lines or both.
  
  
  
• Seventh, tyrants are notorious for their closed mindedness. They ignore their critics. Japan walked out of the League of Nations rather than answer for its conduct. Bush doesn't listen to critics, either. The Pope denounced America's war on Iraq as immoral. The UN Secretary-General called it "illegal." Millions the world over protested it. And a majority of Americans call it wrong but Bush ignores them. Polls show 70% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. to get out but Bush refuses.
  
  
  
• Eighth, tyrants spend lavishly on the military. In the Thirties, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia devoted a high percentage of their gross national product to their war machines. Today, America spends more on armaments than all other nations combined. And America under Bush is the Number One arms merchant in the world.
  
  
  
• Ninth, tyrants don't respect the sovereignty of other nations. Bush rationalized his attack on Iraq as "preventive war" -- a euphemism for "aggression." The Pentagon has already dropped troops secretly into Iran, according to Seymour Hersh in "The New Yorker." The Pentagon operates 700 military bases in 130 countries and refuses to leave Okinawa and Greenland despite protests from their citizens.
  
  
  
• Tenth, tyrants have double standards. Bush declares he's for "freedom" but forges alliances with the heads of Saudi Arabia, and former Soviet Asian republics where citizens have zero rights. He warns Iran against making a nuclear bomb while he scraps non-proliferation treaties to make America's nuclear arsenal more lethal. Bush threatens Iran, which spends $4-billion a year on arms, while he spends $500-billion on arms. He warns Iran might make a nuclear bomb while he has 10,000. He accused Saddam Hussein of germ warfare capability while he has been secretly building the greatest germ warfare capability of any nation in history since the Soviet Union under Stalin.

"Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident"

Frank Rich

lift up any rock in the Bush administration and something slimy crawls out. this is what government looks like when it is run by people who do not believe in government. the GOP will wear this albatross around their necks for at least the next election cycle, if not beyond.

cue the anti-copy/paste police in ...3...2...1

:pflag:

Nothing wrong with copy/paste per se. It has a limitation though. The words and the opinions are those of the article writer, not the poster.

[Yawn] Is this where I’m supposed to be baited into doing hours of research, then spend more time composing a post containing the results, so you can poo-poo it by saying I’m a “Bush bot” or something like that?

No, Thank You.

you forgot to close your yawn tag.

That was judgemental and purposeful on my part.

I just thought that [Yawn] looked cleaner than [Yawn][/Yawn] and still communicated what I wanted it to.

:hystery: Mayberry Machiavellis :shk: :hystery:

Actually, the opinions are most often those of both or the poster probably wouldn't be posting them.

Of course I realize when liberals agree with each other it's only because they're parrots, but when conservatives agree with each other it's due to their profound intellectual scope, exceptional moral rectitude and laser-sharp insight leading them, completely independently, to the same conclusions.

:CE:

Definitely, if it's going to take hours of research and composition to support your opinion that the Bush administration isn't a giant pile of flaming dogshit, we might as well cut to the chase and call you a Bush bot without further ado.

:W:

It's somewhat debatable whether the "poster" is too dumb to form his own opinions or simply too dumb to type them out but when posts consists solely of reposts of another person's opinion, the similiarity of the poster to a brainless parrot is undeniable.

The terms "most often" and "probably" leave room for exceptions and doubt, which was my original point (in the limitations of copy/paste).

I did not say that, you did.

I didn't say that either. I said "hours of research then spend more time composing....".

Whatever. I can (and do) dismiss your opinion just as easily as you dismiss mine. This interaction neither forwards the discussion nor serves any useful purpose.

Let's see you prove that the Bush Administration is actually comprised of "a giant pile of flaming dogshit". I do not have to do any research to prove that this is just a poisonous opinionated comment by you - it's self-evident.

If you really hate Bush that much I suppose you could convert to Islam and go join al-Qaeda. I really wouldn't recommend that, though.

Super hyperbolic statements laced with sarcastic comments and insults do not form the basis for an effective discussion or debate.

Again: No, Thank You.

Lol
 

of course.. anyone not supporting Bush should classed as sub-human and demoted to the level of a terrorist.

:sarc:

Bush is a blathering idiot; unfit for command.
This is not an opinion.
This statement is supported by more than 6 years of observing the man, his words, and his actions.

It's still an opinion retard.

I suppose to someone even stupider than Bush that statement of fact would appear to be opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...
Prove it is opinion.
Support what you say.
Point out to us things which Bush has done that contradict what I said.
What has Bush did, ever, that wasn't wrong or just plain dumb.

you know it asshole..

Those are your words, not mine.

If Islam and al-Qaeda are "sub-human" and "terrorists", then why is Nancy Pelosi violating the Logan Act to go chat with them? Why is the Democratic Party trying to appease them?

Prove it is NOT just your opinion.
Support what you say.

Hyperbole, sarcasm, poisonous comments and insults are by nature non-factual and are unacceptable as supporting factual information.

[quote=Ramona_A_Stone;256131]



Of course I realize when liberals agree with each other it's only because they're parrots, but when conservatives agree with each other it's due to their profound intellectual scope, exceptional moral rectitude and laser-sharp insight leading them, completely independently, to the same conclusions.


[quote]


:scared: Could this be true? :scared:

:PE: :still_waiting_for_the_dzncin'_donkeys: :PE:

who cares about opinions ..it is beside the point
it's again just the usual lame attempt to drag the facts presented off topic that give pretty good reasons to not trust the current US admin ,the tyrant label might be a bit harsh but all these aspects don't add up in a good way.

The tyrant label is opinion, multi. I won't make any comments on the particulars (we've already discussed every issue you've mentioned here) but Sherwood Ross has his own idea about the definition of that word, and in his opinion Bush's status as tyrant qualifies him for impeachment. But we don't impeach presidents just because we don't like them, we do it when they've broken the law. Scandal has haunted every administration and it always will. The scandals only persist because every president has had critics, but few presidents have actually broken the law so the scandals matter very little. Bush's critics can say whatever they want about him, and for the sake of the first amendment they should, but unless somebody has proof that Bush has broken the law then the criticism is just opinion, nothing more.

If we're going to drag the thread off topic we should start asking what's wrong with poor multi that compels him to constantly dredge up anti-Bush propaganda and repost it even though he lives about as far from Bush's influence as possible.


Could he have some personal obsession with the man like unrequited love or perhaps a past trauma caused by someone resembling Bush?


Or maybe he's just parroting what others say simply to be accepted by a group and feel like he's cool.

This Sherwood Ross has a lot of his articles or whatever you want to call them picked up by the Middle East Times which according to Wikipedia


--Middle East Times is a daily newspaper, owned by News World Communications, a corporation owned and operated by the Unification church, published in Cairo, Egypt. Its print content is tightly controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information, though it does publish stories censored by the ministry on its website.--

Take it for what ever you think it is worth………..

People so eager to lie to pretend they're correct really aren't worth telling the truth to, but somehow I just can't help myself. :)

I deny the similarity.

A: Brainless parrots are incapable of mimicry. It's conceivable that such a parrot may still make some kind of sound, but it would probably in actuality have more of a resemblance to the inarticulate nervous spasms of, say, your posts than to multi's posted article. Even in the highly unlikely event that a bird, lacking brain function, could manage to reproduce over 500 coherent English words divided into ten organized points and cite the author, it would most assuredly be considered a freakish anomaly quite unlike the usual behavior of such impaired creatures, and only the most weak minded or intentionally deceitful individuals would attempt to argue that it was in any way typical.

B: Even parrots with brains cannot read, register at a forum, or grasp the concept of cutting and pasting text. In fact, most scientists would agree that even fully functioning birds cannot 'grasp the concept,' as we see it in our own terms, of the sounds which they may learn to mimic. Even if making certain sounds is continually rewarded, the 'meaning' ascribed to them by the parrot is quite independent of the literal linguistic meaning. This is evidenced by the fact that one bird may be trained to associate a reward with making the sound "Bushy wants a Dorito" while another may be trained to associate the same reward with making the sound "Go fuck yourself Skippy." With an inability to manipulate or create syntax and meaning with verbal symbols they cannot conceivably be said to form opinions about US presidents in a discernable way, or indeed at all, unless, perhaps, they happen to have some physical interaction with one.

C: Even an exceptional parrot, carefully trained to go through the motions of accessing and navigating the internet and cutting and pasting, and with the ability to log in here under multi's screen name (perhaps, one imagines, by forcibly subduing multi in some way), and even a parrot so exceptional that it could be said to have an opinion about a US president, would still be unable to distinguish whether the information it was moving from place to place was authored by Anne Coulter or Pee Wee Herman, or was part of an advertisement for a toenail fungus remedy. To imagine that it could selectively and consistently reproduce copies of information that bore any resemblance to its own opinon is a fallacious and irrational anthropomorphism.

D: The domain of creating, distributing and redistributing virtual or electronically stored information in this particular format is in fact uniquely human, and as in all systems wherein information is shared, the information which is most reproduced is that which the most users find useful. This utility is determined by individual human tastes, human opinions and human experiences. That, as you admit is the case, multi found the content of this post useful to reproduce here may in fact be taken as incontrovertible evidence, in itself, that multi is either a hominid, perhaps a group of hominids, or, more remotely, a rather sophisticated artificial intelligence program created by a hominid or group of hominids (in which case I would consider Tankgirl as a prime suspect), but most certainly not a parrot in any condition.

In summary, your postulate that there is some similarity between brainless parrots and the user multi is clearly as irrational as suggesting he is a ghost from beyond the grave or some kind of psychic transmission from the planet Nylar, and belies one or more of the typical subtrates of such irrational assumptions: fear, lack of comprehension, hallucination or deceit.

All your base are belong to us.

First of all, Nancy Pelosi did not "go chat with" either "Islam" nor "al-Qaeda" but with Syrian president Assad. This is an individual, not a group. An attempt to "appease" "Islam" or "al-Qaeda" through talks with this man would most surely be futile, however improved relations with Syria could prove to be a valuable leverage against certain terrorist organizations in Iraq. The fact that Bush himself is too incompetent to seek such advantages for his own people, or for the people in the region he is trying to 'free from terrorism,' is just more evidence that he's a flaming pile of dogshit, and your distortion of the issue just shows a similar lack of comprehension.

Also, no one implied Islam is sub-human. Multi was implying that the brainless parrot argument was an attempt to classify his behavior as sub-human, and that your supposition that my "conversion to Islam and going to join al-Qaeda" would follow as an option for my disdain of George Bush was a "demotion to terrorist," indicating on your part, again, either a severely restricted ability to process coherent information, a gross misapprehension of the real world, or some level of frustration which compells you to merely use sarcastic and insulting hyperbole in lieu of engaging in effective discussion or debate.

No, they don't, but they can be quite hilarious. :)

Nice try RAS but it’s not going to work, and you know it.

I can copy/paste and take stuff out of context and use hyperbole and stretch things to the breaking point just as easily and just as well as you can. Unfortunately, it does not do anything useful and is further a waste of time.

I could easily and effectively counter your points, but frankly I do not see any reason to waste my time and efforts to do so. All you will do with it is spew more beratement and poisonous comments. You are doing that for the entertainment value it serves to you. It's trolling, in a mild form.

You apparently did not heed the lesson you should have learned when your caustic comments got you in trouble before.

I am glad you enjoyed the bitter taste of your own medicine.

Spew as you wish, I will not discuss this matter with you any further.

I would put you on my ignore list, but you’re a moderator so that won’t work. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways.

you want to put him on ignore because your attempt to drag the subject off topic failed ? or what ?

typical brainless right-wing arrogance can't piss and moan enough about utter irrelevant bullshit and induce people to defend things that have nothing to do with the topic ,because..well the things you fuckers crap on about is just a bunch of broken recordings that drone on and on and on..and have become a joke to be laughed at. Anything but answer the fucken question,eh? ,it's an old bland conservative ruse and after the last decade in power..has become a monotonous drone

so anyway basically you must then be admitting GWB is a tyrant.. because you can't come up with anything but a bunch of mindless self serving crap to counter the points made in my original post

The points in your original post have been made on this forum ad nauseam; you just rehashed them in this thread to apply yet one more epithet to the president. There was nothing new or refreshing about your arguments either, and what you interpret as off-topic replies are only attempts to make this topic interesting. You must have known from the start how this would all turn out. The line was drawn in the sand long ago and we all took sides. You didn't think you were going to change anybody's mind, did you?

thats just a bullshit cop out as far as I am concerned

the points the writer made and how they collectively show the malicious manner in which the current US government operates have NOT been discussed at all yet because your 'side' that you took has it fingers in it's ears and is crapping on with anything but the topic..

because it's all there in black and white, of course you all make all sorts of weird noises about it . The points have been made in other threads by many of us since the the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So?

no reason to go all contrary and defend being off topic just so you don't have to defend the very ugly picture it paints..you could be a bit more constructive

but as I said before being a boring conservative means not having to answer the hard questions ,ignore them and just keep bashing the opposition.
:f:

:OFFTOP:

Hehe.

:hflag:
:dhorse: