-paulsy
"Paul- The Shrub you so blindly follow is a mean-spirited greedy idiot, and you can't blame mainstream media sources for finally recognizing his lack of clothing.
He was not elected by a majority, he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority, most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration. He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose. Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing". On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing". Now, as the biggest gunslinger on the block, we as a country can expect to be the target of every oppressed political animal in the world with weapons and imagination. Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world. We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.
You might be thinking of saying "well, Sadam was bad and his demise and capture are good things." (Shrub Man borrows from Martha Stewart, if you didn't notice.) The same thing could have, and I think would have, happened had Shrub Man not announced to the world that he was going to do it with or without international support. Indeed, for many years even Arab countries wanted to get rid of him but we( R's and D's) helped put Sadam in power and protected him.
And just think, so far at least five times as many people have died in the Shrub's dirty little war as died in 9/11. ( Hell, the tobacco industry kills as many people as died in 9/11, EVERY 2 1/2 DAYS). People continue dying every day in the war while Shrub Man hunkers down in the safest and most luxurious places on earth, bellowing "BRING IT ON !".
As for the different views on whether Shrub Man's tax policies add up, I certainly don't know whose math is right. I know the Washington Times is not considered by most people to be objective or main stream; it is decidedly right wing. (Wasn't it started up to punish the Washington Post for exposing Watergate?) I'm no fan of Newsweek either; with very few exceptions it repeats whatever the powers-that-be want it to. However, wasn't Newsweek reporting on the total federal income tax bills while the W. Times only mentions the effect of isolated provisions? If so, both of their math calculations could be correct, but the W Times is comparing apples to oranges. A more meaningful analysis would include the necessary increases in state, local and sales taxes. The fact is Shrub Man has not only made the tax structure more regressive, his wildly irresponsible spending and tax cutting for the rich have greatly increased the tax burden for future generations, and put the economy in peril for the foreseeable future.
Paul, what I think is going on is that the mainstream media and a lot of the country have been giving Shrub Man "WAR president" status since 9/11, along with the benefit of every doubt, since that is what happens when a president is responding to an emergency. Shrub Man, and his shrubbers, took full advantage of this status to advance their political agenda (check out wages, health care, education, the environment, individual rights, or anything else they could sell out) without the normal scrutiny radical changes would normally be subject to, and are running the country into the dirt. Shrub Man killed his golden goose by trying to crassly campaign as a "WAR president", and he's been called on it. He can't fool most of the people all of the time. Now, finally, the normal scrutiny is returning, eyes are opening, the emperor is nekkid, and he is only starting to get the attention he deserves. Open your eyes and get used to it. Julian is right and you seem so be looking for some sand to put your head in.
I think there may be other explanations for your reduced tax bill, if you would be candid about it. I know my tax bill is down, but that's because as a lawyer representing poor and working people who've had their civil rights violated under a regime that favors only rich and corporate interests, my income is down. I give Shrub Man full credit.
I'm yellow dog with a full bladder who's found his Shrub. BRING IT ON!"
Reasoned and measured responses to him are best.
Back up your assertions with links to documentation. Insist that he do the same.
Use counter examples to refute his statements.
I'd suggest keeping handy some info on logical fallacies.
Skillful use of reductio ad absurdum can devastate an opponent.
If you want to have a little fun with him you might add these to your emails....
Or one of my favorites...
Trajan88
First, let's assume you like your uncle, so let's keep things light-hearted. Confusing the personal and the political is a legacy from the Communists. Let's not emulate them.
In that spirit, you have to compliment your uncle on his penultimate line: "I'm yellow dog with a full bladder who's found his Shrub." That's pretty good stuff. Have to give him credit there.
And then you kick him around a bit like the mangy ol' yellow dog he is.
He was not elected by a majority,
Ok. So you want to change the Constitition, Article 2, section 1. Start a petition, and let me know how that goes for you.
he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority,
Riiiiight. So fiercely right wing that they'll get around to overturning Roe vs. Wade any day now. Which justice tipped the balance so far to the right for you? Ruth Bader Ginsberg? David Souter? There are only three justices that most conservatives give a damn about. Which other ones are so lacking in leftist favor these days? You have to practically view Chairman Mao as a centrist to view the Supreme Court as "fiercely right wing."
most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration.
Well let's count how many parties have appointed Supreme Court justices. By my count, it's two. By some weird coincidence, both of those parties had a stake in the election. So we could either have had a majority appointed by the president's party, or the other guy's party. Forgive me if I don't join you in your fevered paranoia over this one. If you think the court is only "legtimate" when the majority of justices were appointed by the opposition party, you have a lot larger beef with the legitimacy of the government than getting rid of the current president can resolve.
He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose.
Look, braniac. Someone out there flew airplanes into American buildings. Most of us considered that an act of war. Feel free to contend that we should have phoned that one in to the Hague to let them deal with it if you want. The rest of us think war was declared by the other side. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing"
Try getting your "leaks" from somewhere other than La Monde. There was nothing sudden or irrational about going to war with Iraq. And about this "marketing" thing....
On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing".
So the war was "marketed," but not well enough in your opinion? Is this "marketing" supposed be global or domestic or what? You seem confused. You want us to line up behind keeping France and Russia happy while crazy Arabs attack us willy nilly. I think your priorities are a little out of whack.
And of course, you once again decend into the fever swamps of paranoia. Those who oppose us are "traditional allies" we must not offend. Those who join us are frightened or bribed. My question: what is the purpose of allies who won't ally themselves with us? In your opinion our "allies" either refuse or have to be intimidated or bribed. Those don't sound like allies to me. Maybe those "decades of diplomacy" weren't so skillful after all.
Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world.
Parse that thought for me. We've lost a position we may have not ever held, and if we did we didn't deserve? Get back to me when you decide whether anything happened here, and if so whether it was a good thing.
We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.
I'm don't value the consensus of Syria, Iran, and China very highly when we're acting in our national interest. I'd rather be right than loved by those sort of nations. Again, we'll just agree to disagree.
Sheesh... just a mound of gold in the first paragraph alone. I don't have the time to do the rest justice. But hopefully someone will.
Oh sure, France and Russia who were doing billions in illegal deals with Iraq, were just chomping at the bit to join us in Iraq and expose the extent to which they were involved in helping Saddam's anti United States regime.
Scratch that off his list!
That's apt to shut him up right there, but if it doesn't, hold his feet to the fire and make him discuss one issue at a time, in detail.
A good idea is to mutually collect some agreed upon documents (historical -- not editorial) before initiating the debate on a particular point. Then you can keep referring him back to the facts (which leftists can't deal with). For instance, if he chooses to discuss the 2K election controversy, send him links to the SCOTUS decisions, the Florida Supreme Court decisions, the Florida election law from the period (if it's preserved somewhere) and so on. Ask if there are any objective (not editorial) documents he would add.
An honestly mistaken man hearing the truth, will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
"Ignorance may make excellent fuel for passion, but is no substitute for a grasp of the facts, and the ability to reason and make intelligent conclusions.
"If you think that 'not being elected by the majority' indicates anything more that profound ignorance, there is no hope of holding a rational conversation with you.
"Have a nice day."
You can see in that one remark what your uncle thought of this country before any of this happened.
No need to even try to make any points with him.
I don't blindly follow anything. I rationally make up my own mind...
He was not elected by a majority,
That's how our Constitution is set up. Thomas Jefferson wasn't elected by a popular majority either, but that's just how the system works. Its rare for a person to win the Presidency without the popular vote, but it happens.
Didn't have time to read the rest. Have a great day.
