Difference between revisions of "Talk:George W. Bush"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(moved part of Mafia argument down to a different area; saving in case of crash)
m (Talk:George W. Bush YOU MEAN COLONEL CLUSTER FUCK moved to Talk:George W. Bush over redirect: reverting "Brian Peppers Day" / "Tourettes Guy" vandalism)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Debates==
 
==Debates==
−
===Have Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 been justified?===
+
The debate which was here has been moved to a separate page:
−
{{arg.mainpoint|Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 have been justified.}}
+
* [[Have Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 been justified]]?
−
: {{arg.point|key=1|This is a war, and waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}}
 
−
:: {{arg.point|key=1a|We are at war.}}
 
−
::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1|Can you call it a war when the enemy isn't a country or even an organized group?}}
 
−
:::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1.1|If it's not a war on some recognized geopolitical or cultural entity, do the usual caveats about "being at war" – specifically that freedoms must be curtailed – even apply?}}
 
−
:::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1.2|How do we know that Bush hasn't shaped his response to the situation specifically so that the label "war" could be applied, allowing him to make bad decisions and behave corruptly? Do we trust Bush to make "wartime" judgment calls without any accountability? ''See [[#Is Bush trustworthy?]] for further discussion.''}}
 
−
::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-2|We shouldn't be at war.}}
 
−
:::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-2.1|War is an inappropriate response to this situation.}}
 
−
::::: {{arg.counter|key=1a.2.1.1|You don't attack the Mafia by invading Chicago, destroying its infrastructure, and getting all the locals ticked off at you. Similarly, you don't destroy terrorism with an army; it takes ''intelligence'', in both senses of the word, and [[Bush II administration|the Bush people]] have shown over and over again that what mental powers they do possess are mostly devoted to the intelligent design of sweetheart deals for their supporters – and consolidating their power through subterfuge, misdirection, and highly questionable legal theory. ''See [[#Is Bush trustworthy?]] for further discussion.''}}
 
−
:: {{arg.point|key=1b|Waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}}
 
−
::: {{arg.counter|key=1b-1|The Mafia situation was worse than this one, and yet there was no significant curtailment of freedom.}}
 
−
:::: {{arg.counter|key=1b-1.1|Regardless of whether you call the situation now with the [[Islamofascism|Islamic terrorists]], the Mafia in America in the 1920s-30s was ''substantially worse'' – people were being attacked on American soil, by a well-funded enemy who ''looked'' like us and even (mostly) had US citizenship – so there was no quick-and-dirty way to profile them for detention, as we are now doing. City governments were being corrupted and infiltrated by Mafia operatives, people were being gunned down in broad daylight, businesses were being burned.}}
 
−
:::: {{arg.counter|key=1b-1.2|And yet, as far as I know, there was no significant curtailment of freedom in the fight against these terrorists. (Significantly, they largely arose as a major threat ''because'' of a curtailment of freedom – Prohibition. On a related note, the rampant corruption of the [[US occupation of Iraq]] is having a similar effect over there.)}}
 
−
: {{arg.point|key=2|Bush's abridgments of civil liberties thus far are at least ''within reason'', whether or not you agree on the details.}}
 
−
:: {{arg.info|i.e. it's difficult to judge if the current war justifies the curtailments thus far, so why not grant Bush the benefit of the doubt?}}
 
−
:: {{arg.point|key=2a|We still have far more freedoms than European countries do, so we don't really have any cause for complaint.}}
 
−
:: {{arg.point|key=2b|Some increase in surveillance powers at least seems reasonable.}}
 
−
: {{arg.point|key=3|Nobody has been seriously harmed by these curtailments so far.}}
 
−
:: {{arg.point|key=3a|The ''potential'' for abuse is there, but Bush would not intentionally abuse the power he has obtained.}}
 
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==

Latest revision as of 16:28, 8 August 2008

Debates

The debate which was here has been moved to a separate page:

Notes

#politics 2005-07-22

<TheWoozle> Would you consider "pro-big-business" to be a positive or negative side of Republicanism?
<TheWoozle> And is pro-big-businessness a Conservative trait too? I wouldn't necessarily *think* so, but maybe I'm confusing Conservative and Libertarian.

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=12994"