Bush gets called out at Q&A in North Carolina

Scorch

Scorch

CAGiversary!
Feedback
72 (100%)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/06.html#a7814


Taylor-critics-Bush.jpg


Taylor was at the North Carolina event today and said he's never felt more ashamed of the leadership of his country.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Taylor-critizes-Bush.wmv

Taylor: Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate...And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself...
Click to expand...

Thoughts?

Scorch's thoughts: Damn, that man has balls.
 
Interesting. The looks on the faces of the people behind Bush were rather fascinating as well. It speaks volumes that it's taken this long to see a public occurrance of Bush being told something like this, especially when you consider that two out of every three people disapprove of the job he's doing.
 
Personally I'm a little bitter about both of these jackasses, the faction that Bush represents(Military Industrial) with Cheney telling him what to do and the media against him(Global Oligarchs) and who they represent, both of these groups are against us and neither is doing us any good.
Look around, you think any Democrat will represent for us, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservatve, when it comes to Outsourcing? No because their people don't want them to and I don't mean purely big business either. Look at our country in the past and remember what our independence was financially and watch it float away with us getting food from China or finished there as well as everything else then wonder why and remember THIS was the end goal: to cripple the US should we rise against our true oppressors who create the dicchotomy of Liberal and Corporate all in one media to have Liberal and Conservative, Republican and Democrat, at each others throats.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The least he could do is mention why. The guy says nothing more than any random street protester.[/quote]

Does her really need to give specifics and cite references? :roll:

Additionally, anything he should feel ashamed of himself for he "didn't do/know about". So what good would citing specifics do when they're just be sumarily denied all together? Furthermore, even if he didn't do the majority of the things he was accused of, the sheer number of accusations should raise suspicion. Given the harsh nature of the accusations against him, even if he only did ONE, there have been Presidents impeached for far less.
 
Well he could have at least asked a question about it, but he probably would've just gotten a scripted, meaningless answer anyway.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well he could have at least asked a question about it, but he probably would've just gotten a scripted, meaningless answer anyway.[/QUOTE]

You mean something akin to his perfectly scripted non-questioning statement of his "feelings" ?

Another poorly articulated emotional sentiment of liberal, open-wound-victimization. And you liberals put spineless jellyfish like him on a pedestal. I suppose this shouldn't suprise me by now, but I imagine you people need something to rally around and sing kumbaya to since your self-loathing and Bush hatred has still not forced him from office.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Does her really need to give specifics and cite references? :roll:

Additionally, anything he should feel ashamed of himself for he "didn't do/know about". So what good would citing specifics do when they're just be sumarily denied all together? Furthermore, even if he didn't do the majority of the things he was accused of, the sheer number of accusations should raise suspicion. Given the harsh nature of the accusations against him, even if he only did ONE, there have been Presidents impeached for far less.[/quote]

I'm sorry if I prefer comments to have a point, instead of just pointlessly attacking someone.

Besides, the second part could fit clinton as easily as bush (except clinton was impeached).

You mean something akin to his perfectly scripted non-questioning statement of his "feelings" ?

Another poorly articulated emotional sentiment of liberal, open-wound-victimization. And you liberals put spineless jellyfish like him on a pedestal. I suppose this shouldn't suprise me by now, but I imagine you people need something to rally around and sing kumbaya to since your self-loathing and Bush hatred has still not forced him from office.
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought spineless people sat back and said nothing.
 
The spineless expect a president to install humility as a primary diplomatic tactic, rely on public opinion for truth, and demand comfort instead of leadership.
 
I was disappoointed that the link cut off the president's response. I was interested to hear the rest of what he had to say.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You mean something akin to his perfectly scripted non-questioning statement of his "feelings" ?

Another poorly articulated emotional sentiment of liberal, open-wound-victimization. And you liberals put spineless jellyfish like him on a pedestal. I suppose this shouldn't suprise me by now, but I imagine you people need something to rally around and sing kumbaya to since your self-loathing and Bush hatred has still not forced him from office.[/QUOTE]

Did you even pay attention to my statement above or will you continue to believe the political parties are truly running things and will represent for you?
Read the Carroll Quigley book and learn the truth.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Did you even pay attention to my statement above or will you continue to believe the political parties are truly running things and will represent for you?
Read the Carroll Quigley book and learn the truth.[/QUOTE]

You obviously don't know me or my contempt for politicians, in general, from either major party.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You obviously don't know me or my contempt for politicians, in general, from either major party.[/QUOTE]

Once in a while I will see a bit of sanity from you.

Mostly however there is naught but complete W fellating and a compulsion to blame something, anything on those ebil libruls.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I was disappoointed that the link cut off the president's response. I was interested to hear the rest of what he had to say.[/QUOTE]

Here you go:

Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

Q -- to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food.

If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and a decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf.

You are --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter, applause.) Go on! What's your question?

Q Okay. I don't have a question. What I want to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate and the House -- (booing) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Now -- (inaudible) -- yourselves. Let him speak.

Q Yeah. And I would hope -- I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration. And I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself, inside yourself.

I'd also want to say that I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country's about.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is. Yeah. (Applause.)

Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Appreciate --

Q I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I appreciate it. Thank you.

The -- let me -- let me -- (laughter) --

Q Can I ask a question?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The -- I'm going to start off with what you first said, if you don't mind. You said that I tap your phones. I think that's what you said. You tapped your -- I tapped your phones. Yeah.

Q His phone.

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, that's right. Yeah. No, let me finish.

I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country.

You can come to whatever conclusion you want.

The conclusion is I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I'll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so, I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people in the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do? And there -- out of this national -- NSA came the recommendation that we -- it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long (as) it was constitutional.

Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers. And we got plenty of them in Washington. But they made this assessment, that it was -- I -- constitutional for me to make that decision. I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. They -- and so, members of both parties, both chambers were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like to make -- make sense if we're at war we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution on a very limited basis, a program that's reviewed constantly, to protect us.

Now, you and I have a different -- of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said would I apologize for that? The answer -- the answer is absolutely not. (Applause.)
 
Does W honestly believe calling it a terrorists surveillance program excuses anything?

Does anyone believe that?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Does W honestly believe calling it a terrorists surveillance program excuses anything?[/QUOTE]

I suppose you call it "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic spying." Supporters use "terrorist surveillance program." It's all about choosing the terminology that makes your point of view sound like the more reasonable one. If you're for spending more money, it's "fulfilling our responsibilies" or "economic stimulus," while if you want to rein in spending you're for "fiscal responsibility" and against "government waste." I could go on, of course, about things like pork and how it's pork to some but "vital infrastructure" to others. So honestly, criticizing him for something you basically do yourself in calling it whatever you call it (I'm sure it's something to put it in a bad light) doesn't really hold any water.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I suppose you call it "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic spying." Supporters use "terrorist surveillance program." It's all about choosing the terminology that makes your point of view sound like the more reasonable one. If you're for spending more money, it's "fulfilling our responsibilies" or "economic stimulus," while if you want to rein in spending you're for "fiscal responsibility" and against "government waste." I could go on, of course, about things like pork and how it's pork to some but "vital infrastructure" to others. So honestly, criticizing him for something you basically do yourself in calling it whatever you call it (I'm sure it's something to put it in a bad light) doesn't really hold any water.[/QUOTE]

It is warrantless wiretapping.

There is a way to monitor terrorists with a warrant (you know legally and not violating the constitution).

W and his crew couldnt be bothered.

So calling it a terrorist surveillance program is meant to obscure his power grab.

The expediency excuse doesnt hold water since warrants can be had up to 2 days after the fact.

P.s. My point is not that I dont understand W attempting to equivocate using language. Im just amazed how full of shit he is and how anyone can believe it.

Edit: I was wrong, it is up to three days after the fact.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That would have been the perfect time to explain why bush is wrong in his terminology.[/QUOTE]

Well it is not exactly totally wrong as it is an act of dishonest bullshitting.

It would be kind of hard to give an example without resorting to an reductio ad absurdum...

It would be as if I was in a Supermarket and got caught opening a bottle of water and not paying it for it. With a water fountain a yard away.

I could say I was just getting a drink of water (which would be true) but it would completely be confusing the issue.

The problem is that Bush admitted to willfully going against the spirit and the letter of the law and the Constitution, calling what he did a terrorist surveillance is an extremely dishonest way of deflecting those facts.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well it is not exactly totally wrong as it is an act of dishonest bullshitting.

It would be kind of hard to give an example without resorting to an reductio ad absurdum...

It would be as if I was in a Supermarket and got caught opening a bottle of water and not paying it for it. With a water fountain a yard away.

I could say I was just getting a drink of water (which would be true) but it would completely be confusing the issue.

The problem is that Bush admitted to willfully going against the spirit and the letter of the law and the Constitution, calling what he did a terrorist surveillance is an extremely dishonest way of deflecting those facts.[/QUOTE]

Let's go a little further. And by the way, I think I'm on your side at least somewhat on this one, in that I think what was done was wrong, even if through legalese courts can be convinced it was legal.

Firstly, is the program not targeting terrorists? They claim the wiretaps are done on suspected terrorists. Do you have proof otherwise? If not, Bush's description of the program, slanted as it may be towards his view (naturally), is no less accurate than your description of "warrantless wiretapping." My point is that you are doing the same thing in your description he is doing in his description, just from the opposite point of view, and then you express exasperation that anyone would agree with his view. Do you see why many of us feel we are the subject of "dishonest bullshitting" all the time from the Left and from the Right?
 
Bush's "buzzwords"are always made by the same few people, they have a knack for wording things to kind of ease them onto people. These are the same people who thought up buzzwords like "death tax", "leave no child behind"...etc, everything is about PR these days.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Bush's "buzzwords"are always made by the same few people, they have a knack for wording things to kind of ease them onto people. These are the same people who thought up buzzwords like "death tax", "leave no child behind"...etc, everything is about PR these days.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the PR-politics evil partnership is flourishing. Who was the first one who thought of having those stupid backgrounds at every speech and press conference with "saving America" or something on them? Subliminable!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Firstly, is the program not targeting terrorists? They claim the wiretaps are done on suspected terrorists. Do you have proof otherwise?[/QUOTE]

You would like me to prove a negative?

The Onus is on the admitted lawbreaker.

Also it is warrantless saying that is in no way a dishonest or half truth.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yeah, the PR-politics evil partnership is flourishing. Who was the first one who thought of having those stupid backgrounds at every speech and press conference with "saving America" or something on them? Subliminable![/quote]

Hey, I never said anything about EVIL, I do think it's snide of them/ although life saving for their administration to adorn these kinds of buzzwords though.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Hey, I never said anything about EVIL, I do think it's snide of them/ although life saving for their administration to adorn these kinds of buzzwords though.[/QUOTE]

The republicans have some sort of monopoly on snideness, I guess, unlike the objective buzzword creations of democrats :

quagmire
Politics of personal destruction
lock box
no blood for oil
bush lied, people died
rush to war
"this" president (instead of "the" president)
Privitization (of social security)
Right wing fundamentalist
Tax cuts steal from the poor
occupied territories and freedom fighters
disinfranchised voter
republican scandal
stolen election
appointed president
shoot from the hip &
cowboy diplomacy (Thank you John Kerry, you could make an entire thread from his list of catch phrases)

This is off the top of my head. I'm sure with a little time and effort, I could come up with a hundred more. And I do mean LITTLE time and effort.

edit : Forgot "gestapo tactics". That's an important one...
 
[quote name='Msut77']You would like me to prove a negative?

The Onus is on the admitted lawbreaker.[/quote]

I'd like you to show some evidence that the wiretapping was not wiretapping of terrorists before I jump to that conclusion. And whether or not it was against the law has yet to be proven (although I believe it is against the spirit of the law, if not the letter).

[quote name='Msut77']Also it is warrantless saying that is in no way a dishonest or half truth.[/QUOTE]

You're not getting it. "Warrantless" is an accurate description. Unless you can show me some proof per above, so is "terrorist surveillance." The point is that you jump on someone (usually the president) for characterizing something a certain way, but you yourself use slanted terminology in the opposite direction when it suits you.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The republicans have some sort of monopoly on snideness, I guess, unlike the objective buzzword creations of democrats :[/QUOTE]

You've left off the one congressional Democrats have been repeating every time they speak for the last six months, "culture of corruption." Or you could have at least included Senator Stabenow's "dangerously incompetent."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You're not getting it. "Warrantless" is an accurate description. Unless you can show me some proof per above, so is "terrorist surveillance."[/QUOTE]

Just say the phrase "yes I want you to prove a negative".

Calling it merely a terrorist surveillance program is an attempt to obfuscate the illegality of the action.
 
Well I don't wanna jump into an argument, but I agree with elprincipe that calling it "warrantless wiretapping" and "terrorist surveillance" are both accurate. I'm sure the intent of the program is to intercept terrorist messages, but in order to do so they're tapping phones without warrants. They probably aren't able to prove that they are only tapping terrorist's and terrorist sympathizer's phones, but they're probably trying their best. I agree that there's too much room for abuse with the program, but both descriptions are technically accurate.

They're both spinning the wording to their own side just like pro-life and pro-choice: they're both technically accurate, but meant to color the other side as anti-life and anti-choice. The left isn't without PR tactics, it just seems that the right has more success with them, at least now.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I don't wanna jump into an argument, but I agree with elprincipe that calling it "warrantless wiretapping" and "terrorist surveillance" are both accurate. I'm sure the intent of the program is to intercept terrorist messages, but in order to do so they're tapping phones without warrants. They probably aren't able to prove that they are only tapping terrorist's and terrorist sympathizer's phones, but they're probably trying their best. I agree that there's too much room for abuse with the program, but both descriptions are technically accurate.[/QUOTE]

So you guys are actually trusting Bush even at this point?

IMHO if the courts wouldnt approve these taps they werent legitimate suspects.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You've left off the one congressional Democrats have been repeating every time they speak for the last six months, "culture of corruption." Or you could have at least included Senator Stabenow's "dangerously incompetent."[/QUOTE]

Damn, you're right that's the most repeated one for months. Republicans are in their own little mafioso community, er... I mean administration, of crime compared to the lilly white culture of democrats who fight for reform.
 
Both parties have their own methods of doing this I'm sure, but I note the Bush administrations, particularly, because I have seen interviews with the people in charge of thinking up the words for his speeches.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you guys are actually trusting Bush even at this point?

IMHO if the courts wouldnt approve these taps they werent legitimate suspects.[/QUOTE]

Open your eyes: I think Bush was (and is) WRONG on this issue. He should have followed FISA. I think he violated the intent of FISA, even if he can wiggle out of it in the courts by claiming some nebulous "constitutional authority." But again, this has little to do with the point I was making, which was (and is) that you are just as guilty as spin as he is. And your constant "only an idiot would agree with Bush on anything" lines are not doing anything to dispel the "I hate Bush no matter what on everything he's evil la-la-la-la-la" vibe you're exuding.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Just say the phrase "yes I want you to prove a negative".

Calling it merely a terrorist surveillance program is an attempt to obfuscate the illegality of the action.[/QUOTE]

So I guess in your world guilty until proven innocent?
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Both parties have their own methods of doing this I'm sure, but I note the Bush administrations, particularly, because I have seen interviews with the people in charge of thinking up the words for his speeches.[/QUOTE]

Then you should take more time and note the democrats' speechwriters, particularly, as well.

The stories are out there, but thery're not on MSNBC or in section A of your local paper.
 
So, what news source would you suggest, Since i'm so stuck in my so called liberal televised mind trap? (I don't get cable anyways...)

I mainly get my news from independant sources, with no partisanship pulling a story in someones favor.


I gotta say i've been reading alot of BMULLIGAN'S big giant head daily, and I'm just not very impressed lately. ;)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']the point I was making, which was (and is) that you are just as guilty as spin as he is[/QUOTE]


No, not at all.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So I guess in your world guilty until proven innocent?[/QUOTE]

Uh he admitted to breaking the law, he feels he is above them.

He might have a chance of beating the rap if people (left and right) are spineless enough to go along with it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you guys are actually trusting Bush even at this point?

IMHO if the courts wouldnt approve these taps they werent legitimate suspects.[/quote]

No, I don't trust him and I agree, I'm just saying that both descriptions are technically true. PR works by spinning the truth in a way that makes your side look better without actually lying. If all they had to do was lie it would be way easier, but there's a PR industry because there's a way to word things to make yourself look better without actually lying and opening yourself up to legal battles.

I'm agreeing with elprincipe that both the left and right use the same PR techniques even though I think the right is more successful with them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Uh he admitted to breaking the law, he feels he is above them.

He might have a chance of beating the rap if people (left and right) are spineless enough to go along with it.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you missed the part where he claimed all he is doing is legal under his "inherent constitutional authority." Again, I don't agree with what he's saying, but he's not just saying, "hey, I broke the law, so what?"
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently you missed the part where he claimed all he is doing is legal under his "inherent constitutional authority." Again, I don't agree with what he's saying, but he's not just saying, "hey, I broke the law, so what?"[/QUOTE]

Wait so you actually believe him? Everyone says they are innocent.


"but he's not just saying, "hey, I broke the law, so what?""

Yes he is.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']
I mainly get my news from independant sources, with no partisanship pulling a story in someones favor.
[/QUOTE]

Sure you do. You've always been good at lying to yourself, why stop now ?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Wait so you actually believe him? Everyone says they are innocent.[/quote]

Msut, msut, it's always the same with you. You even contradict yourself in the next sentence of this response:

[quote name='Msut77']"but he's not just saying, "hey, I broke the law, so what?""

Yes he is.[/QUOTE]

And you've yet to produce a shred of evidence that the surveillance ordered was on anybody other than terrorists, and you've yet to produce any evidence where Bush says the NSA program is breaking the law (in his opinion). Get back to me when you have something other than wild accusations with no evidence to back them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top