Thread: Is George W. Bush a Mexican Mole?

However, I'm very angry at him for not trying to secure our borders because I think he should have and that he should do everything possible to stop what is happening.

xanadu wrote:

Where would we be if we did not have Freedon of Speech?

IN the NORTH AMERICAN UNION

sorry couldn't help myself

I just wish he'd bash the President a little more. At least once.
That would make my day.

Crocket just for the record....I was just joking around with you. I don't believe in "bashing" people just to bash them either.

I do not know George W. Bush, I don't really know what kind of a person he really is. I can only make my assumptions and judgements about him based on what I see him doing and not doing and on what I see happening to our country. I don't like what I've seen, I don't like it when I see him ignoring the strong pleas from the American people to please pay attention and use his ability to take strong action to stop allowing people to ignore and disrespect our laws and quite frankly us, the American people. I don't like when I see him stand next to someone like Vicente Fox and insinuate negative things about brave and patriotic Americans, such as the Minutemen trying to get something done about a huge problem. I don't like when he even makes subtle negative insinuations about people like us, speaking out about something that is a problem. I don't like it when he acts like something that is a problem isn't a problem. I don't like that.

In my opinion it is as though he is bashing us sometimes through some of his actions and some of his inactions. Is he bashing us or taking advantage of his power and authority over us? Is one worse than the other?

We are at war and I have always felt that it has not been in our best interest to make negative jokes about him or to "bash" him. I believe that you are correct that we should just complain about his policies rather than to say stupid things like he's the "anti-Christ". Discussions like that only fuel our enemies and lead them to believe that the president of the U.S. is weakened in his abilities and that the American people don't respect his authority as president. Enemies of America like that and they use it against us as indicated by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Amadenejad when they were in New York.

It's pretty tricky when your country is at war and you have so many grievences with the Commander in Chief. I appreciate the fact that you do such a good job of balancing all of that in what you say in public view of the world.

Thank you for letting me clarify what I meant by my comment.

April, along with you, I certainly believe in and appreciate having freedom of speech. I think that it's important to protect it and to use our freedom of speech responsibly and for the most part I think that we do.

That having been said...I do hold him personally responsible for the situation with our borders. Is that wrong?

It's pretty tricky when your country is at war and you have so many grievences with the Commander in Chief

well my comment is not going to be popular because it is going to be initially misunderstood. Which I perceive is what is happening in this thread.

Let me be perfectly clear this comment has to do with the psychology of the situation.

The quote above provides a perfect example. Yes indeed it is tricky.

Please consider what purpose "being a country at war" provides a leader who has done massive harm to a nation and in fact has performed the acts of a traitor and rubbed the people's collective noses in it. Could it be the illegal war had a purpose worth sacraficing the president up to ridicule? Could the anger it provokes be a distraction from the real goal? Could the name calling between parties discussing the situation have a purpose? Could that purpose be to divide the masses and with some luck shut up and discredit those who are in fact putting forth legitimate arguments? In real estate the key is location, location, location. In a warped psychological war the key is crediblity, crediblity, credibility.

We have had this discussion with regard to the defense put forth by the pro amnesty groups. If you don't like illegal aliens entering your country you are referred to as a racist.

If you refer to Bush as Hitler that has the same passionate but not factual argument.

What really needs to be observed is what the consequences of the response and how they affect the speaker.

For example:
If you don't like the actions of a president taking this country into an illegal war you are not supporting the troops.

Illegal aliens have nothing to do with racism just as protesting an illegal war has nothing to do with NOT supporting the troops.

So why do they do this type of response? Is it lack of a legitimate defense? well maybe but I personally believe it is far more devious and has a particular goal in mind when it occurs. The goal is to cause a distraction and discredit the speaker and therefore discredit the legitimate complaint or observation. Net result a general slowing of the opposition while they (those who should be protesting) regroup to communicate their point. The puppet masters playing all of us move forward with their agenda having experienced a minor hickup in the path to success; while those protesting engage in semantics and attempt to defend their crediblity.

In reality an argument couched with inflamatory words introduces the head game described above and initiates a diversion which impedes the protest and allows the agenda to move forward unobstructed. The speaker is doing the job of the debunker for him/her.

I think but I may be wrong Crocket just doesn't want to waste time or give those who would defend the wrongs the opportunity to discredit the truth. He preceived a passionate remark as a reduction of the crediblity of a legitimate argument.

Anyhoooooo .... I think that is what Crocket is trying to convey here. If I am wrong tell me Kevin.



So having said all that, I do understand the comparison of Hitler to Bush. The repeating pattern proven in history is undeniable and if we fail to see that pattern we will land in the same miserable spot the German people did.

No American likes to be called a racist. No Patriot likes to appear to not support our troops and by falling into those games we follow the German people in 1935. And most assuridly most Americans don't like to admitt they have been snuckered to the enth' degree. Those in control of the game seek to discredit and to hush the masses. IF they succeed Americans will fall for the same ploy as the Germans and unfortunately receive equal if not worse consequences for failure to stay on task.

xanadu wrote:

And most assuridly most Americans don't like to admitt they have been snuckered to the enth' degree. Those in control of the game seek to discredit and to hush the masses. IF they succeed Americans will fall for the same ploy as the Germans and unfortunately receive equal if not worse consequences for failure to stay on task.

True Xanadu....and that is why there is this urgency to stay on task, to stay motivated and aware.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

However, I'm very angry at him for not trying to secure our borders because I think he should have and that he should do everything possible to stop what is happening.

I am 100% with you on that point, my friend. I would characterize his failings as something closer to dereliction of duty than treason, though.

Originally Posted by xanadu

In reality an argument couched with inflamatory words introduces the head game described above and initiates a diversion which impedes the protest and allows the agenda to move forward unobstructed. The speaker is doing the job of the debunker for him/her.

I think but I may be wrong Crocket just doesn't want to waste time or give those who would defend the wrongs the opportunity to discredit the truth. He preceived a passionate remark as a reduction of the crediblity of a legitimate argument.

Anyhoooooo .... I think that is what Crocket is trying to convey here. If I am wrong tell me Kevin.

Bingo.

If you don't like the actions of a president taking this country into an illegal war you are not supporting the troops.

I would like to clarify that the following statement is a general one and in no way directed to the peron who posted it. My apologies to Xanadu.

I think that it is fine to dislike a President, a war, or anything else. The problem comes in when you assist in destroying the credibility of a nation. There are many people yapping about the war, as far as I can tell, it hasn't helped a bit, but it has certainly hurt us. We have lost our allies. So now, we are sending over more Americans to get the job done. If we had help, this thing could have been under control by now. Complain all that you want, but please do it through correspondence and other ways where the media will not project it to the entire world. By destroying our relationship with our allies, you are not supporting our troops, and in fact, are getting us killed. I don't want to hear a single person who has spoken out in the media, to complain about the death rate or how many soldiers have been injured, it is their fault because they do not think about the consequences of their actions. People are priding themselves on bashing the war, the President. They are not heroes, they are fools who follow other fools. Think about what you are doing.