Feed on
Posts
Comments

Never Again

It’s almost here. And it’s almost over. The New Dawn to replace the Interminable Darkness. Barack Obama- the holder of our hopes and vision for a better world is about to replace the Greatest Embarrassment that democracy has ever dealt up: the devastatingly moronic George W. Bush – twice elected and twice given the power to wreak untold havoc on this small planet of ours.

Never Again.

Never Again must we allow the politics of inertia to lull us into a stupor or sense of helplessness that has allowed the violations of all the tenets of justice and freedom that the so-called Developed World have the responsibility both to uphold and to encourage those with less resources and fewer opportunities.

Never Again must we stand by and allow our leaders to take us into the darkness that has led to the death of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocents through war, environmental assault, and sheer indifference and neglect.

And Never Again must we allow ourselves to become so culpable in the loss of what we are so privileged to have in our lives – freedom, the right to choose our government, and the responsibility to do so wisely and with a broad vision for all.

Welcome Obama – we are watching you with bated breath, and we will stand beside you when you falter if we know that you are at times understandably overwhelmed by the enormity of what you face, but that you are continuing to try and face the immeasurable responsibility you have been handed.

And George Bush… may you rot in hell.
You should have had the decency to just admit that you were never up to the task.

239 Responses to “Never Again”

  1. 201
    Chris B says:

    The article was within the last 4-5 days.

  2. 202
    Chris B says:

    As I said, Holder would do that. Not me. That’s his job.

  3. 203
    Chris B says:

    Why does it have to be a specific offense? We are not the lawyers?

  4. 204
    David Gould says:

    Abramoff is definitely a big one – thanks for reminding me of it.

  5. 205
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 203,

    Lawyers or not, you all seem to think that Bush *must* be guilty of *something*. This seems to indicate that this whole thing is based on wishes rather than facts.

  6. 206
    Chris B says:

    205 David Gould David, I think you will have to be patient like everyone else. Then you’ll find out.

  7. 207
    Chris B says:

    None of us have the exact facts at hand.

  8. 208
    Chris B says:

    With a list around 500 pages long there is a good chance he is.

  9. 209
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 207,

    I know. That is why the obsession with the idea of charging Bush with *something* must be based on wishes rather than any actual evidence. And this is what I have been arguing all along. It is wishful thinking based on a reaction against Bush and his policies, rather than a rational statement based on knowledge of the facts.

  10. 210
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 208,

    Why does a large document increase the chances of Bush being guilty of something? The Bible is very large. That does not increase the chances of the Christian deity being real.

  11. 211
    Catrina says:

    David Gould at 205
    Maybe we could get him for crimes against the English language?

    :lol:

  12. 212
    Chris B says:

    I don’t understand your point you are trying to make.

  13. 213
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    The point I am trying to make is that this notion of convicting Bush of some felony is a left-wing fantasy.

  14. 214
    Chris B says:

    Are you concerned that none of us have an exact charge?

  15. 215
    David Gould says:

    Catrina,

    As a Hansard editor, I’m all in favour of that.

  16. 216
    Chris B says:

    You seem to be awfully impatient.

  17. 217
    Chris B says:

    Just wait they will come out in time.

  18. 218
    Catrina says:

    Chris at 214
    The concern is that the charges are “Bush is a bad man” but nothing of legal substance that would lead to anything more than indictment on his legacy.

  19. 219
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    That is one of my concerns. There is an arbitary ‘Off with his head!’ kind of feel to the whole thing. If you think what Bush did was criminal, it is not unreasonable for me to ask what it was that you think Bush did that was indeed criminal …

  20. 220
    Chris B says:

    I think I’ll get back and post some real topics on here.

  21. 221
    Chris B says:

    Yes, Catrina. That is correct. None of us have them. The Democrats do.

  22. 222
    Chris B says:

    Which is why Holder is going to dig deep and find any evidence of injustices.

  23. 223
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    The Democrats have not said that they have anything with which to charge Bush with, so on what basis do you make the claim that they have such?

  24. 224
    David Gould says:

    So Holder is going to dig deep to try and find the ‘injustices’ – and I assume by this that you mean ‘evidence for criminal activity’ that you are absolutely positive exist? How have you determined that they do indeed exist? And are you able to use your psychic powers to help Holder narrow his search?

  25. 225
    Chris B says:

    I can hope he will find plenty. After the last eight years. There is heaps and heaps of circumstantial evidence. Holder is the right person to find the facts.

  26. 226
    Chris B says:

    David you are using semantics.

  27. 227
    Chris B says:

    Where is the evidence of me saying “absolutely positive exist?” NO ONE has said that on here.

  28. 228
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    Circumstantial evidence for *what* crime?

  29. 229
    Chris B says:

    I think it is called argument for arguments sake.

  30. 230
    David Gould says:

    Chris B at 227,

    You all seem pretty certain. You yourself say, ‘Be patient’ and ‘Just wait they will come out in time.’

    Saying that they *will* come out in time demonstrates that you are absolutely positive that they exist.

  31. 231
    Chris B says:

    Are you having a good day for fishing David?

  32. 232
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    No. It is an argument in which I am trying to correct what I perceive as irrational thinking.

  33. 233
    David Gould says:

    Chris B,

    If you do not want to discuss this, I am perfectly happy to discuss something else. However, I detest fishing. :)

  34. 234
    Gaffhook says:

    201
    The links were on the “Retribution” thread.
    There are several links in the link itself.
    I do not think david has time to read all the links nor, IMHO does he bother.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Abramoff-Trail-Might-B-by-Roger-Shuler-090108-606.html

  35. 235
    David Gould says:

    Gaffhook,

    I certainly do not read all links. However, I always read them if I request them.

    Those links are certainly interesting and the Abramoff scandal is one that I acknowledge that I overlooked.

  36. 236
    Catrina says:

    David:
    We may have our differences of opinion on the Israeli/Gaza thing, but on this topic I’m over in your corner.

  37. 237
    Gaffhook says:

    Which is exactly where we are at Chris. Nobody has any idea at this moment as to whether there will be criminal charges against the Imbecile. Some of us hope there will be.
    As you say there are lots of emails and papers to unravel and also like you said we need to be patient and time will tell.
    Because we mention the Abramoff stuff David seems to think that we should be able to disclose what is in all that material.
    Sorry David you will have to be patient like us and wait to see.
    Your statement at 209 that “It is wishful thinking based on a reaction against Bush and his policies, rather than a rational statement based on knowledge of the facts.” does not hold any water as at this point in time you are not aware of the total facts surrounding the issues and you have narrowed your argument to Bush. We are in hope that evidence may appear that has the effect of charging the Imbecile and some of his gang.
    We do not know if there is any concrete evidence the same as you do not know the opposite.
    But keep fishin!

  38. 238
    David Gould says:

    This is a summary of my position:

    It is reasonable to think that the Abramoff scandal might lead to indictments of more senior people in the Bush administration. However, it is not reasonable to assume that it *will* lead to such indictments.

  39. 239
    Catrina says:

    I think there is a period for venting – it’s happening here and it’s happening out there on the web and in the media. For all practical purposes he’s gone and as the days roll by we will be caught up in new realities and I figure that a lot of the angst towards GWB will dissipate simply because there will be more important things to deal with and never enough time.

    Anyway, with just a day and a bit to the 44th Presidency – time for a new thread.

    The Longest Odds