Escape from Elba

National => Bush Administration => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:57:17 PM



Title: Bush Administration
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:57:17 PM
Share your opinions on the Bush administration.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on April 21, 2007, 09:58:38 PM
Love the new format--tons of typographical fun!  I'll wait for one of our Hardy Perennials to kick off the set, so in the meantime, bonne chance!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 22, 2007, 04:51:32 PM
Hey, Pop...

This will take some getting used to.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 22, 2007, 06:59:38 PM
Well, let me start off the wicked posts.

In my opinion, the highlight of the Bush administration, was when he successfully held the country together on 9/11. It's been downhill ever since, and his ratings show it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 22, 2007, 07:33:14 PM
Well, let me start off the wicked posts.

In my opinion, the highlight of the Bush administration, was when he successfully held the country together on 9/11. It's been downhill ever since, and his ratings show it.

Although to watch the video of him in the class room in FL on that morning, makes one wonder what this man is made of. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 22, 2007, 08:57:18 PM
Sami,

On that day I did not have access to a tv. I was working in a primary school at the time (grades k-2), and I was one of the first in the building to know what was happening through my email. The decision was quickly made in the central office, to continue the day as usual, and not let the students know what was happening until they got home and their parents could make the decision to inform them and how. For our little ones, it was fine. I suspect it was much more difficult in the high schools.

So, please tell me what you experienced in your classroom in FL.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: l_vatorman on April 22, 2007, 09:07:31 PM
samiinnh,

Good to find you here.

A lot of the former NYT people are at the GUARDIAN.

http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/[email protected]@.775e8ebc/1376

I will keep this place bookmarked.

Hope it catches on.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 05:53:46 AM
Sami,

On that day I did not have access to a tv. I was working in a primary school at the time (grades k-2), and I was one of the first in the building to know what was happening through my email. The decision was quickly made in the central office, to continue the day as usual, and not let the students know what was happening until they got home and their parents could make the decision to inform them and how. For our little ones, it was fine. I suspect it was much more difficult in the high schools.

So, please tell me what you experienced in your classroom in FL.

I was referring to the video of George Bush in the Fl classroom when he sat there with a blank stare on his face for about 7 minutes after being told about the airliner crashing into the WTC. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 05:54:43 AM
samiinnh,

Good to find you here.

A lot of the former NYT people are at the GUARDIAN.

http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/[email protected]@.775e8ebc/1376

I will keep this place bookmarked.

Hope it catches on.

Good to know where others have gone.  Thank you. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 06:45:41 AM
Hmmmm. I wonder if his blank stare for seven minutes showed he was surprised by the attack, or does it somehow give credence to the charge that he was somehow behind the attacks. Although I'm overall not buying into the Bush responsibility story, I am reserving a tiny bit of credence for it, in light of the newer evidence that our government officials knew of Pearl Harbor in advance and just let it happen so the country would be galvanized to go to war.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 23, 2007, 09:49:36 AM
This admin is toast.

They just refuse to believe it.

That will sink the hopes of many a repub in coming elections.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on April 23, 2007, 11:04:01 AM
I'm going to try your patience in here today by posting a chunk excerpted from an excellent piece by Elizabeth de la Vega--a Federal prosecutor for 20 years, and now a highly qualified commentator on the current scene--author of a bookUnited States v. George W. Bush et al  The full article, titled "The Problem with Alberto", can be viewed at the website titled smirkingchimp.com.  Excerpt as follows:

"It is not just public corruption cases that are negatively impacted by the Bush administration's promotion of loyalty to the president and to individual US attorneys as the highest values in the Department of Justice at the expense of integrity and the prudent exercise of independent judgment on the part of its lawyers. This distorted ethos affects all of the cases, because what happens to career prosecutors under such circumstances? They leave. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the Northern District of California. There, the US attorney, Kevin Ryan, was decidedly a "company man" who, like those in the inner circle of the Bush administration's Department of Justice, equated dissent with disloyalty. During Ryan's four-year tenure, 50 of the office's 100 lawyers - including myself - left, taking with them a total of approximately 500 years of experience. In the end, because of the intervention of the district's chief judge, Ryan himself was asked to resign, but the office will take a very long time to recover.

So no one should be fooled by the White House's current attempt, through Gonzales's Congressional testimony, to suggest that its unprecedented firing of US attorneys for partisan political reasons was a trifling matter with no real consequences. No one should be fooled by their current attempt to save themselves from drowning by suddenly grabbing onto the very career prosecutors they've been throwing overboard in droves during the past six years.

Most important, however, no one should be fooled into thinking that shoving Alberto Gonzales into the drink will get the Department of Justice back on course. The Department of Justice, like the Department of Defense, the Department of State and every other agency of the federal government, has lost its way because of the motley crew that is commanding the entire fleet: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, in no particular order.

Congress, please maintain your watch regardless of the fate of Alberto Gonzales."
_______



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 01:44:02 PM
In reading a conservative's website, I noted that he though that "capitalism" eliminate hunger and poverty. Well the following article from the NY Times suggests otherwise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

While the article places a lot of blame on the current governor of Mississippi, who is probably a republican, I wonder if some blame, especially since the problem is more wide-spread than Mississippi, should not be put on a president who puts war ahead of babies in need. What is the point of objecting to abortions if we are not going to support the mothers and babies that are born?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 04:10:02 PM
In reading a conservative's website, I noted that he though that "capitalism" eliminate hunger and poverty. Well the following article from the NY Times suggests otherwise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

While the article places a lot of blame on the current governor of Mississippi, who is probably a republican, I wonder if some blame, especially since the problem is more wide-spread than Mississippi, should not be put on a president who puts war ahead of babies in need. What is the point of objecting to abortions if we are not going to support the mothers and babies that are born?

Actually, the governor of Mississippi is Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC, and staunch right wing conservative.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 05:25:01 PM
So, he is another who robs the poor to enrich the already rich. That explains the deaths of the infants and the malnutrition of their mothers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 06:11:40 PM
So, he is another who robs the poor to enrich the already rich. That explains the deaths of the infants and the malnutrition of their mothers.

But I guarantee you he would be against a woman's right to choose.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 08:30:03 PM
Oh, yes. Those babies are so precious, he starves them to death!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 09:44:55 AM
I sent this to the local paper this morning:

To the NH Congressional Delegation:

I write because I am appalled by what is happening to our soldiers in Iraq.  Eighty-five dead just this month; nine killed in one attack.  The time has come to end this violent, immoral war.  President Bush has failed miserably as a commander-in-chief.  The mission, never stated clearly nor understood, is a disaster.  The Iraqi people want us to leave.  The Iraqi government will never stand up as long as we continue pouring our resources and our soldiers into this hell hole.

If the president will not listen to the American People, then it is time to begin his impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.  Too many people have died to assuage his ego.  Bring the troops home now.  Your vote to end the war will be watched by your constituents in New Hampshire.  Do the right thing and end this now.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 12:52:53 PM
Sami,

I hope the NH delegation listens to you. Maybe I should do the same here in Virginia. It's a good idea. Every time I hear of more deaths I think of the mothers, wives and children who will see their sons and daughters never again.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 01:32:36 PM
Sami,

I hope the NH delegation listens to you. Maybe I should do the same here in Virginia. It's a good idea. Every time I hear of more deaths I think of the mothers, wives and children who will see their sons and daughters never again.


It is so awful to lose a child.  I lost my son in 1986.  He was 22 years old and in the US Navy.  His was an accidental death, not a combat death.  Still, a day doesn't go by without his being in my head.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 01:53:21 PM
I don't mean to spam the forum, but I thought this was rather important from Amerblog.com:

There's a growing brouhaha over the fact that some commentators have noted that 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and all 5 sided against a woman's right to choose in their latest decision released last week.

    "All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic," wrote Geoffrey Stone, now a professor at the [University of Chicago] law school, in a faculty blog. "The four justices who either are Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling to ignore."

Catholic advocacy groups (I suspect conservative ones), and conservative shock jocks like Laura Ingraham, are outraged, though it's not exactly clear about what. They claim that such observations - namely, that one's faith may influence one's decisions in life and on the job, bigoted. They're also upset with Rosie O'Donnell (though this tends to be simply because she's a lesbian and a Democrat - conservatives don't think lesbians, nor Democrats, should be permitted in public life):

    You know what concerns me?" O'Donnell asked last week on ABC's "The View." "How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?"

    "Five," said host Barbara Walters.

    "Five," O'Donnell said. "How about separation of church and state in America?"

    Walters counseled against drawing conclusions, saying, "We cannot assume that they did it because they're Catholic."

    But O'Donnell had more to say.

    "If men could get pregnant," O'Donnell said, "abortion would be a sacrament."

And here is how shock jock Laura Ingraham responded:

    "'The View's' Rosie O'Donnell continues on her tear down the path of the Rich and Unhinged, this time with an anti-Catholic rant against the Supreme Court," Ingraham wrote on her Web site. "Could she ever get away with denigrating the Muslim faith this way?"

Well, first off, conservatives denigrate Islam every single day and still have their jobs - from the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile," to Franklin Graham who called Islam evil, to conservative CNN hosts who have labeled all Muslim-Americans as terrorists. So Ingraham should spare us the crocodile tears about how Muslims get away with everything. They're attacked left and right by Ingraham's buddies every single day, with impunity.

But getting to Ingraham's larger point, that mentioning the separation of church and state, and the issue as to whether one's Catholic faith influences a judge's decision, is "bigotry," how so? What exactly about that point is bigoted? Clearly standing up for the doctrine of the separation of church and state isn't bigoted. Then Ingraham must mean that it is ludicrous to suggest that a Catholic, or any judge of faith, would let their faith influence their court decisions. I think it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and actually rather religion-phobic to boot. Is Ingraham suggesting that Christians somehow check their morality at the door when they get on the job? That we won't murder, covet our neighbor's wife, cheat or steal at home, but on the job we'll do it because, you know, we check our religion-based morality at the door from 9-5? That's absurd. And it also has a deny-me-three-times quality to it. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic activists are now claiming - that their faith would never influence any decisions they'd make in their lives. Huh?

    "The Supreme Court did not 'follow marching orders' from the Vatican or the bishops in the United States," [James] Cella [president of the Catholic-based organization Fidelis] said. "Instead, the court deferred to deliberative judgment of the people's elected representatives protected by the Constitution."

Again, that's absurd. And we know it's absurd because the religious right and conservative Catholics have been trying to get their people in positions of power for years. Why? Because of their SAT scores or because of their faith? Uh, duh. Of course conservative Christians want their own people in positions of power. They believe - they KNOW - that their religious beliefs form the basis of their morality, and their morality forms the basis of their daily actions and decisions on the job. Yet now they'd have us believe that it's simply not true.

And to revisit the quote above about no one taking marching orders from the Vatican or the American bishops. Then why do the Vatican and the American bishops GIVE such marching orders to American politicians and the voting public, if no one is expected to follow them, and if such marching orders are somehow bigoted? Catholic leaders have told their followers how to vote based on their religion:

    Galvanized by battles against same-sex marriage and stem cell research and alarmed at the prospect of a President Kerry - who is Catholic but supports abortion rights - these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."

Or this:

    In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.

    "If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."

Yes, no marching orders from that Catholic bishop. Then there was the time that the American Catholic bishops said that presidential candidate John Kerry couldn't receive communion:

    This spring, a handful of bishops, including Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, proclaimed that Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry should not present himself for Communion because his public votes defy the core teachings of his church. Kerry is an adamantly pro-choice Democrat who says he personally opposes abortion.

Yes, no attempt to influence politics there.

Far-right conservatives can't have it both ways. They can't demand that their elected and appointed officials obey church doctrine on the job, then turn around and call anyone a bigot who notes that those elected and appointed officials are obeying church doctrine on the job. And let's not forget that the entire basis of the religious right in America, and conservatives generally, is a world-view based on the Bible AND a political view that demands that Biblical norms be enacted in legislation. The first thing that comes out of their mouths when debating civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians is God. Yet, if we note that fact, we're the bigots.

So which one is it? Do far-right conservatives agree or disagree with the church, and religious right activists, telling our political and judicial leaders how to act on the job?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 03:16:24 PM
Quote
There's a growing brouhaha over the fact that some commentators have noted that 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and all 5 sided against a woman's right to choose in their latest decision released last week.
I doubt Catholicism, particularly, had anything to do with it.  They were selected becuase of their opposition to Roe, not their religion. 



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 04:02:28 PM
I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 04:09:18 PM
I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS. 

Why?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 04:25:31 PM
I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?
Why not ask how many of the Court's jews subscribe to the Protocols?  Because it would be just as ignorant and bigoted to do so.

In my lifetime, ignorant anti-Catholic sentiment came close to denying a man the presidency.  It has not entirely disappeared.

Roman Catholics cut across all political lines.  Always have, always will.  You will even find Roman Catholics who are generally reliably liberal on almost every issue who are uneasily in the conservative camp on one or more issues.  Dennis Kucinich, for instance, who opposed abortion as recently as 2002.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 04:26:48 PM
Basically, 5 or the 9 being catholic, is not representative of the nation as a whole.  Four of them are extremist in their views.  One is a fence sitter.  I just find that a bit unnerving.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 04:34:31 PM
Do really think its a good idea to discriminate who should and shouldn't be appointed to the Supreme Court based on their religion?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on April 24, 2007, 05:00:18 PM
The softball questions asked of each of the new SCOTUS justices appointed by Bush failed to elicit anything resembling their position on Roe v Wade--but surely no one at this point should be at all surprised at how they have voted.  Nor should we be surprised at how they WILL vote in future.  While I don't believe that Opus Dei is in charge of SCOTUS, I do believe that darker days will come through their decisions.  Like most human beings faced with moral theology dilemmas, those fatal five will undoubtedly vote along the lines of their Catholic consciences...against which there can be no objection, after all.  We've lost the "separation of Church and State" battle...Rev. Dobson's law school graduates are thick on the ground--a few RC's are in the mix, seasoned with AIPAC for zest and topped off by who got them their gigs for life--what's not to love? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 05:47:54 PM
The softball questions asked of each of the new SCOTUS justices appointed by Bush failed to elicit anything resembling their position on Roe v Wade--but surely no one at this point should be at all surprised at how they have voted.  Nor should we be surprised at how they WILL vote in future.  While I don't believe that Opus Dei is in charge of SCOTUS, I do believe that darker days will come through their decisions.  Like most human beings faced with moral theology dilemmas, those fatal five will undoubtedly vote along the lines of their Catholic consciences...against which there can be no objection, after all.  We've lost the "separation of Church and State" battle...Rev. Dobson's law school graduates are thick on the ground--a few RC's are in the mix, seasoned with AIPAC for zest and topped off by who got them their gigs for life--what's not to love? 

Actually, the 150 attorneys that you refer to are from Pat Robertson's School of Law, not the charming Mr. Dobsons.  I'm not even sure he is a ordained minister.  His training was in child psychology, I believe.  I agree with you, though, that the court has been thrown to the religious right with the Bush appointments.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on April 24, 2007, 06:06:27 PM
Thanks for the correction on the law school...it must be said, however, that it is difficult to distinguish between Robertson and Dobson...white? [check] beady-eyed & negatory? [check] misogynist? [check] Born Against anything that isn't one of the above? [check-check-check].  I'm not copping out on my mini-me error, pilgrim...I'm just saying that if you've seen one, you've seen the other.  If you see them both on the same podium...head for the woods.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 06:26:24 PM
Thanks for the correction on the law school...it must be said, however, that it is difficult to distinguish between Robertson and Dobson...white? [check] beady-eyed & negatory? [check] misogynist? [check] Born Against anything that isn't one of the above? [check-check-check].  I'm not copping out on my mini-me error, pilgrim...I'm just saying that if you've seen one, you've seen the other.  If you see them both on the same podium...head for the woods.

Agreed.  Not much difference between any of them.  Falwell is fatter than the rest.  Tony Perkins is younger and hunkier.  James Kennedy has the whitest hair, I think.  Then there is that charmer from Kansas, Rev. Fred Phelps.  They're all the same.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 06:36:48 PM
Although it dismays two of my sisters, I turned away from the Catholic church that I was raised and educated in, was when the ruling bishop in Richmond announced that you couldn't be a "good Catholic" if you believed in the right of women to choose how their bodies would be used. I immediately resigned from teaching a CCD class. Since I found protestant churches unsatisfying and rather inclined to pettiness, I remain unchurched to this day.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 07:29:59 PM
Although it dismays two of my sisters, I turned away from the Catholic church that I was raised and educated in, was when the ruling bishop in Richmond announced that you couldn't be a "good Catholic" if you believed in the right of women to choose how their bodies would be used. I immediately resigned from teaching a CCD class. Since I found protestant churches unsatisfying and rather inclined to pettiness, I remain unchurched to this day.



There are many of us who are "unchurched" today.  You are not alone.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 10:39:51 PM
Sami,

Let me express my profound sadness for the loss of your son.

Anne


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 25, 2007, 06:43:44 AM
Sam,I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?


At least two - Thomas and Scalia.  Thomas was also a seminarian in his younger days.

Like most sensible people, I have no objection to any 5 members of the SCOTUS being of any sect whatsoever.

I remember the wise words of John Kennedy's confessor, Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.  It was he who stated that any faith which requires the force of law for support does not deserve to be called a faith at all.

I'm just afraid that in 2007 the question the West Virginia coal miner asked Kennedy in 1960 now has an answer different from the one Kennedy gave at the time.

YES, I'm old enough to remember it! <GRIN!>


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:02:07 AM
Sami,

Let me express my profound sadness for the loss of your son.

Anne

Thank you.   I appreciate that.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:03:24 AM
Sam,I do find it unsettling to have 5 members of the Roman Catholic Church sitting on the SCOTUS.  How many are Opus Dei?


At least two - Thomas and Scalia.  Thomas was also a seminarian in his younger days.

Like most sensible people, I have no objection to any 5 members of the SCOTUS being of any sect whatsoever.

I remember the wise words of John Kennedy's confessor, Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.  It was he who stated that any faith which requires the force of law for support does not deserve to be called a faith at all.

I'm just afraid that in 2007 the question the West Virginia coal miner asked Kennedy in 1960 now has an answer different from the one Kennedy gave at the time.

YES, I'm old enough to remember it! <GRIN!>

Me too.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:02:26 AM
Here is another indictment of the Bush admininstration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/washington/25osha.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

More deaths to attribute to capitalism. More sickness. More people unable to work due to workplace illnesses. The capitalists aren't happy unless they can kill their workers, and Bush is leading the way!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 10:36:25 AM
Here is another indictment of the Bush admininstration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/washington/25osha.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

More deaths to attribute to capitalism. More sickness. More people unable to work due to workplace illnesses. The capitalists aren't happy unless they can kill their workers, and Bush is leading the way!


I would love to see impeachment proceedings, but it won't happen.  But it might be better leaving  Bush in the WH as a lame duck for the next 18 months or so and watch him continue to implode.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 11:00:41 AM
Lame duck or not, Bush still has the capacity to wreak a lot of havoc on the nation. I would prefer to see him impeached, but then Cheney would take over, and that isn't a good situation either.

The event at Virginia Tech seems to be prodding even the gun enthusiasts to revamp the applications of the law:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402524.html?referrer=email

The laws to protect the mentally ill from discrimation are working badly to prevent their insane actions against themselves and innocent victime. It is time to tighten up the laws. Charlton Heston be darned!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:06:37 AM
Lame duck or not, Bush still has the capacity to wreak a lot of havoc on the nation. I would prefer to see him impeached, but then Cheney would take over, and that isn't a good situation either.

The event at Virginia Tech seems to be prodding even the gun enthusiasts to revamp the applications of the law:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402524.html?referrer=email

The laws to protect the mentally ill from discrimation are working badly to prevent their insane actions against themselves and innocent victime. It is time to tighten up the laws. Charlton Heston be darned!

I believe Articles of Impeachment are being introduced by Dennis Kocinich against Richard Cheney.  Whether it will go anywhere is anybody's guess.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:09:11 AM
Both Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman should be recognized as heroes who served their country in time of war.

Instead, they became pawns in a far-bigger war: a conflict of lies used to sell an invasion launched for fabricated reasons and fought - to this day - for political reasons that have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or any actual threat to the peace and security of the United States.

Like all soldiers who have died, come home maimed or face a future of haunting nightmares from an insane war, they deserved far better.

Doug Thompson.

These young people were used as pawns in the Pentagon's propaganda mission.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:30:44 PM
It was so sad to see how disinterested the press was in Jessica Lynch when the learned she had not been abused by her captors, but was treated with respect.

It is totally inexcusable that Tillman's family was not told immediately about the circumstances surrounding his death. The cover-up was America at its worst! How can we point fingers to other country leaders who "lie" to their citizens, when we do the same here?
 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:37:38 AM
It was so sad to see how disinterested the press was in Jessica Lynch when the learned she had not been abused by her captors, but was treated with respect.

It is totally inexcusable that Tillman's family was not told immediately about the circumstances surrounding his death. The cover-up was America at its worst! How can we point fingers to other country leaders who "lie" to their citizens, when we do the same here?
 

Facts aren't important in this administration.

 Time to get out
Margaret Landsman, Concord
   
printicon Print article
mailicon Send to friend
Letter to the editor Letter to editor

For the Monitor
April 26. 2007 8:00AM

Unfortunately, facts do get in the way of your April 24 editorial criticizing the Democrats for not listening to General Petraeus explain the so-called turnaround in Iraq. Who is not listening?

The "surge," or addition of U.S. troops, started in February. Through April 23, 247 American soldiers died. (See "Iraq Coalition Casualty Count" online.) Last year, 162 died in those same three months. When you add in "coalition forces," the figures are equally alarming: 264 in 2007, 173 during the same months in 2006.

Either way you cut it, that's a 65 percent increase in deaths. For Iraqis, the increase is 62 percent.

The Monitor has criticized the wrong group. It's George Bush, Gen. Petraeus and their followers who are not listening. It is time to get out of Iraq and end this tragic war.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 09:55:33 AM
a conflict of lies used to sell an invasion launched for fabricated reasons...

If you are referring to WMDs, here IS what blows that arguement right out of the water...

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Did bush make these people lie?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 10:12:56 AM
There is no denying that those statements were made by those people. 

There is also no denying the the neocons were  planning an invasion of Iraq before they were ever selected into office.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:32:04 AM
There is no denying that those statements were made by those people. 

There is also no denying the the neocons were  planning an invasion of Iraq before they were ever selected into office.

Lieberman agrees with what we are doing---IS he a neocon? As for making those statements, remember that congress voted to authorize going over there---are all the non-republicans that voted for going neocons? As for 'planning' an invasion before getting into office, that IS a very gratuitous statement with zero facts to sustain it (Were you a fly on the wall when this happened so you can personally confirm it? I think not.). You use the term neocon very recklessly it appears. That IS what liberals do. Are you confirming that you are a liberal, or have you just made an error?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 11:34:41 AM
There is no denying that those statements were made by those people. 

There is also no denying the the neocons were  planning an invasion of Iraq before they were ever selected into office.






HA.  Good brain you got on ya, pal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 12:12:00 PM
Former CIA Director George Tenet said the "aggressive interrogations” of top al-Qaida leaders brought the U.S. more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts.

Tenet said the interrogation program was necessary to deal with threats that emerged after 9/11, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York City, the New York Sun reports.

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday, before the release of his new book "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA.”


Tenet---a clinton appointee. Forceful interrogations work. Period. Only america hating liberals do not wish to use all tools available to help keep this country safe.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 01:26:23 PM
There is no denying that those statements were made by those people. 

There is also no denying the the neocons were  planning an invasion of Iraq before they were ever selected into office.

Lieberman agrees with what we are doing---IS he a neocon? As for making those statements, remember that congress voted to authorize going over there---are all the non-republicans that voted for going neocons? As for 'planning' an invasion before getting into office, that IS a very gratuitous statement with zero facts to sustain it (Were you a fly on the wall when this happened so you can personally confirm it? I think not.). You use the term neocon very recklessly it appears. That IS what liberals do. Are you confirming that you are a liberal, or have you just made an error?

All you need to do is read about The New Amercian Century and you know they were planning a war long before Bush was ever selected president.  Read Paul McNeil's book, and you will learn that the first first meeting of the National Security committee after Bush was inaugurated took up the subject of getting Saddam. 

I don't believe I use the term "neocon" in any a more reckless way than you, my friend, use the term "liberal."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 01:28:01 PM
Former CIA Director George Tenet said the "aggressive interrogations” of top al-Qaida leaders brought the U.S. more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts.

Tenet said the interrogation program was necessary to deal with threats that emerged after 9/11, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York City, the New York Sun reports.

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday, before the release of his new book "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA.”


Tenet---a clinton appointee. Forceful interrogations work. Period. Only america hating liberals do not wish to use all tools available to help keep this country safe.

Tenet 's new "tell all" book will be a good read for both neocons and liberals.  I proudly call myself an American Patriot, a liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 01:43:26 PM
Tenet 's new "tell all" book will be a good read for both neocons and liberals.  I proudly call myself an American Patriot, a liberal.

Are you saying that interrogations with some discomfort being applied are OK? (I am NOT saying maiming or mutilating) Or they should not be permitted 'at all'?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 01:59:44 PM
Former CIA Director George Tenet said the "aggressive interrogations” of top al-Qaida leaders brought the U.S. more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts.

Tenet said the interrogation program was necessary to deal with threats that emerged after 9/11, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York City, the New York Sun reports.

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday, before the release of his new book "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA.”


Tenet---a clinton appointee. Forceful interrogations work. Period. Only america hating liberals do not wish to use all tools available to help keep this country safe.

Tenet also said it was a slam-dunk that Saddam was harboring WMDs....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 02:11:05 PM
Tenet 's new "tell all" book will be a good read for both neocons and liberals.  I proudly call myself an American Patriot, a liberal.

Are you saying that interrogations with some discomfort being applied are OK? (I am NOT saying maiming or mutilating) Or they should not be permitted 'at all'?

Huh?????


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 02:44:11 PM
Tenet also said it was a slam-dunk that Saddam was harboring WMDs....


Chemical warheads were found. Period. The fact that we did not find what we thought were there does NOT mean that they were not ever there. But we have not found what we expected.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 02:49:46 PM
Congress would never have authorized action over artillery shells


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 02:54:43 PM
Heck we used depleted uranium munitions in both Iraq wars.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 03:00:44 PM
Congress would never have authorized action over artillery shells.

I never said they would---they are PROOF that chemical weapons did INDEED exist. Period. Saddam said he got rid of everything, remember? He lied. Bush haters cite this often (As they continually attempt to qualify the finding of these chemical warheads---as you are doing now), tho why anyone would choose to accept saddam's word IS quite beyond me.

You just flat out accept that there are no more buried under the sands over there? I am not so trusting. I remember what Reagan said to the russians---trust, but verify. I think you trust too much, and wish for too little verification. But, I agree, trying to find more IS like a needle in a haystack.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 05:22:26 PM
And they were all wrong. Your point is what? Everyone was duped, so it was OK for Bush to lead us to war on trumped up charges?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:25:58 PM
Congress would never have authorized action over artillery shells.

I never said they would---they are PROOF that chemical weapons did INDEED exist. Period. Saddam said he got rid of everything, remember? He lied. Bush haters cite this often (As they continually attempt to qualify the finding of these chemical warheads---as you are doing now), tho why anyone would choose to accept saddam's word IS quite beyond me.

You just flat out accept that there are no more buried under the sands over there? I am not so trusting. I remember what Reagan said to the russians---trust, but verify. I think you trust too much, and wish for too little verification. But, I agree, trying to find more IS like a needle in a haystack.

The UN was trying to verify, but Bush wouldn't have it.  He was too eager to start an immoral and illegal war.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 05:29:33 PM
Actually, the administration was very careful not to jump too quickly into Iraq.  You recall the Taliban was first priority.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:58:18 PM
Actually, the administration was very careful not to jump too quickly into Iraq.  You recall the Taliban was first priority.

And why didn't the administration finish that job?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 06:02:43 PM
What job is that?

The task was always said to be a long one.  That notion was made qute clear from day 1, that this battle would be like none other Americans had ever experienced.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:08:09 PM
What job is that?

The task was always said to be a long one.  That notion was made qute clear from day 1, that this battle would be like none other Americans had ever experienced.

Why didn't they complete the job in Afganistan rather than beginning a second losing war in Iraq, a war that much of the world sees as illegal and immoral.  That's what job.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 06:15:49 PM
Bush will be remembered in 50 years as the worst president in History if he isn't already.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 06:22:17 PM
I am sure he can live with your opinion of him.

Like I said earlier, prefacing this whole discussion -

tough, tough times to be the big cheese


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
Bush will be remembered in 50 years as the worst president in History if he isn't already.

I believe he is already thought of in that way by most of the world.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:10:19 PM
 Everyone was duped, so it was OK for Bush to lead us to war on trumped up charges?

Your 20/20 hindsight IS valueless. Your hatred of bush IS all that you have. How many times need it be said? Congress voted to authorize the conflict. We must now stay the course or have our word appear valueless. Regardless of what you believe in. Everyone was aware of the programs that saddam had. Trying to blame just bush for faulty intel IS wrong---as I do NOT hear you in the same breath criticizing the liberals in congress that voted for the conflict that acted off of the same intel that bush saw.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:14:39 PM
Everyone was duped, so it was OK for Bush to lead us to war on trumped up charges?

Your 20/20 hindsight IS valueless. Your hatred of bush IS all that you have. How many times need it be said? Congress voted to authorize the conflict. We must now stay the course or have our word appear valueless. Regardless of what you believe in. Everyone was aware of the programs that saddam had. Trying to blame just bush for faulty intel IS wrong---as I do NOT hear you in the same breath criticizing the liberals in congress that voted for the conflict that acted off of the same intel that bush saw.

They saw the intell that the Bushies wanted them to see.  They did not see it all.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:19:30 PM
They saw the intell that the Bushies wanted them to see.  They did not see it all.

Really? See below. With statements like these, just what was kept from these people? Did bush make them say these things?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


With statements like these, just what intel did bush keep from them? That saddam was wearing mickey mouse underwear???


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:21:47 PM


With statements like these, just what intel did bush keep from them? That saddam was wearing mickey mouse underwear???

Gee. I didn't know that.  Had he been to disney world?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:27:00 PM
Gee. I didn't know that.  Had he been to disney world?

Cute---real cute. You just have no rational answer. You just wish to belittle that with which you have no response and evade discussion? Well, that IS very apparent. Very childish and closed minded action there. You get a mountain of truth and choose to ignore it. Why? You just cannot accept the truth of the smear campaign that IS being waged on bush based off of hatred and lies, can you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
Gee. I didn't know that.  Had he been to disney world?

Cute---real cute. You just have no rational answer. You just wish to belittle that with which you have no response and evade discussion? Well, that IS very apparent. Very childish and closed minded action there. You get a mountain of truth and choose to ignore it. Why? You just cannot accept the truth of the smear campaign that IS being waged on bush based off of hatred and lies, can you?

Your support for Bush is getting boring.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:32:05 PM
Your support for Bush is getting boring.

I am not supporting bush. The fact that I am able to see slander and biased actions against him does NOT signal my support for him. I have already said (How many times need I repeat it???????????) I think he should be impeached (Not for reasons of Iraq)---but the campaign that IS being waged against him IS just hatred and lies. I cannot espouse that kind of baseless action.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:34:18 PM
Your support for Bush is getting boring.

I am not supporting bush. The fact that I am able to see slander and biased actions against him does NOT signal my support for him. I have already said (How many times need I repeat it???????????) I think he should be impeached (Not for reasons of Iraq)---but the campaign that IS being waged against him IS just hatred and lies. I cannot espouse that kind of baseless action.

What are your reasons for impeaching Bush?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:43:20 PM
What are your reasons for impeaching Bush?


Sigh---I am repeating myself, yet again---abandoning the borders letting millions of undocumented people almost freely enter this country without being vetted, and refusing to to do anyting about the written word of law of immigration.

Do you know how to contact the forum administrators? I cannot find a link.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:46:10 PM
Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%, Lowest Level So Far, in Harris Poll
The Wall Street Journal Online
Word Count: 856

President Bush's approval rating slipped to new lows in the most recent Harris Interactive survey, but he's not alone: For the first time since the series began, all of the political figures and institutions included in the survey have negative performance ratings.

Of the 1,001 American adults polled online April 20-23, only 28% had a positive view of Mr. Bush's job performance, down from 32% in February and from a high of 88% in the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The current rating is his weakest showing since his inauguration.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:48:43 PM


Do you know how to contact the forum administrators? I cannot find a link.

No, I'm sorry I don't.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 10:02:30 PM


Do you know how to contact the forum administrators? I cannot find a link.

No, I'm sorry I don't.

Send a Private Message to admin.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 11:16:46 PM
NGC,

There are other laws that Bush has failed to enforce. But, if you study government, the role of the executive is to enforce the laws. Which laws to enforce has always been up to the man in the office. It has always been good for business to have a never-ending supply of people willing to work for low wages. As a capitalist, he has looked out for the businesses who wish to exploit the labor of those who come here "illegally".

Far more serious, has been the Bush efforts to eliminate habeus corpus and to eliminate the requirement a specific warrent before the police can invade someone's home. Too many of our civil liberties have been hung out to dry by this "imposter" in the highest office.

BTW, I don't know which thread you said it on, but for all your pointing out that this person or that person on here is a liberal/socialist/communist/facist you recently said that you favor nationalization of some businesses if they are involved with "scarce natural resources". You do realize that this position puts you firmly in the socialist/communist/facist camp, don't you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:08:40 AM
NGC,

There are other laws that Bush has failed to enforce. But, if you study government, the role of the executive is to enforce the laws. Which laws to enforce has always been up to the man in the office. It has always been good for business to have a never-ending supply of people willing to work for low wages. As a capitalist, he has looked out for the businesses who wish to exploit the labor of those who come here "illegally".

Far more serious, has been the Bush efforts to eliminate habeus corpus and to eliminate the requirement a specific warrent before the police can invade someone's home. Too many of our civil liberties have been hung out to dry by this "imposter" in the highest office.

BTW, I don't know which thread you said it on, but for all your pointing out that this person or that person on here is a liberal/socialist/communist/facist you recently said that you favor nationalization of some businesses if they are involved with "scarce natural resources". You do realize that this position puts you firmly in the socialist/communist/facist camp, don't you?


And there are many laws that Bush has ignored and broken in his quest for power.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 07:49:02 AM
You do realize that this position puts you firmly in the socialist/communist/facist camp, don't you?


Not at all---I qualified my remark by saying NON-RENEWABLE natural resources---communism and socialism refer to EVERYTHING. You are twisting my words with a twisted mind. But, what can one expect from a liberal?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on April 27, 2007, 08:13:58 AM
Well, the first priority was indeed Afghanistan, but that seems to have long ago fallen by the wayside.  The latest I read is that the Taliban now controls much of the southern half of the country, so Afghanistan doesn't seem any better off today than it was 5+ years ago.  US involvement is at a minimum and NATO seems to have lost its desire to carry the war effort. 

The big problem I see in both "conflicts" is that the focus was too much on gaining military control of the countries, and too little on setting up rebuilding efforts.  So much of the money for rebuilding these nations was squandered, and much of it remains unaccounted for.  It doesn't seem that this administration had any rebuilding plans at all, but rather saw the "conflicts" as opportunities to hand out lucrative defense contracts.  I feel sorry for Gen. Petraeus who has to try to do something in Iraq, where almost everything has failed to this point.

But, what gets me is how this administration continues to deflect blame, and the Republicans are still playing the 9/11 card, as heard in Giuliani's latest absurd comments.  I'm glad the Democrats finally mustered up enough confidence to push for a timetable on withdrawal, as I don't see how keeping our troops in Iraq is doing anything to stabilize the country, much less the region.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:25:34 AM
It has always been good for business to have a never-ending supply of people willing to work for low wages. As a capitalist, he has looked out for the businesses who wish to exploit the labor of those who come here "illegally".


True---but permitting people to come helter-skelter to this country without documentation or being vetted for criminal activity IS completely stupid. And all I do here IS repeat what I have previously said. And I have stated illegal immigration IS why I would impeach him.

You are going nowhere with your 'anti-free market enterprise' approach to the world---but what can one expect from a liberal?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:45:37 AM
Kam---I don't know if this IS correct, as what I know IS limited, but here goes---spelling may be wrong, too, but at least I try...

Marahaba. Kif haya-lek? Shu ahkbar?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 10:05:46 AM
NGC,

Government taking over ownership of any former capitalist enterprise is nothing but socialism/communism/facism. Qualifying as "non-renewable" resources is meaningless. You are clearly advocating the government start down the "slippery slope" to communism.

As I have told you many times, I am a moderate. I do NOT advocate the government taking over any industries, renewable or not. If you continue to label me a liberal, I will continue to point out that at least one of your aims is clearly communist/facist.

Admit it old man, politically, you are a wolf in a sheep-skin!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:10:14 AM
NGC,

Government taking over ownership of any former capitalist enterprise is nothing but socialism/communism/facism. Qualifying as "non-renewable" resources is meaningless. You are clearly advocating the government start down the "slippery slope" to communism.

As I have told you many times, I am a moderate. I do NOT advocate the government taking over any industries, renewable or not. If you continue to label me a liberal, I will continue to point out that at least one of your aims is clearly communist/facist.

Admit it old man, politically, you are a wolf in a sheep-skin!


Or more likely just a plain old sheeple, ready to march the cliff with the rest of neoconic sheeple.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:15:01 AM
Qualifying as "non-renewable" resources is meaningless.

Not so---but debate with you IS pointless. Anyone that can believe that communism IS comparable to capitalism IS just palin living in outer space.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:38:56 AM
Sometimes, N, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say, or what your point is.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:42:23 AM
Sometimes, N, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say, or what your point is.

Then all I can say IS, let me know what you desire clarification on. Maybe my english IS lacking.

Would discussion in another language help out at all? I can go Spanish or Portuguese, if you would wish.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 10:59:45 AM
Would discussion in another language help out at all? I can go Spanish or Portuguese, if you would wish.
Somehow, I'd pictured German.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 11:01:40 AM
Kam---I don't know if this IS correct, as what I know IS limited, but here goes---spelling may be wrong, too, but at least I try...

Marahaba. Kif haya-lek? Shu ahkbar?

I'm drawing a blank.  You're probably saying somthing in arabic but i'm not arab.  If i take a guess, are you asking what i've heard in the news??  I am just guessing.  I speak farsi and "akhbar" means "news" in farsi.  I have no clue regarding arabic.  But at least we're both trying to communicate here!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 11:11:00 AM
I have no clue regarding arabic.  But at least we're both trying to communicate here!

It was 'Hello, how are you? What's happening?' Basically. I understand that there are Palestinian dialects, Saudi dialects, Egyptian dialects, etc.---and I would be hard pressed to say which one this was---maybe even a mix of 2 of them. I always try to say something in the language of someone not from this country when possible. I used to know how to say the same thing in Farsi, but have forgotten, as the opportunity to run into those that speak Farsi is not as common as encountering Arabic speaking people.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 11:12:32 AM
Somehow, I'd pictured German.

Sehr gut. Ja. Gutentag. Vie gehts?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 11:21:51 AM
Somehow, I'd pictured German.

Sehr gut. Ja. Gutentag. Vie gehts?
Oh, I have enough problems with English.  My term of college German left me with nothing but "Auf der Autobahn der is kiene Geshwindikhietsbregenzung (sp)" (On the autobahn there is no speed limit) and my sister tells me that last glorious, mouthfilling, portmanteau word has been replaced by the mundane and uninteresting "tempolimit."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on April 27, 2007, 12:29:57 PM
There are several (IMO) good reasons to impeach Bush (we could start with the election frauds in 2004) but I doubt that it will ever happen. Bush has looked out for the welfare of the big corporations and the wealthy elite, not for the benefit of Americans. His desire to essentially throw open our borders is just one example of his duplicity.

Here is a link to an interesting article about the behind-the-scene machinations of the Bush administration in trying to turn North American water supplies into a commodity to be bought and sold by big corporations:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042607G.shtml

It has always been good for business to have a never-ending supply of people willing to work for low wages. As a capitalist, he has looked out for the businesses who wish to exploit the labor of those who come here "illegally".


True---but permitting people to come helter-skelter to this country without documentation or being vetted for criminal activity IS completely stupid. And all I do here IS repeat what I have previously said. And I have stated illegal immigration IS why I would impeach him.

You are going nowhere with your 'anti-free market enterprise' approach to the world---but what can one expect from a liberal?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 12:46:05 PM
we could start with the election frauds in 2004...


I wonder where you get this from---your liberal 'hate bush' book? If you really think there IS something that could be proven, I wonder why the liberals in congress have done nothing?

Election frauds--geeze---had kerry won you'd be saying 'the people have spoken'. Whatta bunch of liberal BS. Since you are still crying, how about filling a river for me.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 01:31:11 PM
NGC,

There are other laws that Bush has failed to enforce. But, if you study government, the role of the executive is to enforce the laws. Which laws to enforce has always been up to the man in the office. It has always been good for business to have a never-ending supply of people willing to work for low wages. As a capitalist, he has looked out for the businesses who wish to exploit the labor of those who come here "illegally".

Far more serious, has been the Bush efforts to eliminate habeus corpus and to eliminate the requirement a specific warrent before the police can invade someone's home. Too many of our civil liberties have been hung out to dry by this "imposter" in the highest office.

BTW, I don't know which thread you said it on, but for all your pointing out that this person or that person on here is a liberal/socialist/communist/facist you recently said that you favor nationalization of some businesses if they are involved with "scarce natural resources". You do realize that this position puts you firmly in the socialist/communist/facist camp, don't you?




How has this "new way" of acting without a warrant affected you - personally?

Most of the yappers on civil liberties are UNaffected.  Just like to yap.

And God forbid they ever support a change that could make this country safer.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:39:58 PM
How has it affected you?  Have you turned in your neighbors yet? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 01:59:22 PM
Quote
How has this "new way" of acting without a warrant affected you - personally?

Most of the yappers on civil liberties are UNaffected.  Just like to yap.
I'm personally unaffected by racism and the Iraq war (so far) as well.    What's your point?  They could start detaining people indefinitely without trial for crimes and it wouldn't effect me - yet. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 27, 2007, 03:01:46 PM
Quote
How has this "new way" of acting without a warrant affected you - personally?

Most of the yappers on civil liberties are UNaffected.  Just like to yap.
I'm personally unaffected by racism and the Iraq war (so far) as well.    What's your point?  They could start detaining people indefinitely without trial for crimes and it wouldn't effect me - yet. 

What's that famous quote from that priest who was imprisoned by the Nazis?   

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Yeah that's it. Guess he was just YAPPING!

And that other guy, name escapes me, Jeezer? Cheesus? what'd he say?: "Whatever you do to the least of us, you do to me".

See? You can't have a Constitution only for those who are in the majority, or only for those who believe exactly as you do. Not how it works. Go back and read the membership rules for America, and see where it says that you must swear loyalty to the President and his men and do what he says, and if you don't you hate your country and should be thrown out of it.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 27, 2007, 03:22:45 PM
Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 27, 2007, 03:24:57 PM
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 03:26:17 PM
NGC,

I will repeat, deciding which industries it is OK for the government to take over first is disingenious. It is as much a farce as the silliness you attribute to "liberals", which is also not exactly true.

Once again, I am a moderate. That means some of my views will be leaning towards liberalism and some towards conservatism. It is my conservative viewpoint that feels that government take-over of business is a dangerous precedent no matter how you parse it. It is nothing but socialism/communism/facism in-your-face overstepping the bounds of government, and should NEVER be allowed to happen. All resources can be classified as "scarce" depending on who and when the classification is done.

Whatever YOU think about the 2004 election is only one opinion. It is the aggregate of opinions that matter. And, in this instance, man/most people believe Bush stole the election, whether they support him or are opposed to him. Those who support him think it was a masterful stroke to have the Supreme Court decide that the votes should not be counted. They do not argue that he didn't manipulate the outcome, they only counter that it was for the "good of the nation" that he did so.

Personally, I think there should be a fine or penalty for NOT voting. That would make the "mandate of the people" a lot stronger than it currently is. Perhaps a $1,000 fine, or taking away driving licenses for those who do not show up on election day without a truly good excuse. There are too many people who whine about "the government" and then fail to show up on election day.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 27, 2007, 03:40:08 PM
Everyone should vote, but there should not be a prize or a penalty... people that don't vote intelligently deserve the same government as those that don't vote at all.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:27:20 PM
Everyone should vote, but there should not be a prize or a penalty... people that don't vote intelligently deserve the same government as those that don't vote at all.

I believe there is a slogan that says "you get the government you deserve."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 05:35:59 PM
It is the aggregate of opinions that matter.

The aggregate of opinions do NOT constitute fact. It like the 'concensus' that says global warming IS caused by man---there IS no evidence to man-made global warming, just as there IS no evidence of voter fraud.

But try to get a liberal to see FACT as what matters---not opinions. It ain't gonna happen. Liberals believe their way IS right and every other way IS wrong.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:41:44 PM
It is the aggregate of opinions that matter.

The aggregate of opinions do NOT constitute fact. It like the 'concensus' that says global warming IS caused by man---there IS no evidence to man-made global warming, just as there IS no evidence of voter fraud.

But try to get a liberal to see FACT as what matters---not opinions. It ain't gonna happen. Liberals believe their way IS right and every other way IS wrong.

I believe there are many who would disagree with your position on global warming.  Most of the world of science, for instance.  But there are those who believe the earth is flat too.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 05:56:04 PM
Most of the world of science, for instance.

Sorry, even the scientists that I have read up on (I cannot remember the French guys name, nor the man from NASA) that say global warming IS caused by man have acknowledged that their OPINION "IS" a concensus, since there IS absolutely ZERO evidence to the fact---unless, of course, you'll be happy to give a link to some 'scientific proof'---not hype.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:16:47 PM
Do your own homework.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 06:34:55 PM
Quote
How has this "new way" of acting without a warrant affected you - personally?

Most of the yappers on civil liberties are UNaffected.  Just like to yap.
I'm personally unaffected by racism and the Iraq war (so far) as well.    What's your point?  They could start detaining people indefinitely without trial for crimes and it wouldn't effect me - yet. 

What's that famous quote from that priest who was imprisoned by the Nazis?   

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Yeah that's it. Guess he was just YAPPING!

And that other guy, name escapes me, Jeezer? Cheesus? what'd he say?: "Whatever you do to the least of us, you do to me".

See? You can't have a Constitution only for those who are in the majority, or only for those who believe exactly as you do. Not how it works. Go back and read the membership rules for America, and see where it says that you must swear loyalty to the President and his men and do what he says, and if you don't you hate your country and should be thrown out of it.





Constitution was made flexible.  These are rough times.  Anything the government does to FURTHER ensure my safety is fine with me.  If they "come for me" (ha!  another mamaluke aligning what is happening now with the Third Reich), I'll be clean.  And if I am not, I deserve what I get.

Now go YAP about easier reachable parole and no death penalty so more innocents can be raped and murdered.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:42:31 PM


Now go YAP about easier reachable parole and no death penalty so more innocents can be raped and murdered.



You seem to do plenty of "yapping" yourself, dickweed.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 07:02:04 PM
NGC,

While I'm not totally convinced that the globe is warming other than in typical earthly cycles, I am totally convinced that we have to reign in the pollution especially that spewed out by manufacturing industries. Perhaps the solution is to spread them out so they are not concentrated in small areas. Of course, vehicle emissions are also a source of pollution that needs to be reigned in. We need to consider if train movement of goods could replace some of the truck traffic on our highways. And, yes, we would have to clean up the emissions from non-electric trains to continue to use them. Maybe I played Sim-City too much when it came out, but it seems to me that the best way to move people and goods is on rails for the big part of the trip, then use smaller vehicles for the last mile. Or, the people could walk!

As to the constitution, it IS supposed to be flexible. That means, of course, that efforts to improve the lot of the poor, as in more socialism, is possible under the constitution. Consider that when you advocate bending the constitution to your will. Ooops, I forgot, you are a socialist when it comes to industries that use certain resources! But an ostrich when it comes to Bush's policy on the war!



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 07:02:52 PM
http://tellusthemission.org/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 27, 2007, 09:43:15 PM
Gee,
on the very day that Tenet slams the Son-of-a-Bush and his cabal for their lack of advance planning for the mad oil war in the desert, news comes out that some poor slob or other that the clowns on the ground with scrambled egg on their hats claim is an AQ something-or-other was busted in Iraq.

Remarkably coincidental timing, wouldn't you say?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 10:26:12 PM
Gee, Cap,

You think he really is AQ, or just some poor Arab who was posed for the sounds byte?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 28, 2007, 04:29:37 AM
Anne,
You think he really is AQ, or just some poor Arab who was posed for the sounds byte?

After the way we were lied to about Tillman and Lynch, I do not believe a single thing put out by the US military vis a vis news from those on the ground in Iraq.

Being the age I am, it reminds me of nothing so much as the body count reports that the delusional body count reports coming from Vietnam pre-Tet.

The next thing I expect to hear from the Shrub is something about nailing the coonskin to the wall.

In Petraeus, the Son-of-a-Bush has found his Westmoreland.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 28, 2007, 05:58:58 AM
Cap,

Sometimes I wish I could put on a magical hat and transport myself to the future and read the books that are going to come out in fifty years or so about this administration. Of course, it is just as likely that history will brush aside this man as it is doing Reagan, and he will become no more than a footnote in a major tome - 2 terms or not! As I read more about the past, I realize how little we really get to know about the present.






Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on April 28, 2007, 09:30:53 AM
on the very day that Tenet slams the Son-of-a-Bush.....

My gosh....this guy is too much. A perfect example of the low standards represented by the modern American bureaucrat and politician. First they get the guy to fall on his sword for the Bush Administration and more or less take the blame for the so-called 'bad intel' (and how cheaply they bought him--a little chunk of metal and a ribbon around his neck). Now, apparently, he doesn't understand that after you fall on the sword you are not supposed to get up again and start complaining. The time for complaining was BEFORE the war was launched, but good old George (Tenet) apparently didn't have the cajohones for that.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 28, 2007, 11:46:31 AM
 



[/quote]
Constitution was made flexible.  These are rough times.  Anything the government does to FURTHER ensure my safety is fine with me.  If they "come for me" (ha!  another mamaluke aligning what is happening now with the Third Reich), I'll be clean.  And if I am not, I deserve what I get.
[/quote]

Well, then you're not really interested in FREEDOM and LIBERTY. You operate from FEAR and IGNORANCE. WIth three kids, that's an irresponsible way to be, YAPPER. BUt it does explain your loyalty to the party of FEAR and FAILURE---


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 01:07:40 PM
I like that....the party of fear and failure. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 08:25:28 PM
More incredible news.

April 29, 2007
Rebuilt Iraq Projects Found Crumbling
By JAMES GLANZ

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 03:13:50 AM
Grant, Harding and Bush 43.  The worst of the worst, one Republican per century is about all this poor nation can take.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 06:23:12 AM
The question is how much more damage can Bush inflict on this nation and will we survive?  or will become a fascist dictatorship.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2007, 07:21:15 AM
The question is how much more damage can Bush inflict on this nation and will we survive?  or will become a fascist dictatorship.


Actually, I don't think that is the question at all.

The question is which Democrat will emerge to demonstrate true leadership, and return our country to one that is admired and respected around the world?

If you have energy that you wish to devote to political aims, why waste it Bush-bashing? Put it into promoting progressive stances locally and nationally.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 07:24:25 AM
The question is how much more damage can Bush inflict on this nation and will we survive?  or will become a fascist dictatorship.


Actually, I don't think that is the question at all.

The question is which Democrat will emerge to demonstrate true leadership, and return our country to one that is admired and respected around the world?

If you have energy that you wish to devote to political aims, why waste it Bush-bashing? Put it into promoting progressive stances locally and nationally.

I suppose that is a better solution. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 09:05:36 AM
Insurgents quieted in Anbar province

Kirk Semple, The New York Times
 
RAMADI, IRAQ - Anbar province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

"Many people are challenging the insurgents," said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, "We know we haven't eliminated the threat 100 percent."

American officials readily acknowledge that they have entered an uncertain marriage of convenience with the tribes, some of whom were themselves involved in the insurgency, to one extent or another.

These sudden changes have raised questions about the ultimate loyalties of the United States' new allies. "One day they're laying IEDs, the next they're police collecting a paycheck," said Lt. Thomas R. Mackesy, an adviser to an Iraqi army unit in Juwayba, east of Ramadi, referring to improvised explosive devices.

Still, the progress comes after years of fruitless efforts to drive a wedge between moderate resistance fighters and those, like al-Qaeda in Iraq, who seem beyond compromise.


I know, I know----you liberals just HATE hearing any kind of good news for the people in Iraq. Good news just SUX to you liberals, doesn't it? After all, the only thing that liberals think about IS bad news and negativity. I really hope that good news keeps on coming, and that liberals choke on their own evil hatreds!!!




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 10:59:43 AM
Insurgents quieted in Anbar province

Kirk Semple, The New York Times
 
RAMADI, IRAQ - Anbar province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

"Many people are challenging the insurgents," said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, "We know we haven't eliminated the threat 100 percent."

American officials readily acknowledge that they have entered an uncertain marriage of convenience with the tribes, some of whom were themselves involved in the insurgency, to one extent or another.

These sudden changes have raised questions about the ultimate loyalties of the United States' new allies. "One day they're laying IEDs, the next they're police collecting a paycheck," said Lt. Thomas R. Mackesy, an adviser to an Iraqi army unit in Juwayba, east of Ramadi, referring to improvised explosive devices.

Still, the progress comes after years of fruitless efforts to drive a wedge between moderate resistance fighters and those, like al-Qaeda in Iraq, who seem beyond compromise.


I know, I know----you liberals just HATE hearing any kind of good news for the people in Iraq. Good news just SUX to you liberals, doesn't it? After all, the only thing that liberals think about IS bad news and negativity. I really hope that good news keeps on coming, and that liberals choke on their own evil hatreds!!!




If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.  Bush is a total failure and you know it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 11:07:32 AM
ngc,

I know, I know----you liberals just HATE hearing any kind of good news for the people in Iraq.

If this is your definition of good news, I would hate to see what you call BAD news.
You don't get that the people of Iraq will do what is in THEIR, not OUR, best interest.
We didn't understand that about Vietnam, and now we are pulling the same Ugly American schtick in Iraq.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 11:26:54 AM
If there is a decline in insurgency, that is good news. If it is temporary, and just a lull before another full scale uprising, it is perhaps best understood as an indication of what the Iraqi want for themselves. I wonder if we are labeling "insurgents" erroneously, and they really have good ideas that need to be explore.

In this country "insurgents" rose from the grassroots to object to the enslavement of the working people to the monied capitalists. While the accusation of taking up of arms was, at best, unconvincing, the goals of the Progressives were enacted into the national body of laws. We now recognize the right of workers to organize and speak with one voice through unions. We now recognize the eight hour work day (and indulence was NOT an outcome as forecast by the capitalists). Instead, consumption rose and businesses had more domestic markets for their goods than before. It is sometimes of help to LISTEN to what the "insurgents" are proposing rather than mow them down with automatic weapons.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 11:39:32 AM
If there is a decline in insurgency, that is good news. If it is temporary, and just a lull before another full scale uprising, it is perhaps best understood as an indication of what the Iraqi want for themselves. I wonder if we are labeling "insurgents" erroneously, and they really have good ideas that need to be explore.

To listen to reid and the mainstream media (puke) we are not succeeding at all, anywhere, or in any way.

full scale uprising????? There has never any such thing yet---unles the mind IS a liberally biased one that will call anything bad that happens a monumental effort by insurgents or foreigners. Regardless of what you believe, incidents ARE DOWN from last year! But hatred for bush will describe every bad thing that happens as a prelude to WW III. Liberal blinders just won't permit any other interprtation.

Good ideas, you say? Like cutting off MORE heads with hacksaws? Like coercing MORE women and children to strap explosives onto their bodies and then detonate them in markets crowded with people buying food? There IS no discussion to be had with people that commit to acts like these. There IS only one course of action in a case like this---to exterminate the animals that would do this to a human. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal, and would choose to comb the hair of a mad dog in attempt to get it not to bite you. Like you, apparently.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 02:33:05 PM
If there is a decline in insurgency, that is good news. If it is temporary, and just a lull before another full scale uprising, it is perhaps best understood as an indication of what the Iraqi want for themselves. I wonder if we are labeling "insurgents" erroneously, and they really have good ideas that need to be explore.

To listen to reid and the mainstream media (puke) we are not succeeding at all, anywhere, or in any way.

full scale uprising????? There has never any such thing yet---unles the mind IS a liberally biased one that will call anything bad that happens a monumental effort by insurgents or foreigners. Regardless of what you believe, incidents ARE DOWN from last year! But hatred for bush will describe every bad thing that happens as a prelude to WW III. Liberal blinders just won't permit any other interprtation.

Good ideas, you say? Like cutting off MORE heads with hacksaws? Like coercing MORE women and children to strap explosives onto their bodies and then detonate them in markets crowded with people buying food? There IS no discussion to be had with people that commit to acts like these. There IS only one course of action in a case like this---to exterminate the animals that would do this to a human. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal, and would choose to comb the hair of a mad dog in attempt to get it not to bite you. Like you, apparently.

I hope you are working on your shelter this weekend, so when they come for you, they won't be able to find you.  Fear and failure, conservative family values.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2007, 02:36:20 PM
In

I know, I know----you liberals just HATE hearing any kind of good news for the people in Iraq. Good news just SUX to you liberals, doesn't it? After all, the only thing that liberals think about IS bad news and negativity. I really hope that good news keeps on coming, and that liberals choke on their own evil hatreds!!!


I look forward to the day your mind opens and you put aside the name-calling, the needless labeling, and attempts to pigeonhole others' views, and you actually begin to see things for what they are, or at least begin to have an honest discussion about the issues of the day.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 05:33:27 PM
I look forward to the day your mind opens and you put aside the name-calling, the needless labeling, and attempts to pigeonhole others' views, and you actually begin to see things for what they are, or at least begin to have an honest discussion about the issues of the day.


I WILL continue to expose liberals for the lies they live and the double standards they espouse. Period. Calling a liberal a liberal "IS" not labeling. It "IS" caling a liberal what it "IS"---a liberal.

The truth to a liberal "IS" like a cross to dracula.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 05:38:39 PM
NGC,
STOP CALLING ME A LIBERAL, and apologize for your mis-characterization.

I DO want to hear good news from Iraq. I want to hear that the Iraqis have come to a consensus in how they will govern themselves. I want to hear that our men and women are coming home to their loved ones. Anything less, while it may be heartening, isn't exactly GOOD NEWS.

My comment that we start LISTENING TO WHAT THE INSURGENTS WANT is basic. If it is doable and humane, go along with it. If it is not, decline it. But, start out by listening. In the past, under Hussein, these people learned that might makes right. I does not "teach" them anything to continue the bad precedent.

As for the cutting off of heads, be cautious that you do not judge the many for the few. That is an extreme behavior and unlikely to be supported by many. In modern day justice, we punish ONLY THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE DEED. Anything less is not justice.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 05:45:53 PM
 In modern day justice, we punish ONLY THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE DEED.

In modern justice, those that order a hit are just as guilty as the ones who make the hit. In modern day justice, those that harbor the criminal and fund the criminal are as guilty as the criminal who commits the crimes---agreed? This leads to Iran---cuba---syria---and any other country that harbors and funds---agreed? I wonder if you are really ready to punish the bad guys that harbor, fund, or act? As you imply?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 05:48:21 PM
Mr Utley,

I am glad to see you joining us in this forum. You seem to be bringing some experience and good sense.

NGC is our "cross to bear" on this forum. His mind is made up and he won't be educated with facts. He is cursed with a small light in his brain, just like our current president.

While he complains loudly about "liberals", he has no understanding of what a "liberal" is and isn't. He has advocated for the nationalization of certain industries, and doesn't even understand that such a position is much more liberal than anything most entertain. He loves everything Bush does, exept that he wants to impeach Bush for not being more forceful with those wiley illegal immigrants who come here to do unpopular jobs and have the audacity to expect to be paid for it!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 05:55:54 PM
NGC,

A whole country cannot be held responsible for a single crime or a handful of crimes. If so, then all US citizens should be punished for what was done to the Indians and the Slaves. Under your reasoning, the whole Republican party should have been held responsible for funding and hiding those who committed Watergate. Instead, we punished only the actual perpetrators, and took the presidency from Nixon. We allowed Ford, a fellow republican, who under your scenario, was as guilty as the rest, to take office.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 06:29:46 PM
ngc,

In modern justice, those that order a hit are just as guilty as the ones who make the hit.

YEAH!!! RIGHT!!!
That's why My Lai stopped with Calley. 
That's why Abu Ghraib (?) stopped with Karpinsky.
That's why Ford forever stained his legacy by pardoning Tricky Dickie before charges were brought.
Sorry, Jack, but your comment fails the straight face test. 
No one can read your post and keep a straight face!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 08:15:19 PM
Tenet treated Bush with kid gloves.  I was not impressed.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:44:04 PM
A whole country cannot be held responsible for a single crime or a handful of crimes.

Maybe in your little liberal brain accountability does not exist---those that harbor and those that fund terrorism and terrorists need to be held to account.


While he complains loudly about "liberals", he has no understanding of what a "liberal" is and isn't.

I would say look at your posts attempting to compare communisms ugly history of purposeful death to capitalism and pathetic liberalism will easily be seen. Liberals do not believe in assessing blame to something or someone on the left. Pathetic.


If so, then all US citizens should be punished for what was done to the Indians and the Slaves.

This "IS" just pitiful---there are no more existing slaves or slave holders. Reparations are completely idicotic. Are you negroid or Native American?


He loves everything Bush does, ...

Not so---He has spent money like a drunken sailor (Or should I dare say 'liberal'?)---he went to Iraq when we should not have gone there (Since we are there, our word must be kept, and we should not be commiting to 'cutting and running'). He has abandoned our borders. He "IS" in cahoots with sick-willie clinton to not make public past documents from previous administrations (Ya totally forgot about this, didn'tcha??) He gave us gonzalez---whatta maroon. He gave us Rice---not the best qualified for the job. He will not take sick-willie clinton to task for all the Foreign money, the W-88 warhead, the indian casions, the low suplhur coal mess, and the Loral and Hughes matter.----Does this sound like 'love'?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 10:05:17 PM
NGC,

OK, you are critical of Bush. You agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but, as in Vietnam, you want to continue with the mistake. This makes no sense whatsoever. The reason to study history is to keep from making the same mistakes over and over. You, for one, seem not to learn. All that is going to happen if we stay in Iraq, is that more Iraqis will hate our interference and more of our men and women will die. Apparently, you do not have a son or daughter subject to be called up as a sacrifice.

It is true that there are no longer any slaves, until recent years, state laws and some local laws denied civil rights and full citizenship to black citizens. The Indians are still striving to get back at least a little of their land so they can enjoy the American Dream. The land they have been given is not much good for farming, so the Casinos are a capitalist idea. If Donald Trump can run casinos, why not the Native Americans? Why do you not complain about the casinos in Las Vegas instead of, or at least, in addition to, the Indian casinos?

What would your reaction/conclusion be, if you found out I was either a black American or a Native American? Would you try to silence me with other types of insults? Do you see black Americans as all alike, all Native Americans alike? Do you acknowledge any individual differences in people whatsoever? Are you an individual, or a collective pile of bullkookies?











Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 11:06:02 PM
You agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but, as in Vietnam, you want to continue with the mistake. You seem not to learn

I am a Vietnam era veteran.

Cutting and running "IS" not the solution. The US gave its word to the iraqis and breaking that word would not be good.


All that is going to happen if we stay in Iraq, is that more Iraqis will hate our interference...

I know people in Iraq now that say we are making a difference, and you use your blinders to not see the good that IS happening there. Leaving pre-maturely will generate an escaltion of violence far, far greater than what "IS" happening now---you want that? We will leave if the Iraqi govt asks us to--those marching in the streets "IS" not the will of that country's population, except in your eyes. Great numbers of Iraqis dislike totally people being dragged from their homes and executed by the minions of evil. Hatred of bush "IS" not a valid reason for leaving.


state laws and some local laws denied civil rights and full citizenship to black citizens.

That does not justify reparations or penalizing taxpayers that had nothing to do with slavery.


if you found out I was either a black American or a Native American?

I would understand why you take the tack you do---I held no slaves, my family held no slaves, no one in my family had anything to do with local legislations that were enacted---and I nor members of my family should have to pay for any unjust laws, and these unjust laws do not exist anymore.


Why do you not complain about the casinos in Las Vegas...

What do they have to do with clinton's criminal activity regarding the indian casions? You also do not mention clinton's activities with Loral and Hughes? Or Indonesia and the low sulphur coal mess? Or clinton's selling out the USA with foreign monies and the W-88 warhead?(Things a whole lot worse than anything bush has ever done!) But you do not call for justice in any of these matters? Just black this, black that. Nothing directed at clinton as if he never did anything wrong.


Do you acknowledge any individual differences in people whatsoever?

What do differences have to do with reparations?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 05:32:59 AM
In typical rightwing fascist thinking, this character can't see beyond the end of his nose.  It's all Clinton's fault; before him, this type would blame it all on Carter.  They don't take repsonsibility for their political actions, but find blame elsewhere.  Hardly worth the time to respond to.

What promise did "we" make to the Iraqi people?  It was a preemptive immoral and illegal was.  The Iraqi people didn't invite us into their country. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:19:03 AM
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Four U.S. soldiers were killed in Baghdad over the weekend, the military said on Monday, taking the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq this month to more than 105. That makes April one of the deadliest months for U.S. forces in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 06:57:55 AM
I WILL continue to expose liberals for the lies they live and the double standards they espouse. Period. Calling a liberal a liberal "IS" not labeling. It "IS" caling a liberal what it "IS"---a liberal.

The truth to a liberal "IS" like a cross to dracula.

The only thing you are exposing is your own inability to tolerate different points of view, your own willingness to distort others' opinions, and your own disdain for the truth you proclaim to champion.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 06:59:53 AM
ngc,

I am a Vietnam era veteran.

My sympathy.

How does it feel after all these years to know that you fought and some of your buddies died for a bright and shining lie?

Be that as it may, what perverted sense of loyalty to a failed policy leads you to condemn another generation of young people to do the same - for the same lie.

This nation has not fought a just war since Korea.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 07:05:17 AM
NGC.

To be honest, during the Clinton years, I was working withK-2nd grade students, and was not following the political scene very carefully. I followed it more carefully when I taught high schoolers because it is part of what I teach. A teacher's job is very time intensive. You don't have much time for the luxury of following news that is not related to what you are teaching.

Consequently, I do not know what you mean by Indian Casions. I thought you were misspelling Casinos. I do not remember the other affairs you mention. Perhaps I knew of them at the time, but they didn't stick out in my memory. So, I will leave argument of those affairs to those who were paying more attention to politics during those years. If you care to inform me of these affairs, I can either agree or disagree with you.

If you were a Vietnam Vet, I can understand your distaste for leaving a military situation without a victory. Sadly, your conviction that we stick to a silly promise that Bush made, is costing American lives, and I have a son who has served in both Kuwait and Iraq, and I really don't want to take another chance for a Bush to end his life. He is not in the military full time, but a member of the National Guard, so he has a "real life" and is not there to be cannon fodder.

If you were a Vietnam vet, I also understand your distaste for Clinton. Since the man never served in the military, a lot of military folks disowned him as their commander in chief. And, of course, since it happened in the summer, I do remember Ollie North telling Congress he did not have to follow the laws set out by that body, he only had to obey his president. Reagan, whom we know now was not in command of his full mental facilties during his presidency, let us be governed by "handlers" who instructed Reagan in what to say and how to say it.

Knowing that you are a former Marine explains a lot in your seemingly endless thought that the best solution is to shoot first and ask questions later. Sadly, that is not a solution most Americans can live with.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 07:05:55 AM
 Maybe in your little liberal brain accountability does not exist---those that harbor and those that fund terrorism and terrorists need to be held to account.

If you are interested in holding those who fund terrorism personally responsible, I suppose you might be interested in prosecuting memebers of the Reagan Administration who helped fund Saddam Hussein during the '80's. I think some of them are still around: Cheney, Rumsfeld, et alia...

BTW, what is a "Viet Nam era veteran"?  Sounds like you were maybe in the service, but didn't actually go to Viet Nam---like "W".

Or maybe you were just a veteran of that era, in which case, many people here probably can make the same claim. Clear that up for us, will you, Colonel?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 08:41:56 AM
Quote
Maybe in your little liberal brain accountability does not exist---those that harbor and those that fund terrorism and terrorists need to be held to account.

I agree, its too bad this administration doesn't have much intention of doing that.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:48:38 AM
I do not know what you mean by Indian Casions. I thought you were misspelling Casinos. I do not remember the other affairs you mention.

Then you need to do some research into the abominations by clinton.


Sadly, your conviction that we stick to a silly promise that Bush made, is costing American lives, and I have a son who has served in both Kuwait and Iraq, and I really don't want to take another chance for a Bush to end his life. He is not in the military full time, but a member of the National Guard, so he has a "real life" and is not there to be cannon fodder.

I see that you do not care for the US to keep its word to a foreign nation. For a bush to end his life? Whatta statement. How shallow your knowledge of the military "IS".


your distaste for Clinton. Since the man never served in the military, a lot of military folks disowned him as their commander in chief.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with distaste for him.


Knowing that you are a former Marine explains a lot in your seemingly endless thought that the best solution is to shoot first and ask questions later.

Where did you get this from? I was a flightline refueling maintenance mechanic in the USAF and served at an AFSC base. I never actually went to Nam---I had no problem to go, but logistics was a necessary function all over the world.

Yet, in combat situations, shooting first "IS" usually the way to stay alive---but females cannot grasp the necessity of these or other nasty actions.

Debate with you "IS" pointless. I have said that we should not be there in iraq, but cutting and running will just unleash a genuine cauldron of violence---you seem not to see this for partisan political rationale and petty political expediency. In your mind, there "IS" never any rationale for combat of any typw for any reason. People that are in the military understand that they may have to go to conflict, and if they do not like the thought, they shouldn't be enlisting---since NO-ONE today in the military, or national guard, were drafted!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:56:47 AM
I agree, its too bad this administration doesn't have much intention of doing that.


This "IS" true. And it "IS" a shame. Another of the reasons that I detest bush. There are a lotta bad guys in the world that need to be exterminated (Those that will cut off heads with hacksaws and strap explosives onto children), and the sooner we start doing it, the better off we'll all be. Unless, of course, one "IS" a liberal that wishes to simply sit back like a sheep and wait for the next 'act' to happen---while talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, ad nauseum. If I have to go, I'd rather go as a bull in the ring, rather than a steer in a slaughter-house. And starting with the govts that harbor and fund "IS" not a bad idea. It appears the world doesn't have much inclination as well to deal with the problem until something nasty happens---and even then they seem to sit back and stare blankly. Oh well---it will continue.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 09:02:03 AM
BTW, what is a "Viet Nam era veteran"? Sounds like you were maybe in the service, but didn't actually go to Viet Nam---like "W".


Having served w/o having to go to Nam does not disqualify those in the military that served this way from supporting the military or logic. BTW, sick-willie didn't even 'serve'. But this "IS" a pointless discussion with you. Nothing appeases your blind irrational hatred of bush. I dislike him myself, but not foaming at the mouth like liberals.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 09:35:27 AM
BTW, what is a "Viet Nam era veteran"? Sounds like you were maybe in the service, but didn't actually go to Viet Nam---like "W".


Having served w/o having to go to Nam does not disqualify those in the military that served this way from supporting the military or logic. BTW, sick-willie didn't even 'serve'. But this "IS" a pointless discussion with you. Nothing appeases your blind irrational hatred of bush. I dislike him myself, but not foaming at the mouth like liberals.

Out of curiousity, were you one of those that were critical of Kerry's service?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 09:51:14 AM
Quote
I see that you do not care for the US to keep its word to a foreign nation.

It would hardly be the first time the U.S. hasn't kept its word to a foriegn nation.  Just look at Afghanistan.

The administration has broken its promises of rebuilding Afghanistan's infrastructure and establishing a viable economy.  Heck, we're seeing a return to Islamic fundamentalism and factional warfare.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 10:07:37 AM
BTW, sick-willie didn't even 'serve'. But this "IS" a pointless discussion with you. Nothing appeases your blind irrational hatred of bush. I dislike him myself, but not foaming at the mouth like liberals.

At least Clinton didn't sit safely on the sidelines while fanning the flames of war in VN, like so many of the current admin did. (Can you say hypocrite?)

And cm'on don't sell yourself short, you "foam" every bit as much or possibly more than the rest of us!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 10:13:26 AM
BTW, what is a "Viet Nam era veteran"? Sounds like you were maybe in the service, but didn't actually go to Viet Nam---like "W".


Having served w/o having to go to Nam does not disqualify those in the military that served this way from supporting the military or logic. BTW, sick-willie didn't even 'serve'. But this "IS" a pointless discussion with you. Nothing appeases your blind irrational hatred of bush. I dislike him myself, but not foaming at the mouth like liberals.

I just wanted to clarify your use of the term as a "Viet Nam Era Veteran", a term one would consider new to the political discussion.

 It was carefully worded, but many people might think you actually were in Viet Nam, and they might assign a certain value to your opinion that it doesn't really have.  That's a bit deceitful, don't you think?

I think we can support our military personnel without endorsing their commanders' actions...

In other words, we can be a patriot to our country by making it more difficult for the freedoms fought for by previous generations from being taken away by those whose interests appear to be only to inflate the bottom lines of their corporate friends/donors.

As for foaming mouths, your overtly expressed distaste for your fellow Americans, merely because they do not share your views, is far more distasteful than those who express their intense dislike for a politician.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:18:09 AM
As for foaming mouths, your overtly expressed distaste for your fellow Americans,...

If they support and defend, to this day, either of the clintons, you betcha!! If they support and defend the double standard, you betcha!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 30, 2007, 10:31:53 AM
Quote
I would say look at your posts attempting to compare communisms ugly history of purposeful death to capitalism and pathetic liberalism will easily be seen. Liberals do not believe in assessing blame to something or someone on the left. Pathetic.
And yet, comrade ngc, you are the one advocating public ownership of the means of production.

weezer -

Understand, no one is actually a liberal by ngc's definition.  It's a purely mental construct with no link to the actual world.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 10:37:55 AM
Well, whiskey, there's a "liberal", and then there's ngc's definition of a liberal.

Kind of like Dick Cheney's view of winning the war in Iraq, and the political reality which would most pragmatically mean partitioning the country and seeking a political solution, as Joe Biden---the liberal Democrat from Delaware---continues to put forth.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 11:19:08 AM
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" – the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 11:22:00 AM
And yet, comrade ngc, you are the one advocating public ownership of the means of production.


What IS this? I advocate nationalizing non-renewable natural resources---nothing more.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 11:50:34 AM
ngc,
*At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.

You're right we do.
That puts us on the side of Jesus, John Locke, Diderot, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, King, and Mandela.
Whose side are you on - Machiavelli, Hobbes, Herbert Spencer, Idi Amin, Nietzsche, Franco, and every other tin horn dictator who thinks that the people are animals who need to be corralled.
I like my side better.
Too bad about yours.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 12:13:36 PM
Quote
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals.

Ascribing to Manichaeism is an entirely too simplistic and ultimately ridiculous philosophy to use as a basis for conducting foreign policy.  If you can't or refuse to understand the perspective of others, you shouldn't participate in the discussion.  The world is not black and white or good versus evil. 

The Bush administration has been pushing this good versus evil philosophy from the very beginning but the catalyst was most certainly 9/11. 

"This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail." -- GWB

The simple fact of the matter is that there are a number of far more rational reasons for why the United States is hated throughout the Middle East than because 'we're the good guys' or 'they hate freedom', such as our support for Arab dictatorships, the large U.S. military presence in the Middle East, and the U.S. backing of  Israel.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 30, 2007, 12:17:53 PM
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" – the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

Leaving aside for the moment the clear fact that you do not have a clue about what liberals are, you are aware Condi Rice is about to enter into negotiations over Iraq with Iran, right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:27:42 PM
Leaving aside for the moment the clear fact that you do not have a clue about what liberals are, you are aware Condi Rice is about to enter into negotiations over Iraq with Iran, right?


Will she be doing that before or after she testifies before congress?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 12:29:56 PM
NGC,

OK, you don't have a distaste for Clinton, you're foaming at the mouth.

As to my doing research, I have absolutely no reason to be inclined to do so. You bring up these matters, so you explain them. If your explanation leads me to check it out, so be it. If not, so be it.

My need to do research is occasioned by my own needs - those I determine for myself. So far, whenever you have offered "proof" of your assertions, it has been found wanting. I seriously doubt I will find any smoking gun.

If you had served in Viet Nam, I would respect your position. Since you did not, you have no credence with me. You did not experience the horrors of war for yourself, so you really don't know what you are talking about. On the other hand, my son has been on the battlefields twice in his life. I respect his opinions. He wants the conflict to end. Now. His life is far more precious than to be wasted as cannon fodder. And, that is all Bush thinks about the military serving in his ill-begotten war.

Send our men and women to their death to keep a foolish promise? NEVER.

And, you are right about one thing. I do not see the merit in any war. No, not Korea either. My illustions that WWI and WWII were honorable wars has been shattered by recent research. I no longer see justification for ANY war. Like many futurists, I was hoping that the 21st century would be free of international conflicts - that we would not need to engage in war. Sadly, our president was so enamored with the concept of "Glory", that he chose to become a "War President", in the hopes that history would not focus on his inherent lack of brains.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:42:31 PM
Neocon chickenhawks love war.  They make money from war.  There children don't go to war; other people's children fight the wars.  This is what NGC supports.  War, war, war.  Kill, kill, kill. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 01:06:42 PM
Leaving aside for the moment the clear fact that you do not have a clue about what liberals are, you are aware Condi Rice is about to enter into negotiations over Iraq with Iran, right?


Will she be doing that before or after she testifies before congress?

NEITHER.  Live with it


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 01:09:39 PM
NGC,

OK, you don't have a distaste for Clinton, you're foaming at the mouth.

As to my doing research, I have absolutely no reason to be inclined to do so. You bring up these matters, so you explain them. If your explanation leads me to check it out, so be it. If not, so be it.

My need to do research is occasioned by my own needs - those I determine for myself. So far, whenever you have offered "proof" of your assertions, it has been found wanting. I seriously doubt I will find any smoking gun.

If you had served in Viet Nam, I would respect your position. Since you did not, you have no credence with me. You did not experience the horrors of war for yourself, so you really don't know what you are talking about. On the other hand, my son has been on the battlefields twice in his life. I respect his opinions. He wants the conflict to end. Now. His life is far more precious than to be wasted as cannon fodder. And, that is all Bush thinks about the military serving in his ill-begotten war.

Send our men and women to their death to keep a foolish promise? NEVER.

And, you are right about one thing. I do not see the merit in any war. No, not Korea either. My illustions that WWI and WWII were honorable wars has been shattered by recent research. I no longer see justification for ANY war. Like many futurists, I was hoping that the 21st century would be free of international conflicts - that we would not need to engage in war. Sadly, our president was so enamored with the concept of "Glory", that he chose to become a "War President", in the hopes that history would not focus on his inherent lack of brains.



Intersting.  No justification for WW II?

Could you sum up what research led you to this - in a paragraph or 2?

Thanks.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 02:06:47 PM
Quote
My illustions that WWI and WWII were honorable wars has been shattered by recent research. I no longer see justification for ANY war.

How would you propose the U.S. handled itself in the aftermath of  Pearl Harbor?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 02:41:11 PM
No war is "honorable", but war can be thrust upon us where we have no choice but to fight.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 02:42:42 PM
Leaving aside for the moment the clear fact that you do not have a clue about what liberals are, you are aware Condi Rice is about to enter into negotiations over Iraq with Iran, right?

And I can only wonder what the outcome will be. I disagree with talking to the iranians until they start changing their rhetoric, turning over terrorists, and cease harboring and funding terror. Not to mention ceasing sending insurgents over their border with iraq to kill our soldiers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 02:44:58 PM
Quote
Will she be doing that before or after she testifies before congress?

Quote
NEITHER.  Live with it

Contempt of Congress?

Oh Goody!

(What would happen if YOU just blew off a supenea?)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 02:48:24 PM
My illustions that WWI and WWII were honorable wars has been shattered by recent research. I no longer see justification for ANY war.

Even when we are attacked like pearl harbor, huh?

I do not like war either---but I will not sit and let enemies of this country just kill me. If they say they are going to do so, I'm all for getting rid of them.

Like I have continually said---you are DEFINITELY a liberal...nothing 'moderate' about you...---and one that IS a sheep that will sit back and wait for the bad guys to do you in. I wonder what your reaction would be if people on the other side of the street where you live started shooting at you? Sit there and wait for the bullets to hit you, huh?

Thank the lord YOU are not in charge. Lord help us all if we get someone in a position of power that thinks like you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 02:50:22 PM
Leaving aside for the moment the clear fact that you do not have a clue about what liberals are, you are aware Condi Rice is about to enter into negotiations over Iraq with Iran, right?

And I can only wonder what the outcome will be. I disagree with talking to the iranians until they start changing their rhetoric, turning over terrorists, and cease harboring and funding terror. Not to mention ceasing sending insurgents over their border with iraq to kill our soldiers.

Not before Bush removes his troops from Iraqi sovereign soil, and allows Iraqi's to administer affairs of their own nation.

Rice needs to explain to Congress why she failed to do her job in protecting the country on 9/11.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 02:58:41 PM
I do not like war either---but I will not sit and let enemies of this country just kill me. If they say they are going to do so, I'm all for getting rid of them.


So, other than foaming off at the mouth, what else have you done to protect yourself from those the "want to kill you?"  God, you are paranoid.  Smoking too much weed, maybe?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:02:18 PM
OK, you don't have a distaste for Clinton....


I must assume that this IS a misprint...as I have complete and total disdain for your 'god'. If there ever was someone that needed to be found guilty of impeachment by the senate and thrown into a jail cell, it IS sick-willie clinton. You choose NOT to look at the abominations he committed himself to, fine. You may be the typical liberal and remain ignorant all you choose, and at your own leisure.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 03:04:03 PM
OK, you don't have a distaste for Clinton....


I must assume that this IS a misprint...as I have complete and total disdain for your 'god'. If there ever was someone that needed to be found guilty of impeachment by the senate and thrown into a jail cell, it IS sick-willie clinton. You choose NOT to look at the abominations he committed himself to, fine. You may be the typical liberal and remain ignorant all you choose, and at your own leisure.

Was Clinton convicted of something?

Take your time...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:04:41 PM
Not before Bush removes his troops from Iraqi sovereign soil, and allows Iraqi's to administer affairs of their own nation.


I am sure we will leave Iraq the moment the duly elected govt of that country asks us to do so.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:08:51 PM
Was Clinton convicted of something?


Sadly, none of the things he should be convicted of...foreign money (Huang, Trie, Chung, Kanchanalak, Gimenez, Lum, Lapseng), the Loral and Hughes matter, the low sulphur coal mess, the indian casinos, the W-88 warhead...but liberals see nothing wrong in any of these incidents. How can you get someone convicted of anything when he owned the attorney general that should have had him arrested? And when the current pres will not do anything?

But liberals will always believe that clinton IS god.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 03:09:42 PM
Quote
If there ever was someone that needed to be found guilty of impeachment by the senate and thrown into a jail cell, it IS sick-willie clinton. You choose NOT to look at the abominations he committed himself to, fine.

What abominations has Clinton committed that are worse than what Bush has done?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 03:11:06 PM
I am sure we will leave Iraq the moment the duly elected govt of that country asks us to do so.

No we won't. 

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

And Maliki is a Bush puppet stooge.

Now who's naive?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 03:13:32 PM
The authorization of domestic spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and is by far much worse an abomination than anything Clinton did during his Presidency.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 03:16:30 PM
Was Clinton convicted of something?


Sadly, none of the things he should be convicted of...foreign money (Huang, Trie, Chung, Kanchanalak, Gimenez, Lum, Lapseng), the Loral and Hughes matter, the low sulphur coal mess, the indian casinos, the W-88 warhead...but liberals see nothing wrong in any of these incidents. How can you get someone convicted of anything when he owned the attorney general that should have had him arrested? And when the current pres will not do anything?

But liberals will always believe that clinton IS god.

Gosh, with all that going on you'd think 8 years and $70 million would have turned up SOME kind of EVIDENCE.

And you hate Clinton WAY more than anyone here does Bushie!



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:54:38 PM
And you hate Clinton WAY more than anyone here does Bushie!


rrriiiggghhhttt...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:55:19 PM
The authorization of domestic spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and is by far much worse an abomination than anything Clinton did during his Presidency.


rrriiiggghhhttt....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 03:58:22 PM
I swear, NGC has got Monica Envy, and needs professional help. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 04:44:36 PM
The authorization of domestic spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and is by far much worse an abomination than anything Clinton did during his Presidency.


rrriiiggghhhttt....

I'm a bit confused. Do you support the Constititution of the United States or don't you? Or do you only support it, when it helps advance your agenda?

The response, "rrriiiggghhhttt...." doesn't indicate that you do.  It indicates sarcasm/cynicism, hardly to the Twin Towers of a Rational Argument.

Based on the U.S. Constitution there is certainly enough to impeach the POTUS and the V-POTUS.

Why would someone who professes to love his country, who professes patriotism, who professess to be a Marine stand in the way of seeing the Constitution used for its intended purposes?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 04:53:48 PM
To answer the many questions on Pearl Harbor, check it out online or in a good alternative history book, and you will learn that there WAS intelligence that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked, and those in charge simply let it happen as an excuse to go to war. Why anyone would sit all of our fleet in one place is totally beyond me, and I'm no expert on military or naval strategies. We knew that Japan was at war and had serious issues with us, yet we put all our boats in one place and ignored the intelligence that they were going to be targetted.

In WWI, within days of our declaration of war, the Germans agreed to stop attacking passenger boats. Our only reason for entering the fray up to that time, was because of the sinking of a passenger ship. Once that was settled, there was no reason for us to go to war.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 04:59:54 PM
NGC,

While people on here are in agreement that Bush has a rather dim light in his head, I suspect that HATE is too heavy a word for the issue.

On the other hand, I don't think any of us think that Clinton is GOD either. He was foolish with his interns, which makes him a bad husband not a bad president. Now that you have corrected your spelling to "Indian Casinos", I see no reason for you to object. What the Indians do with their own land is their business. Both Atlantic City and Las Vegas are also areas which allow gambling. What is the big deal? Or is it that you want to continue to oppress the Native Americans?

When you asked me if I am black or Native, I replied by asking you why it mattered. You said that if I was either, that you could further define what I am. I'm going to leave you wondering if I am either, both, or neither. It does you good to keep guessing. You seem to know so much about other people's beliefs, stew over it for awhile. Meanwhile, I'm going to put a pot of fatback and greens on the stove.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:11:48 PM
There are some who think that the Bush people were also involved in 9-11.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:42:20 PM
Now, speaking of hyprocrisy:

ETHICS -- OFFICIAL CAUGHT USING ESCORT SERVICE DEMANDED ANTI-PROSTITUTION 'LOYALTY OATHS': On Friday, Randall Tobias, the Bush administration's senior foreign aid coordinator, stepped down after revealing that he had "been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation." Tobias, the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), said that on several occasions he called the escort service "'to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage.' Tobias, who is married, said there had been 'no sex.'" ABC News's Brian Ross recounted how he asked Tobias in a telephone interview "if he knew any of the young women, their names. He said he didn't remember them at all. He said it was like ordering pizza." Tobias has been a strong proponent of the Bush administration's abstinence-only policies. He also coordinated a controversial policy advocated by the religious right that required any U.S.-based group receiving anti-AIDS funds to take an anti-prostitution "loyalty oath." Aid groups bitterly opposed the policy, charging that it "was so broad -- and applied even to their private funds -- that it would obstruct their outreach to sex workers who are at high risk of transmitting the AIDS virus." During an "Ask the White House" online chat in 2004, Tobias defended the policy, saying the United States was "partnering with communities" to begin "fighting sex trafficking and prostitution, while still serving victims of these activities." The program was intended to help men in poor countries "develop healthy relationships with women."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 07:05:33 PM
There are some who think that the Bush people were also involved in 9-11.

.........and you expect to be taken seriously?

TFF


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 07:11:48 PM
In an interview on tonight's news, George Tenet said unequivocally that the CIA was "dead wrong" about WMDs in Iraq. So, I wonder, why does NGC keep asserting that there were WMDs in Iraq when the CIA is now saying there weren't. Who to believe?

And, Sam, yes, I've heard that rumor that the administration was somehow involved in 9/11. It is one of the stories that Rosie O'Donnell insists is true. How creditable her sources may be is up to debate. Like the military allowing Pearl Harbor to happens so they could declare war when the president was trying to avoid war, it makes you wonder whose side our leaders are on.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 07:14:39 PM
We killed Jack Kennedy too

Yep - all fact.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 07:21:15 PM
We killed Jack Kennedy too

Yep - all fact.

Were you on the grassy knoll?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:30:32 PM
In an interview on tonight's news, George Tenet said unequivocally that the CIA was "dead wrong" about WMDs in Iraq. So, I wonder, why does NGC keep asserting that there were WMDs in Iraq when the CIA is now saying there weren't. Who to believe?


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003


Who to believe? These are some that believed. IS all this bush's fault? Appears not---unless all these people are liars as well, right?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 09:25:04 PM
NGC,

Reagan was given credit for breaking up of the USSR because it happened on his watch. This happened on Bush's watch. It must be his fault.

In truth, he should have had better intelligence, and there are some who feel he did, and went ahead with the war anyway.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:06:25 PM
Reagan was given credit for breaking up of the USSR because it happened on his watch. This happened on Bush's watch. It must be his fault.


There really ISn't much logic to that belief. Reagan was the architect of the demise of the soviet union---It was not an event that 'just happened' on his watch. If bush was at fault, then so are the rest of those that said what they said and voted the way they voted. Bush fabricated nothing. Period. And no amount of desire for political expediency will change that. All of the hate will not change anything either.


Title: What's the News for the Bush Administration tonight, fans?
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 10:39:59 PM
All the latest news, and it's just from today!!!

Speedy Gonzales and his designated hitters:
 
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-04-30_D8OR9R7O0&show_article=1&cat=breaking (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-04-30_D8OR9R7O0&show_article=1&cat=breaking)


Moral Authority?: “I was only getting a massage! I swear!”  Bush Administration official used escort service:

 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OR1QVO0&show_article=1&catnum=-1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OR1QVO0&show_article=1&catnum=-1)


Progress in Iraq is slow:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070430214343.ad28kz34&show_article=1&catnum=3 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070430214343.ad28kz34&show_article=1&catnum=3)

 
Follow the money. Is Bush Brother Jeb involved in a New Orleans clean-up fix? Or not???:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OR9LVG0&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OR9LVG0&show_article=1)
 

Hey, and I left out Wolfowitz claiming he's being set up!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 11:06:12 PM
And leadership is so lacking these days. Just ask Lee Iacocca:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/iacocca.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/iacocca.asp)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 12:23:59 AM
MrUtley,

I had to chuckle when Tenet said in his tv interview tonight, when asked whether Iraq could be a win or not, he answered that it was not about winning or losing. Huh? Why are our boys and girls dying over there anyway?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 01, 2007, 02:19:24 AM
Weezo:

"Why are our boys and girls dying over there anyway?"

Well.... apparently they have to go on dying because nobody on the Republican side can bring themselves to say "Stop! No more!" None of them can even define what 'victory' in Iraq means anymore, yet it has to go on and on. IMO, It's quite possible that defeat will have no real meaning either (for us, anyway). We will leave and the only change for us will be that there will be something else on the TV each night. Oh--and a lot of young men will get to live past the age of 19 or 20, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. Heck, even the neocons might end up feeling OK since they all seem to be jumping on the 'Blame it all on the Iraqis' bandwagon.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 05:50:47 AM

Bush has very bloody hands.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 06:06:37 AM
Quote
Reagan was the architect of the demise of the soviet union

comrdae ngc -

Reagan followed a policy towards the Soviet Union that was begun when he was still making bad movies in Hollywood and followed with differing points of emphasis and some modification be every U.S. president, including Carter.  If you don't understand that Carter's emphasis on respecting human life, and the inspiration it gave people like Havel and Walesa, played as important a role in the downfall of the Warsaw pact then you are a right bent ideologue unwilling to credit anyone whose politics you disagree with....  Oh.  That's right.  Never mind.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 06:14:58 AM
Quote
he answered that it was not about winning or losing.
Tenet's right.  It isn't about winning or losing.  Our military forces are not in Iraq seeking a military goal but a political one; we are not defeating an army in the field but trying to prop up a regime until it can become stable.  That's a political goal.  The whole winning/losing crap plays into the Bushites hands - anyone who opposes their specific political ends, or argues for a different way to achieve them, is for "surrender" or wants to "cut and run" or the like.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 06:15:51 AM
Quote
Reagan was given credit for breaking up of the USSR because it happened on his watch.
George I's, actually.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 06:18:29 AM
There will be only one winner in Iraq once the US leaves.  The people will have the opportunity to sort out the type of government they will support after a very bloody war. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 06:44:48 AM
I agree with whiskeypriest and Tenet.

You have to think pragmatically when you look at Iraq. Looking at the problem in terms of a win or a loss is too simplistic. When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, he helped set the table of disappointment that the US sits at now.

Another, perhaps greater concern is Iran. Their policies have created far more trouble in the region, IMO.

They are the number one terrorism sponsors in the region according to http://this (http://this)





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 07:29:46 AM
I agree with whiskeypriest and Tenet.

You have to think pragmatically when you look at Iraq. Looking at the problem in terms of a win or a loss is too simplistic. When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, he helped set the table of disappointment that the US sits at now.

Another, perhaps greater concern is Iran. Their policies have created far more trouble in the region, IMO.

They are the number one terrorism sponsors in the region according to http://this (http://this)

Your link went to a WP article about Pearls Before Breakfast????






Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 07:52:20 AM
Here's the Bush plan for new energy sources:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01drill.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 08:52:10 AM
When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, he helped set the table of disappointment that the US sits at now.

Not so---the iraqi military was defeated resoundingly. Conventional war ended years ago.



Another, perhaps greater concern is Iran. Their policies have created far more trouble in the region, IMO.

Perhaps? There IS no doubt about it! Yet liberals poo-poo iran saying they will destroy the US and whatever involvement they have right now in iraq.

Iran IS the source of the VAST majority of the terror in Iraq now detonating explosives in sunni and shiite areas, so that each will blame the other---with liberals eating it up like cats licking cream being able to twist it the way they want for petty political expediencies...pitiful! Those that claim the iraqis will be able to fend for themselves and choose their own course after the US finishes cutting and running are simply naive to think that iran will just walk away. Naivete IS a cornerstone of liberalism, and it IS really being displayed for all to see in this matter. Simpletons??


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 09:33:55 AM
Naivete IS a cornerstone of liberalism, and it IS really being displayed for all to see in this matter. Simpletons??

You are like a broken record and it is getting annoying.  Stop whining.  Grow up. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:42:39 AM
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" – the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.


The truth to a liberal IS like a cross to dracula.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:51:20 AM
The whole good versus evil philosophy is an incredibly naive way to look at the world.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:52:20 AM
Another major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed.

That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" – not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.

A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:54:50 AM
If you are going to post quotes from other sources, you should be citing them or at least providing a link.  Pretending that the arguments are your own is unethical


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:55:11 AM
There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of liberals naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And liberals don't like to be made uncomfortable.

Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:56:50 AM
Quote
Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.

Seperation of Church and State is hardly a notion embraced solely by liberals


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:57:33 AM
If you are going to post quotes from other sources, you should be citing them or at least providing a link.  Pretending that the arguments are your own is unethical.

Unethical? I simply agree with the words---that IS sufficient. If you care to post rebuttal, feel free to do so. I expect any rebuttal will be standard liberal cliches. As usual.

The truth to a liberal IS like a cross to dracula.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:59:16 AM
Seperation of Church and State is hardly a notion embraced solely by liberals.

I never said anything remotely stating this. However, the mere presence of the Ten Commandments on a wall IS hardly mixing church and state. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:59:47 AM
Quote
Unethical? I simply agree with the words---that IS sufficient. If you care to post rebuttal, feel free to do so. I expect any rebuttal will be standard liberal cliches. As usual.

Whether you agree with them or not is insufficient, you must post references for direct quotes.  Passing them off as your own is not acceptable.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 10:00:29 AM
Quote
I never said anything remotely stating this. However, the mere presence of the Ten Commandments on a wall IS hardly mixing church and state. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal.

It most certainly is when it is in a public place


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:02:45 AM
When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, he helped set the table of disappointment that the US sits at now.

Not so---the iraqi military was defeated resoundingly. Conventional war ended years ago.

Which has nothing to do with what I was posting.



Another, perhaps greater concern is Iran. Their policies have created far more trouble in the region, IMO.

Perhaps? There IS no doubt about it! Yet liberals poo-poo iran saying they will destroy the US and whatever involvement they have right now in iraq.

You should learn to speak for yourself, instead of trying to speak for others, Faux-Vet.

Iran IS the source of the VAST majority of the terror in Iraq now detonating explosives in sunni and shiite areas, so that each will blame the other---with liberals eating it up like cats licking cream being able to twist it the way they want for petty political expediencies...pitiful! Those that claim the iraqis will be able to fend for themselves and choose their own course after the US finishes cutting and running are simply naive to think that iran will just walk away. Naivete IS a cornerstone of liberalism, and it IS really being displayed for all to see in this matter. Simpletons??

You so easily lathered up, you can't see what is in front of you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:03:23 AM
I agree with whiskeypriest and Tenet.

You have to think pragmatically when you look at Iraq. Looking at the problem in terms of a win or a loss is too simplistic. When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, he helped set the table of disappointment that the US sits at now.

Another, perhaps greater concern is Iran. Their policies have created far more trouble in the region, IMO.

They are the number one terrorism sponsors in the region according to http://this (http://this)

Your link went to a WP article about Pearls Before Breakfast????





Here's the proper link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-01_D8ORHHC00&show_article=1&cat=breaking


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:04:38 AM
It most certainly is when it is in a public place as you asserted.


Negative. It reflects VALUES---something that liberals reject out of hand in their me-me-me philosophy. If there was a religious influence in the making of legislation, or obligation to some religion, then it IS not a separation of church and state. But liberals will trash this all day. It will change nothing.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 10:07:02 AM
Quote
Negative. It reflects VALUES---something that liberals reject out of hand in their me-me-me philosophy. If there was a religious influence in the making of legislation, or obligation to some religion, then it IS not a separation of church and state. But liberals will trash this all day. It will change nothing.

I don't have any problem with the Bill of Rights being posted in a public places for all to see.  But the Ten Commandments doesn't belong in a public place.  It belongs in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:08:11 AM
You should learn to speak for yourself, instead of trying to speak for others, Faux-Vet.



Ohhhhhh---I am so cowed at the articulate prowess of your fiery rhetoric...NOT!

I could care less if you think I am a veteran or not.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:09:52 AM
I don't have any problem with the Bill of Rights being posted in a public places for all to see.  But the Ten Commandments doesn't belong in a public place.  It belongs in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque.


So liberal of you. There IS no point in this discussion. I believe, whereas you are free to disbelieve at your own leisure!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 10:10:14 AM
There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of liberals naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And liberals don't like to be made uncomfortable.

Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.


How can you "remove" from a public place what was never meant to be there?

Keep the commandments where they belong, in your church.

Put the Bill of Rights where they belong: In public places.

Support the BOR:

http://mybillofrights.org/2007_BOR.php?Nav=2


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:11:05 AM
Why do states support terrorism, if indeed they do?  Why would Iran want the United States out of the picture in the middle east?  Why do Moslems cry out "death to America?"  Because they hate our freedoms?  Or is there some other reason for this anger and despair?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 10:11:17 AM
The Supreme Court has held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief.  It is hardly a liberal notion.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:14:46 AM
The Supreme Court has held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief.  It is hardly a liberal notion.


Placing the Ten Commandments on a wall IS not endorsing a religious belief. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:16:15 AM
The Supreme Court has held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief.  It is hardly a liberal notion.

It is what sets American apart from much of the rest of the world.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 10:16:22 AM
Quote
So liberal of you. There IS no point in this discussion. I believe, whereas you are free to disbelieve at your own leisure!

There is no point in the discussion because what you are advocating is a clear violation of the First Amendment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 10:17:22 AM
Quote
Placing the Ten Commandments on a wall IS not endorsing a religious belief. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal.

Of course it is.  The Ten Commandments come straight of the Old Testament.  Do you pretend that this is not a religious text?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:24:09 AM
Placing the Ten Commandments on a wall IS not endorsing a religious belief. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal.

Of course it is.  The Ten Commandments come straight of the Old Testament.  Do you pretend that this is not a religious text?


It IS a religious text, yes---it IS not endorsing anything by placing it on a wall. Unless, of course, one thinks like a liberal.


Just which religion IS being endorsed here? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Methodist? Baptist? Catholic? Orthodoxy? Episcopal? I haven't seen a religions name on the Ten Commandments. HAVE YOU????


What IS in your mind to actually believe for a single second that 'Thou shalt not steal' IS endorsing a religion? Hmmm?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:31:07 AM
Negative. It reflects VALUES---something that liberals reject out of hand in their me-me-me philosophy. If there was a religious influence in the making of legislation, or obligation to some religion, then it IS not a separation of church and state. But liberals will trash this all day. It will change nothing.

Well, there are your values, my values and there is the set of rules by which we agree to live. The one thing that should be valued above all others is the US. Constitition, and I'm not talking about the ship harbored in Baltimore.

The posting of the Ten Commandments, which comes from Judaism, and was appropriated by the cults of Christianity back in the first century,  is clearly a statement of religious beliefs and has no business being posted on government buildings or property. This is not because liberals do not value religion. This is because the liberals who wrote the Constitution did not want an official government religion since they had lived under such tyranny and did not wish it for their country.

Tell us, Faux-Viet Vet, that you do have a mind of your own? Or do you merely repeat Limbaugh & Hannity talking points and count that as meaningful dialogue in your close-minded world?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:38:04 AM
I could care less if you think I am a veteran or not.

Actually, you must care, because you are the one who brought it up. You are the one who decided that becuase you were a "Viet Nam era" Vet that this meant something in terms of understanding the failures of previous administrations, and trying to prevent similar failure in Iraq.

You can't proclaim the status, then say it doesn't matter.

Unless what you are really saying is that what you say now is what you meant then, or what you mean now is not what you meant then....

In other words....You cared that you were thought of as a vet before you didn't care that you were thought of as a vet.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:41:01 AM
What IS in your mind to actually believe for a single second that seeing the words on a plaque on a wall 'Thou shalt not steal' IS endorsing a religion? Hmmm?

I am still waiting to hear from ANYONE just what religion IS being endorsed? Since there IS freedom of reliogion in this country.

Catholicism? Protestantism? Islam? Bhuddist? Shinto? What IS it, liberals???


Yawn.....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:43:21 AM
Actually, you must care, because you are the one who brought it up. You are the one who decided that becuase you were a "Viet Nam era" Vet that this meant something in terms of understanding the failures of previous administrations, and trying to prevent similar failure in Iraq.


You are trying to project what you believe IS in my mind---well, mr. liberal, it ain't workin'!!

I could care less WHAT you believe---you are a liberal and that just says it all....pathetic.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:49:01 AM
I am still waiting to hear from ANYONE just what religion IS being endorsed? Since there IS freedom of reliogion in this country.

Judaism and Christianity.

There is freedom of religion, but there is no freedom to endorse it on government property.

That is the law of the land, and not a liberal plot, Faux-Viet Vet.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 10:53:14 AM
You are trying to project what you believe IS in my mind---

I don't make it a habit to project that which is not in evidence. I am merely going by what you have posted. You made being a "Viet Nam era Vet" an issue when you put it on the board.

Now you wish to walk away from the very status you created for yourself.

Perhaps you weren't in the service at all.

Doesn't really matter.

Being in the service does not entitle you to any special powers when it comes to interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, as you continue to so clearly demonstrate by your clear lack of understanding of some of its most fundamental principles.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:53:39 AM
I am still waiting to hear from ANYONE just what religion IS being endorsed? Since there IS freedom of reliogion in this country.

Judaism and Christianity.


Where does it say that? Are you saying that 'THOU SHALT STEAL' "IS", repeat, "IS" part of all religions that are not Christian or Jewish? or 'THOU SHALT KILL'? Don't just about all religions sate in one way or another that stealing IS wrong?

How sophomoric your thinking IS. Or should I say pathetic?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:56:07 AM
Now you wish to walk away from the very status you created for yourself.


Not walking away at all---just exposing your attempts at projection of what you THINK I have in my mind. That's very liberal of you, too. Always liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:05:26 AM
Quote
What IS in your mind to actually believe for a single second that 'Thou shalt not steal' IS endorsing a religion? Hmmm?

I believe there are already state and federal laws that regard stealing. 

I'm not sure how you can argue that the first four commandments are anything but religious in nature. The government would clearly be endorsing religion if any of the following were posted in a public place:

1. I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above.

3. Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:07:12 AM
Frankly I think you could make an argument that the tenth commandment is in direct conflict with our economic system.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 11:07:32 AM
I am still waiting to hear from ANYONE just what religion IS being endorsed? Since there IS freedom of reliogion in this country.

Judaism and Christianity.


Where does it say that? Are you saying that 'THOU SHALT STEAL' "IS", repeat, "IS" part of all religions that are not Christian or Jewish? or 'THOU SHALT KILL'? Don't just about all religions sate in one way or another that stealing IS wrong?

How sophomoric your thinking IS. Or should I say pathetic?
"I am the lord thy God....  Thou shalt have no other God before me...."  "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain."  "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."  Last I saw, no one has edited out the first three commandments in any of the plaques they seek to post, comrade.  It is intellectually dishonest of you to argue as if they do not exist.  But then, almost all your arguments are such.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 11:09:15 AM
Quote
just exposing your attempts at projection of what you THINK I have in my mind...
The most unintentionally ironic post of the month.  But it is early.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 11:26:48 AM
Thank you to those who mentioned those religious commandments which in my liberal mind do not belong on any courthouse wall in a secular country.

BTW, the USS Constituion sits in Boston Harbor.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:30:24 AM
I'm not sure how you can argue that the first four commandments are anything but religious in nature. The government would clearly be endorsing religion if any of the following were posted in a public place:

1. I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above.

3. Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.



Religious in nature....does this mean that clinton can no longer be mentioned, since he IS god to liberals?

There IS nothing being endorsed. No matter how long you say it, or how you say it, nothing IS being endorsed. Period. But, being a liberal, you will claim the same til the cows come home. Parse IS all liberals have. And the double standard.




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:32:10 AM
How is posting those four commandments on public property anything but an endorsement of a particular religion?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:34:46 AM
Whiskey, you keep calling me comrade. That completely escapes me. But you can be juvenile all you choose. I will never call you anything other than what you are---a liberal.

You should stuff yourself, and hang youself on a wall. Liberals should be mounted, with a plaque that says,"From the jurassic era".


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:35:49 AM
If you were a member of another religion, Hinduism for instance, how could you not consider the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public place  an endorsement of another religion by the government?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:39:09 AM
Whiskey, you keep calling me comrade. That completely escapes me. But you can be juvenile all you choose. I will never call you anything other than what you are---a liberal.

You should stuff yourself, and hang youself on a wall. Liberals should be mounted, with a plaque that says,"From the jurassic era".

The cultural imperialism and intolerance for others who express different views seems quite Soviet in nature to me, comrade.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:39:38 AM
How is posting those four commandments on public property anything but an endorsement of a particular religion?

a particular religion, huh?


And just what particular religion IS being endorsed? Where does it state Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Islam, Bhuddist, Shinto, Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, or any other religion?





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:40:56 AM
Quote
And just what particular religion IS being endorsed? Where does it state Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Islam, Bhuddist, Shinto, Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, or any other religion?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:41:05 AM
The cultural imperialism and intolerance for others who express different views seems quite Soviet in nature to me, comrade.


Listening to you, the only view you endorse IS the absence of a view. And that IS liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:42:29 AM
Quote
Listening to you, the only view you endorse IS the absence of a view. And that IS liberal.

I believe I've clearly expressed that the Ten Commandments doesn't belong on public property


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:45:10 AM
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


Where does it say that? You are projecting what your liberalism IS telling you---not what the facts are. And the fact IS that no religion IS being endorsed. There IS freedom of religion on this country.

Or the freedom to believe in nothing, which IS rather pathetic! Seems to be what you represent.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:46:05 AM
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


Where does it say that? You are projecting what your liberalism IS telling you---not what the facts are. And the fact IS that no religion IS being endorsed. There IS freedom of religion on this country.

Or the freedom to believe in nothing, which IS rather pathetic! Seems to be what you represent.

Do you not understand the first four commandments? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:46:31 AM
I believe I've clearly expressed that the Ten Commandments doesn't belong on public property.

That IS your opinion. There are many that disagree with you. Thankfully.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:47:01 AM
Quote
That IS your opinion. There are many that disagree with you. Thankfully.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court does.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:48:34 AM
Do you not understand the first four commandments?


Sure I do---which religion are they saying they endorse? This can go back and forth all day with a liberal. There IS no religion that IS being endorsed. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal that thinks there IS an endorsement.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:50:35 AM
Fortunately, the Supreme Court does.


Oh----I see. The USSC courts suits you when it rules in your favor. I wonder what you say to the liberals claiming the USSC court stole the election for bush?

Can you smell the double standard? IT REEKS WITH YOU!!!!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 11:52:09 AM
And just what particular religion IS being endorsed? Where does it state Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Islam, Bhuddist, Shinto, Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, or any other religion?

What particular guns are endorsed in the second amendment?


 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:54:14 AM
Quote
There IS no religion that IS being endorsed.

The Ten Commandments clearly prohibit belief  and worship of any other deity that is not the one God.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:59:28 AM
Quote

Can you smell the double standard? IT REEKS WITH YOU!!!!!!

I smell something but it doesn't come from me


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:00:30 PM
The Ten Commandments clearly prohibit belief  and worship of any other deity that is not the one God.

And where does it state WHAT god? Of WHICH religion? Do you know what the word for god in arabic IS? Hmmm, mr. liberal?



YOU REEK OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD!!!! IT HANGS AROUND YOUR NECK LIKE AN ALBATROSS!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:02:16 PM
The USSC courts suits you when it rules in your favor. I wonder what you say to the liberals claiming the USSC court stole the election for bush? Have you told them how WRONG they are? NO??

YOU REEK OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 12:04:34 PM
Quote
And where does it state WHAT god? Of WHICH religion? Do you know what the word for god in arabic IS? Hmmm, mr. liberal?

The one God. Yahweh, Allah, God, whichever name you used to pray to him, it is the same. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:08:12 PM
“ Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Apparently Mr. Jefferson, an often quoted by conservatives Founding Father was clear about keeping religion separate from the government.   

To really understand the Establishment Clause go here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

From that site: 
What is a Religion?
If it is unconstitutional to establish a religion, then it might sometimes be important to determine whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes.  For example, Malnak v Yogi (3rd Cir.) considered whether SCI/TM (scientific creative intelligence/transcendental meditation), offered as an elective course in New Jersey public schools, was a religion.  If so, offering such a course--even on an elective basis--might be unconstitutional.  Those challenging the course produced evidence that instructors told students that "creative intelligence is the basis of all growth" and that getting in touch with this intelligence through mantras is the way to "oneness with the underlying reality of the universe."  They also pointed out that students received personal mantras in puja ceremonies that include chanting and ritual.  On the other hand, supporters of the course showed that SCI/TM put forward no absolute moral code, had no organized clergy or observed holidays, and had no ceremonies for passages such as marriage and funerals.  Is SCI/TM a religion?  Judge Adams of the Third Circuit applied these three criteria before  answering the question in the affirmative:
1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.
2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.
3.  A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.
In 2001, a federal appeals court ruled against Fundamentalist parents who had contended that a public school had established the religion of "Earth worship," citing such practices as having the students give "gifts" to the planet during an Earth Day program.  Does this sound like a religion to you?

Also you should look here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

In the words of the Court in Everson:
“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"  

The phrase: “aid one religion, aid all religions,” would seem to make it clear that the posting of the Ten Commandments on public government property would be an aid to either “one religion” or “all religions”.

Sorry, Comrade Faux-Vet, but if you choose to think otherwise about this issue, you are expressing Anti-American Values.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:10:14 PM
The one God. Yahweh, Allah, God, whichever name you used to pray to him, it is the same.

So---which PARTICULAR (Using your own words here) religion IS being endorsed by the Ten Commandments? You still have not effectively answered the question (And I believe that you are AFRAID to). But what the heck---evasion IS one of the traits of a liberal. Pitiful. The blinders you wear work overtime in your case. Either that or they are molecularly bonded to your skull.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 12:12:01 PM
Quote
So---which PARTICULAR (Using your own words here) religion IS being endorsed by the Ten Commandments? You still have not effectively answered the question (And I believe that you are AFRAID to). But what the heck---evasion IS one of the traits of a liberal. Pitiful. The blinders you wear work overtime in your case. Either that or they are molecularly bonded to your skull.

The belief and worship of one God


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 12:13:52 PM
Believe it or not, there are numerous religions that have more than one deity and that do not embrace the Ten Commandments.  Is it your opinion that the First Amendment should be amended to only include protection for only those religions that hold the Ten Commandments as a central tenet of their faith? It sure sounds like it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:20:23 PM
Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church.

Hanging the 10 Commandments on a wall does not do this.



Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

No law IS being passed by hanging the 10 Commandments on a wall.



Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Hanging the 10 Commandments on a wall does not force anyone to do anything.



Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

Hanging the 10 Commandments on a wall IS not participation in.



The phrase: “aid one religion, aid all religions,” would seem to make it clear that the posting of the Ten Commandments on public government property would be an aid to either “one religion” or “all religions”.


No, it doesn't SEEM to express the liberals interpretation at all. It aids nothing, it endorses nothing, it forces nothing on no-one---and all the parsing you could do from now to eternity will not make it the way you are saying.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:22:34 PM
which PARTICULAR (Using your own words here) religion IS being endorsed by the Ten Commandments? You still have not effectively answered the question (And I believe that you are AFRAID to). But what the heck---evasion IS one of the traits of a liberal. Pitiful. The blinders you wear work overtime in your case. Either that or they are molecularly bonded to your skull.

SPEAKING OF BLINDERS, Comrade Faux-Vet,he previous post to yours, clearly indicates that NO PARTICULAR RELIGION NEED BE ENDORSED, as "any or all religions" are effectively to be denied government endorsement.

When you come back please return with an argument that actually works, since what you have presented to date has been clearly deconstructed.

.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:22:47 PM
The belief and worship of one God...


Then liberals must realize that all pictures of clinton in any govt facility MUST be removed. That sux for you, doesn't it? After all, clinton IS your god, right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 12:24:48 PM
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” (from Everson v. Board of Education, decided in 1947)

“The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of the government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.” (from Abington v. Schempp, decided in 1963)

“Neither [a State nor the Federal Government] can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” (from Torcaso v. Watkins, decided in 1961)

“The law knows no heresy and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.” (Watson v. Jones, decided in 1872)

http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/pledge_consider_02.htm


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:29:02 PM
Hanging the 10 Commandments would incur an expense to the government for materials and labor. Those expenses would have to be approved by the government. In effect the law prohibiting the government endorsing a religion would be violated, since approval for the expenditures would be passed to allow for the posting of the Commandments.

Thus, it would be unConstitutional to hang the Commandments on public property

When you unglue your head from the "Big Book of Conservative Distortions and Other Lies", you may start to see what is actually very apparent.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:29:36 PM
You reek of the double standard---period. Nothing in what you are showing IS specific AGAINST the hanging of the 10 Commandments ANYWHERE!!! It IS liberal interpretation, and nothing more. Liberal parsing. Liberal attempt at destruction of the family. Liberalism in action. Me-me-me-me-me-me-me----liberalism.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:32:19 PM
Hanging the 10 Commandments would incur an expense to the government for materials and labor.

Expense to the govt, huh?

Ya really wanna go down THIS path?

Expense, huh? I believe ya wanna back up on this tack, mr. liberal. I can show you expense out the wazoo that taxpayers should not be having to fund!!!! AND YOU KNOW IT!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 12:34:59 PM
You reek of the double standard---period. Nothing in what you are showing IS specific AGAINST the hanging of the 10 Commandments ANYWHERE!!! It IS liberal interpretation, and nothing more. Liberal parsing. Liberal attempt at destruction of the family. Liberalism in action. Me-me-me-me-me-me-me----liberalism.

It has become quite clear that you are incapable of discussing the issue in a civil, constructive manner.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:36:14 PM
You reek of the double standard---period.

Actually the only thing reeking here is your continued inability to grasp the obvious.

  


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:36:39 PM
NGC is obcessed.  You need HELP.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:38:33 PM
Expense, huh? I believe ya wanna back up on this tack, mr. liberal. I can show you expense out the wazoo that taxpayers should not be having to fund!!!!

I can tell you one thing we're not spending enough on.

The medication that you keep refusing to take down at the VA Hospital, there, Cowboy.

Get help.

Fast. Before the voices inside your head absolutely refuse to stop.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 12:43:26 PM
If I may interrupt...

Do you really think it's possible to divide the world into the "liberal" and "conservative".  For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.  Why?  Because I don't want the government involved in these kind of things.  Does this make me a "liberal" or a "conservative."  I would repeal ALL laws against the use of ALL drugs (including the so-called HARD stuff).  "Liberal" or "conservative"?   I think school vouchers are a fine idea and that states should be allowed to experiment with them.  I don't believe the federal government should be involved in education.  For that matter, I don't believe the federal government should be involved in issues regarding marriage.  Federalism, you know.  "Liberal" or "conservative"?
I think making arguments and then yelling "liberal, liberal, liberal" at your opponent gets you nowhere.  Except for maybe a nice place in Rush Limbaugh's "heart" and a place at the table on "Hannity and Colmes."      


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:53:11 PM
If I may interrupt...

Do you really think it's possible to divide the world into the "liberal" and "conservative".  For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.  Why?  Because I don't want the government involved in these kind of things.  Does this make me a "liberal" or a "conservative."  I would repeal ALL laws against the use of ALL drugs (including the so-called HARD stuff).  "Liberal" or "conservative"?   I think school vouchers are a fine idea and that states should be allowed to experiment with them.  I don't believe the federal government should be involved in education.  For that matter, I don't believe the federal government should be involved in issues regarding marriage.  Federalism, you know.  "Liberal" or "conservative"?
I think making arguments and then yelling "liberal, liberal, liberal" at your opponent gets you nowhere.  Except for maybe a nice place in Rush Limbaugh's "heart" and a place at the table on "Hannity and Colmes."     

Or a cell in the psycho ward of a VA hospital, along with the rats, and roach feces.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 12:54:33 PM
yank: It's an old, old tactic used by those who seek to grab power.

The goal of the labeling is to create divisiveness and then capitalize on it.  This is the legacy of the Gingrich Back Benchers  of the early 1990's.

The end-game is to be consistently on the attack, never seeking resolution, but constantly painting your  opponent as the "enemy of the state" or the "enemy of the people". If enough people begin to agree with you and embrace the labeling then you can lead them where you want to, even to the point where they begin to believe that the best solution is to "get rid of" their political and idealogical opponents.




Abraham Lincoln said it best, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

He would have been a lousy guest on the cablenews networks.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 12:57:53 PM
Quote
you keep calling me comrade.
You have advocated the public ownership of the means of production.  That's item No. 1 in the Communist handbook, comrade.  And yes, you hide behind the fig leaf of "it's only a few limited things" but that like only being a little bit of a whore - just a matter of price.  It is also - and this is the real point - a great deal more on that issue than is espoused by those you call communist.

The Decalogue is set forth in Exodus 20, and restated in Deuterotomy 5.  Not Confucious or the Rig Veda.  To argue it does anything except promote the three faiths to which the Pentateuch is sacred is pure ignorant sophistry.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:00:03 PM
I don't think national unity is that great or even an achievable goal.  What bothers me is the belief that policy issues and disagreements can somehow be resolved by pinning a political label on somebody.  As I suggested, I certainly have views which would be viewed by some as "liberal" and others as "conservative".  I also happen to think that most people are this way.  


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:02:29 PM
yankguy -

The goal of labeling is not resolution.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:03:05 PM
Woo Hoo!  My member is now full!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 01:05:23 PM
Woo Hoo!  My member is now full!

There's a first for everything.....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 01:05:52 PM
If I may interrupt...

Do you really think it's possible to divide the world into the "liberal" and "conservative".  For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.  Why?  Because I don't want the government involved in these kind of things.  Does this make me a "liberal" or a "conservative."  I would repeal ALL laws against the use of ALL drugs (including the so-called HARD stuff).  "Liberal" or "conservative"?   I think school vouchers are a fine idea and that states should be allowed to experiment with them.  I don't believe the federal government should be involved in education.  For that matter, I don't believe the federal government should be involved in issues regarding marriage.  Federalism, you know.  "Liberal" or "conservative"?
I think making arguments and then yelling "liberal, liberal, liberal" at your opponent gets you nowhere.  Except for maybe a nice place in Rush Limbaugh's "heart" and a place at the table on "Hannity and Colmes."      

Sure ain't a conservative.  Define yourself.  Don't ask us.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 01:06:15 PM
I don't think national unity is that great or even an achievable goal.  What bothers me is the belief that policy issues and disagreements can somehow be resolved by pinning a political label on somebody.  As I suggested, I certainly have views which would be viewed by some as "liberal" and others as "conservative".  I also happen to think that most people are this way.  

Well that's not about to change, nor has it ever in the history of our nation.

Indians were labeled as "savages" and "heathens" by Columbus and his crew who cut off the natives' limbs while asking where the gold was.

Ever read about Hamilton and Jefferson?  

I do agree that reasoned discourse is a lost art, but I blame the medium for it. Commercial television severely limits conversation and thought.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 01:06:59 PM
Quote
Sure ain't a conservative.  Define yourself.  Don't ask us.

GWB is hardly the model of a conservative himself yet he continues to define himself as such


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:12:18 PM
If I may interrupt...

You are not interrupting at all. That what this place IS for.

Your post seems to indicate elements of both. It appears that you are socially VERY liberal while possibly fiscally conservative (A lot of people are similar to this). Hard to make the judgement on that conservative end as you have not stated unuff yet. But it appears to be possibly that way to me.

But your apparent dislike for limbaugh or hannity seems to indicate you are more on the liberal side---just estimating.

Fair assessment?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:12:58 PM
GWB is hardly the model of a conservative himself yet he continues to define himself as such.

This IS very true.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:14:00 PM
Quote
Ever read about Hamilton and Jefferson?
Hamilton I remember; a real idiot of a Phillies fan.  But who was Jefferson?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:15:12 PM
You have advocated the public ownership of the means of production.

Nope. You twist words. I have said ONLY for non-renewable natural resources. Period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:15:52 PM

Sure ain't a conservative.  Define yourself.  Don't ask us.

I believe that many of my positions were advocated by Barry Goldwater, who while no great intellectual, was clearly a "conservative" in most people's-including his own-eyes.  Similarly William Buckley (who along with Russell Kirk) pretty much invented the term "conservative" for modern political purposes, advocates some of the same positions.

You've pretty much agreed with my point-that defining somebody by a political label is ultimately useless.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:17:31 PM
You have advocated the public ownership of the means of production.

Nope. You twist words. I have said ONLY for non-renewable natural resources. Period.
Well, comrade, a little bit of Communism is enough for dianosis.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 01:18:13 PM
Quote
But your apparent dislike for limbaugh or hannity seems to indicate you are more on the liberal side---just estimating.

I don't think you have to be a liberal or a conservative to dislike pompous asses.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:22:04 PM
Well, comrade, a little bit of Communism is enough for dianosis.

That doesn't make me communist, and you know it. Communism entails a LOT more than this.

Do you not think it IS a good idea?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:23:24 PM
Well, comrade, a little bit of Communism is enough for dianosis.

That doesn't make me communist, and you know it. Communism entails a LOT more than this.
Don't think I don't recognize that firs hesitating step down the road to the dictatorship of the proletariat, comrade.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:23:32 PM
[
Quote
But your apparent dislike for limbaugh or hannity seems to indicate you are more on the liberal side---just estimating.

I believe many of the views advocated by Limbaugh and Hannity are mocked and laughed at (though maybe privately) by many people who proudly called themselves "conservative."  My point is that the "liberal, liberal, liberal" argument is the a tried and true tactic of those two.

For the record, I can't stand the "liberal" ALan Colmes and the "liberal" Al Franken either.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:23:57 PM
I don't think you have to be a liberal or a conservative to dislike pompous asses.

Liberals cannot stand it when they get truth and their double standards thrown into their faces. Limbaugh and Hannity do this on a regular basis---so I understand why you dislike them and call them names. Totally predictable.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:24:49 PM
For the record, I can't stand the "liberal" ALan Colmes and the "liberal" Al Franken either.

Ditto!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:26:00 PM
Don't think I don't recognize that firs hesitating step down the road to the dictatorship of the proletariat, comrade.


I can't help what you think.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:27:04 PM

Liberals cannot stand it when they get truth and their double standards thrown into their faces.

You mean like advocating substantial prison time for drug abusers?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 01:27:39 PM
Quote
Liberals cannot stand it when they get truth and their double standards thrown into their faces

Neither can Limbaugh and Hannity


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:29:35 PM
Hypocrisy and double standards are the coin of the realm of most of these political "sages" on TV and radio (and message boards as well).  If you think that Limbaugh and Hannity are above this and speak only the truth-then I'm afraid to inform you that you are sadly mistaken.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:35:55 PM
You mean like advocating substantial prison time for drug abusers?

I didn't say that. There IS a difference in use and abuse. Abuse leads to bad things. I think that marijuana should be legal, but heroin, opium, methadrine, LSD, that sorta stuff? No way. They tend to be the reason that users disrupt others lives. So I vote no there.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:37:16 PM
If you think that Limbaugh and Hannity are above this and speak only the truth...


Could you cite an example of a lie by either of them?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 01:47:32 PM
Limbaugh frequently advocated prison time for drug abusers.  If you don't get the inconsistency in this position, I'm not sure how I can explain it to you.

As for lies-I can come up with myriad examples but I don't want to.

As an example, Hannity frequently rails that he has never questioned anybody's patriotism at the same time arguing that people who disagree with his positions, Congressman and, most famously the cartoonist Ted Rall (who BTW I find a self-righteous prick) to be giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Limbaugh's lies, half-truths and distortions are legion from little stuff "the Dukakis furlough program" (it wasn't his program) to slightly bigger stuff like "there is no hole in the ozone layer."

I  don't mind the lies.  These guys, like the "lefties" have agendas.  But to argue that they're somehow above it and that only "conservatives" tell the truth is an erroneous argument I think.

There's tons of stuff out in cyberspace describing the lies/misstatements of many pundits on both sides and with a little research you can find them all.  While some of these "lies" that are referred to are questionable and based on statements taken out of context, I don't think you can argue with a straight face that anybody has a monopoly on the truth.         


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 01:56:24 PM
Quote
Could you cite an example of a lie by either of them?

"Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." -- Limbaugh

Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

"The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." -- Limbaugh

The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708

"It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." -- Limbaugh

That's not what the Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction reported.

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" -- Limbaugh

Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.'s Native American population is about 2 million.

"Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along" -- Limbaugh

How about the right to vote?

"You better pay attention to the 1993 budget deal because there is an increase in beer and alcohol taxes." -- Limbaugh

There were no increases in beer and alcohol taxes in the 1993 budget.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 02:08:27 PM
Quote
"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?"
I actually heard Limpbaugh give that argument when I was sitting in a barber's chair.   I started laughing, and had to explain to the barber what was so funny.

Limbaugh was actually screwing his own argument.  Shortly after the first contact with Europeans, something like two thirds of the native population died off due to the inability of their immune systems to defend against the diseases the Europeans casually brought with them - deaths that could hardly be attributed to any act of genocide.  He should have picked the population in 1776, or something.

Even then, it ignores two very obvious points.  If not by now, someday there will be more Jews in the world than there were prior to the Holocaust.  Does that mean that the Holocaust was not a genocide?  Of course not.  Genocide does not have to be completely successful to be genocide.  Second, a zero population growth over a period of time in which the world population grew from the hundred millions to the billions?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 02:49:48 PM
Only Dick Cheney takes Lambaugh seriously, right?  He's just another entertainer, like Steve Colbert, right?  And Hannity is on for the laughs and giggles, and O'Leilly, well, he just proves how insane the neocon rightwing fascists really are.  Oh, that includes the troll who posts here too.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 03:38:28 PM
And only Chainy (Four Deferments Dick) tells the truth:

"....I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 04:08:54 PM
The lies of the Hannitizer:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508310004


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 04:09:24 PM
As for lies-I can come up with myriad examples but I don't want to.



rrriiiggghhhttt---You are weak, weak, weak---and then you start to gab away about 'half-truths'. You are as shallow as they come.

Hannity frequently rails that he has never questioned anybody's patriotism...
Limbaugh's lies, half-truths and distortions are legion from little stuff "the Dukakis furlough program"...

I see no lies in any of this---you just cannot stand his PERCEPTIONS---and perceptions are NOT lies.

If you cannot come up with an out and out lie, it surprises me not---because if there were an outright LIE, the NYT, PBS, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN would have already been all over it like a rooster on a junebug.

Ya do better than that, rookie!!!

Can't ya just cite 1? A measly little ol' ONE????

This IS why I call people like you what you are---a liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 04:29:41 PM
Just follow the bouncing ball, Faux-Viet Vet:

On the August 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity falsely blamed "the anti-war left" for a protest at the August 28 funeral of Sgt. Jeremy Doyle of Indianapolis, who was killed while serving in Iraq. Hannity read excerpts of an article on the website of Indianapolis TV station WISH describing the protest, adding, "I guess this is just another example of how the anti-war left supports our brave troops." In fact, as The Indianapolis Star reported, the protesters were not anti-war liberals but, rather, members of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Topeka, Kansas, who claim that the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are inflicted by God to punish the United States for its acceptance of gays and lesbians.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 04:34:09 PM
Gee this is fun:

On September 18, 2003, Sean said on Hannity & Colmes, "I never questioned anyone's patriotism."

Earlier that year Hannity asked Stanley Cohen, "Is it you hate this president or you hate America?"

I guess Hannity doesn't understand the word "never" or merely forgot.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 04:44:46 PM
Just follow the bouncing ball, Faux-Viet Vet:

On the August 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity falsely blamed "the anti-war left" for a protest at the August 28 funeral of Sgt. Jeremy Doyle of Indianapolis, who was killed while serving in Iraq. Hannity read excerpts of an article on the website of Indianapolis TV station WISH describing the protest, adding, "I guess this is just another example of how the anti-war left supports our brave troops." In fact, as The Indianapolis Star reported, the protesters were not anti-war liberals but, rather, members of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Topeka, Kansas, who claim that the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are inflicted by God to punish the United States for its acceptance of gays and lesbians.

Yes, Hannity is a liar.  So are the rest of these evil people.  Al Franken wrote an excellent book about the liars.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 04:47:49 PM
Well, I see you boys have been hard at it trying to educate the fool NGC in the intricacies of politics. It is totally beyond his comprehension. Undoubtedly, the reason he wasn't sent to Viet Nam was because there was some question on his intelligence and/or morality.

NGC advocates death without trial against those whose truths frighten him. He advocates a "little bit" of communism, but labels as "liberals" those who point out the danger of his position.

NGC reminds me of the kid who stands there asserting "I didn't do it" over and over like the mantra "liberal", when the evidence of the kid's misdeed is still in his hands!

It is true that "liberals" tend to see the good in all. That is why all those NGC labels "liberals" continue to treat him with respect. We all hope that under all those stubborn weeds, is a rose bush that will yield a single fragrant bloom. Maybe we are naive.




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 05:01:11 PM
Gee this is fun:

On September 18, 2003, Sean said on Hannity & Colmes, "I never questioned anyone's patriotism."

Earlier that year Hannity asked Stanley Cohen, "Is it you hate this president or you hate America?"

I guess Hannity doesn't understand the word "never" or merely forgot.



Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

that's a biggee


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 05:02:47 PM
Well, I see you boys have been hard at it trying to educate the fool NGC in the intricacies of politics. It is totally beyond his comprehension. Undoubtedly, the reason he wasn't sent to Viet Nam was because there was some question on his intelligence and/or morality.

NGC advocates death without trial against those whose truths frighten him. He advocates a "little bit" of communism, but labels as "liberals" those who point out the danger of his position.

NGC reminds me of the kid who stands there asserting "I didn't do it" over and over like the mantra "liberal", when the evidence of the kid's misdeed is still in his hands!

It is true that "liberals" tend to see the good in all. That is why all those NGC labels "liberals" continue to treat him with respect. We all hope that under all those stubborn weeds, is a rose bush that will yield a single fragrant bloom. Maybe we are naive.




Death without trial?

Hmmmmmm...............

into mythology are ya?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 01, 2007, 05:04:03 PM
He was looking for a lie.  I don't have the patience to do his legwork.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 05:59:42 PM
Quote
the reason he wasn't sent to Viet Nam was because there was some question on his intelligence and/or morality.

OK, be honest now, did the name Arlo Guthrie spring to anyone else's mind upon reading this?  ("Officer Obie, Do you think I'm moral enough to go to war, burn villages, maim and kill women and children after being a LITTERBUG?"  quotation approximate, pace Arlo.)


You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 07:01:28 PM
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

    George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:

    “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable:

    George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

    “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.

Double Standard.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 07:59:14 PM
Sam,

A good piece of research! Another matter of do what I say, not what I do on the part of Bush.

A thought occured. The Queen of England is coming to Virginia this week. She is not going to Washington nor calling on the president. Is it a slight? She is coming for the 400th Jamestown Anniversary on Thursday and to visit the Virginia General Assembly (modern version of the House of Burgesses in the early Virginia colony) in a special session in the newly renovated capital building on Friday.

Unless her itinerary is expanded to include the weekend with Bush, it would seem she is doing the same thing to Bush that James I did to Pocahontas when she visited England in the 17th century! Oh the ruffles and ridges of history!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 08:12:20 PM
Sam,

A good piece of research! Another matter of do what I say, not what I do on the part of Bush.

A thought occured. The Queen of England is coming to Virginia this week. She is not going to Washington nor calling on the president. Is it a slight? She is coming for the 400th Jamestown Anniversary on Thursday and to visit the Virginia General Assembly (modern version of the House of Burgesses in the early Virginia colony) in a special session in the newly renovated capital building on Friday.

Unless her itinerary is expanded to include the weekend with Bush, it would seem she is doing the same thing to Bush that James I did to Pocahontas when she visited England in the 17th century! Oh the ruffles and ridges of history!


I visited Jamestown last year when I spent a week in Williamsburg.  I hope the queen's visit will be as pleasant as mine was a year ago.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 01, 2007, 08:38:52 PM
kidcarter,

Re Hannity's lies you say (sarcastically), "that's a biggee."
It doesn't matter whether it's a biggie or a lillttlie.
Never is an absolute, and it only takes one example to disprove the case and make its speaker a liar.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:07:31 PM
Gee this is fun:

On September 18, 2003, Sean said on Hannity & Colmes, "I never questioned anyone's patriotism."

Earlier that year Hannity asked Stanley Cohen, "Is it you hate this president or you hate America?"

I guess Hannity doesn't understand the word "never" or merely forgot.



Since when IS asking a question about hate 'questioning patriotism'? Only when the parsing mind of a liberal IS involved. If Hannity said he thought that Cohen would UNDERMINE America, that would be sufficient for the statement "Questioning patriotism". You can hate the pres or hate what's happening in America w/o being unpatriotic. What dingy Harry Reid said in "The war "IS" lost", "IS" unpatriotic---ISn't it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 10:34:35 PM
NGC,

You sure do throw up a lot of muck when you are shown to be wrong. A question is a question. If you ask if you "HATE" America, you ARE questioning someone patriotism. So the guy lied. It is you who is, as you call it, "parsing" the issue.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 06:13:16 AM
Bush vetoed the war spending bill, as he said he would.  Now he's ready to compromise, as long as a new bill is written the way he wants it.  If I were in Congress, I'd work to send him the same bill again that he just vetoed.  He said the bill would be the cause of failure in Iraq.  Guess what, George, the place has been a failure since you order "shock and awe" five years ago.  It is YOUR failure.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 08:35:26 AM
If you ask if you "HATE" America, you ARE questioning someone patriotism.

Well if this IS considered lying for Hannity, on a scale of 1-1,000, it represents a 1, whereas sick-willie clinton and appeasers rate at the 1,000 mark. As well as those that live the lie that bush fabricated the Iraq WMDs intel. There just ISn't any meaningful comparison.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 02, 2007, 09:03:10 AM
Hannity is a complete hypocrite, this is what he said about Kosovo:

"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."

"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?"

"Colonel Maginnis, I want to turn it over to you because we have to ask ourselves some question here. What is our stated goal, our mission, our objective? How do we get out of here? and I want to go back, and this is a point that I made -- you know, even in "The New York Times" just two days ago -- you know, what is phase 4, now that phase 1, 2 and 3 have failed? There isn't a phase 4. The president with the Italian prime minister, when asked "What's next?" if the bombing doesn't work -- he didn't have an answer for this!

So it's a matter of -- well, maybe we can debate being in there, or debate arming opposition, which hasn't been discussed. But what are we doing there? And if we don't know what's next, we have no business being there!"






Title: Hannity - Truth Bender Extraordinaire
Post by: liquidsilver on May 02, 2007, 09:06:50 AM
On an August 25, 2003 episode of the show, Sean said, "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." Sean must not have read the Constitution very thoroughly, because the opening words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

On September 18, 2003, Sean said on Hannity & Colmes, "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." However, earlier that year he asked Stanley Cohen, "Is it you hate this president or you hate America?"

On September 19, 2003, Hannity said, "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." The paper Hannity was referring to, written by Powell, said, "Iraq has come very far but serious problems remain..."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hannity_%26_Colmes


Title: Twisting and Turning With Sean
Post by: liquidsilver on May 02, 2007, 09:10:00 AM
In late August 2005, Media Matters of America caught Sean Hannity on Tuesday blaming the "anti-war left" for protesting at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. In reality, the protesters were members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Topeka, Kansas, which claims that terrorism and other disasters are divine retribution against America for the "sin" of tolerating homosexuality. WBC members, who held signs saying "God blew up the troops" and "Thank God for dead soldiers," also have a website called GodHatesAmerica.com, where the rhetoric of America's religious right sounds ominously like the rhetoric of Al Qaeda: "The American army is a fag army! ... WBC rejoices every time the Lord God in His vengeance kills or maims an American soldier with an Improvised Explosive Device."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 09:19:15 AM
Liquidsilver,

The WBC sounds like a church that is exerting their "freedom" to an extreme. And, I think you have provided adequate proof that Sean Hannity tells lies and spouts half-truths. Keep it up!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 09:35:51 AM
Reality comes hard and late for some folks. Right now Bushie supporters are in the denial phase.

Give them 3 or 4 years, and they'll sound just like the rest of us.

"Oh, I was never for the Iraq war. It was mishandled by the government from the beginning."

"It was a big mistake, and was too costly."

Sound familiar?

Yeah,  like you can't find anyone that actually supported the Vietnam war anymore.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 03:25:23 PM
Iraq is a disaster and will remain a disaster until the US pulls out and redeploys its troops.  Most people understand this.  Bush is too stubborn to see it any way but his.  His is the worst administration in American History.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 02, 2007, 03:26:40 PM
And then it won't (after we leave in full) be a disaster?

Until you can say this, there is a solid second reason for staying


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 03:41:05 PM
Yeah, we've heard the tortured logic from boy king ad-nauseum now:

 "if we don't fight 'em there, they'll follow us here..."

Problem is, they're already here.

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A 27-year-old Austin man was arrested on Friday and charged with placing an unexploded bomb containing some 2,000 nails outside an abortion clinic in the state's capital.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070428/us_nm/texas_abortion_bomb_dc_1

Funny how attempted terrorism didn't make it to network TV news...



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 02, 2007, 06:40:28 PM
Nothing in what you are showing IS specific AGAINST the hanging of the 10 Commandments ANYWHERE!!! It IS liberal interpretation, and nothing more. Liberal parsing. Liberal attempt at destruction of the family. Liberalism in action. Me-me-me-me-me-me-me----liberalism.

There are people who believe in no god or many gods.  This country was founded on the belief that weather you have one, many or no god, you are treated equally.  So tax payer $$ to put up a religious document (any religious document) should be considered tax payer fraud. 

Bringing up other wastes of money is a red herring.  It is not a valid argument against the anti-10commandment crowd.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 06:43:10 PM
liquidsilver ---


The past posts you have made, and after my subsequent research, are very compelling, indeed. Since I do not see Hannity every single night, there are things that I have not been aware of. I am reconsidering several things right now.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 02, 2007, 06:46:20 PM
You mean like advocating substantial prison time for drug abusers?

I didn't say that. There IS a difference in use and abuse. Abuse leads to bad things. I think that marijuana should be legal, but heroin, opium, methadrine, LSD, that sorta stuff? No way. They tend to be the reason that users disrupt others lives. So I vote no there.

I agree Marijuana should be legal BUT:

Any drug can be abused so i can't see where the line is drawn.  LSD should be legal too in my eyes because I know it has a lot of value in psychological research.  On the other hand,  you could have a bad trip and shoot everyone if you own a gun.  We can't let the news-paper headlines tell us whether something is good or bad.  People do good or bad things.  Blaming the drug is troublesome. IMO either everything is illegal (alcohol too since it causes so much harm) or nothing should be.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 02, 2007, 06:48:06 PM
Nothing in what you are showing IS specific AGAINST the hanging of the 10 Commandments ANYWHERE!!! It IS liberal interpretation, and nothing more. Liberal parsing. Liberal attempt at destruction of the family. Liberalism in action. Me-me-me-me-me-me-me----liberalism.

There are people who believe in no god or many gods.  This country was founded on the belief that weather you have one, many or no god, you are treated equally.  So tax payer $$ to put up a religious document (any religious document) should be considered tax payer fraud. 

Bringing up other wastes of money is a red herring.  It is not a valid argument against the anti-10commandment crowd.

Tax payer dollars?

Yougottabef--kinkiddinme


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 06:50:02 PM
There are people who believe in no god or many gods.  

People are free to belive the way they choose.

This country was founded on the belief that weather you have one, many or no god, you are treated equally.  So tax payer $$ to put up a religious document (any religious document) should be considered tax payer fraud.

I have no problem with whomever IS in office putting up something that reflects their beliefs. I see no problem in putting up right beside the 10 Commandments plaques stating something from Islam, Bhuddisism, or any other faith. But, I do not see an endorsement of a particular religion by simply doing so.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 06:53:44 PM
Any drug can be abused so i can't see where the line is drawn.  LSD should be legal too in my eyes because I know it has a lot of value in psychological research.

Research IS different from legalizing. Research has shown that LSD bends chromosomes in humans, and that IS not good---it damages.

People do good or bad things.

Hence the need for personal responsibility and accountability for lack of responsibility.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 02, 2007, 07:01:54 PM
Quote
I see no problem in putting up right beside the 10 Commandments plaques stating something from Islam, Bhuddisism, or any other faith.

Like the creche surrounded by Santa Clauses?  That's more or less the distinction drawn by Breyer, who was the swing vote in the two Decalogue cases the SCOTUS heard last year.  Although, the one he approved was in a park with dozens of other monuments, secular and other.  On the other hand, just hanging the Decalogue without anything else in context is a problem.

When I practiced in Youngstown - I assume it is still there - the dome of the county courthouse had a four part mural on the interior, with Moses and the Declogue represented on one panel, Roman law on another, English common law on the third and the constitution on the fourth.  That's the type of context that Breyer would probably approve of, since it appears to honor Mosaic law in an historical context.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 02, 2007, 07:10:55 PM
There are people who believe in no god or many gods. 

People are free to belive the way they choose.

This country was founded on the belief that weather you have one, many or no god, you are treated equally.  So tax payer $$ to put up a religious document (any religious document) should be considered tax payer fraud.

I have no problem with whomever IS in office putting up something that reflects their beliefs. I see no problem in putting up right beside the 10 Commandments plaques stating something from Islam, Bhuddisism, or any other faith. But, I do not see an endorsement of a particular religion by simply doing so.

ngc,

Logistically it becomes a big head-ache to manage the problem with having "plaques stating something from Islam, Bhuddisism, or any other faith right beside the 10 commandments"

Cost of all this is now multiplied from one plaque to potentially hundreds.  Prominence of plaques will be an issue, and moreover the atheist or agnostic benefits not at all from this compromise.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 02, 2007, 07:14:11 PM
Any drug can be abused so i can't see where the line is drawn.  LSD should be legal too in my eyes because I know it has a lot of value in psychological research.

Research IS different from legalizing. Research has shown that LSD bends chromosomes in humans, and that IS not good---it damages.

People do good or bad things.

Hence the need for personal responsibility and accountability for lack of responsibility.

That research has since been discredited. 

On a side note, thats the problem with research isn't it?  You can dredge up research to support anything.  The devil IS in the details.  Like the marijuana research Reagan had performed on the rhesus monkeys who were deprived oxygen for three minutes while being givn marijuana to prove that brain cells died.  Well YEAH!  No oxygen for three minutes!!!  Yet this offense was considered "Valid Research" at the time.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 08:23:18 PM
And then it won't (after we leave in full) be a disaster?

Until you can say this, there is a solid second reason for staying

Iraq will, of course, continue to be a disaster.  But it is not our place to put it back together now.  They have to do it themselves. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 09:21:30 PM
Prominence of plaques will be an issue, and moreover the atheist or agnostic benefits not at all from this compromise.

I didn't think that the prominence was the issue---I thought the issue was whether or not posting them endorsed a religion---it doesn't. It IS like a no smoking sign. Does the abscence of a no smoking sign promote smoking? No. You can if you want to though. That's freedom.

Atheists will just say that nothing should be posted because they do not believe in anything, but that seems to discriminate against anyone that believes in something---except maybe a sign that says 'I do not believe'....which IS pathetic. There are more that believe at all than do not believe at all, and the world should not revolve around the athesists desires. Freedom of religion "IS". You can believe a particular one---or not. Who was that famous person that said,"It IS better to believe at all, than not to believe at all".


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 09:23:25 PM
That research has since been discredited. (LSD bending chromosomes)

Do you know where I could read this for myself? I have looked and have not been able to confirm this.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 02, 2007, 10:03:33 PM
"Iraq will, of course, continue to be a disaster.  But it is not our place to put it back together now.  They have to do it themselves."


Sorry, but I can not get 100% behind this. Unfortunately, everything that happened in Iraq is our fault. We were the ones that invaded an innocent (as far as 9/11 is concerned) country and turned their entire lives upside down. We are the ones who had no post-war plans to govern and control the country. And we are the ones who sent snot-nosed Republican kids in to run the show instead of the best experts that we could assemble. We blew every opportunity that there might have been to get this thing to work (yes--due to BushCo ineptitude) and now we are left in a situation where our presence does nothing but make the situation worse. In many ways I think that this current trend of blaming the Iraquis for not being able to get it together is just a case of moral cowardice by people who are desperate for any way to keep from saying "Yes, this war is no longer winnable and yes, it is time for us to go, and yes, this mess was and is our fault" If our remaining in Iraq could in any way help them to start their lives anew then I would say that we owe them that, but from what I see we are past the point of being a positive factor in the situation.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 10:25:46 PM
Driver,

Well said. I agree. We made the mess, but like the little kid who tries to clean up his mess by making a bigger mess, it is time to let the UN step in and clean up our mess. Send our money, but get our people out of there. How many remember when the UN criticized us for starting this war? They were right! Oooo, owwww, ooooo!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 12:25:31 AM
That research has since been discredited. (LSD bending chromosomes)

Do you know where I could read this for myself? I have looked and have not been able to confirm this.

From the Author who originally in 1967 concluded LSD caused Chromosome breakage:

Lack of chromosomal damage in subjects administered pure LSD-25 as reported by Bender and Siva Sankar, has also been brought to our personal attention by others. In our series, also, was a negative finding in a single subject that received two doses therapeutically. Thus, except for the single positive case reported by Cohen et al. (2), there is no direct evidence to date demonstrating chromosomal damage after pure LSD-25 administration. It might conceivably have been produced by impurities present in the illicit material used. However, in our judgment. there also is insufficient data to rule out LSD as the incitant. In the study by Bender and Siva Sankar relatively low doses of LSD (100 to 150 mcg) were given, and only ten metaphases per patient were studied. When investigating chromosomal breakage, we consider it necessary to examine at least 100 metaphases per subject (200 were examined in our series). Also, their subjects were studied 20 to 48 months after exposure to LSD. Since the life cycle of the circulating lymphocyte is believed to be 2 years (4), their negative findings (if valid) might merely reflect the normal replacement process of aging cells. There is still no data published or available to us concerning the persistence of the chromosomal damage once established. The relation between LSD-25 and chromosomal damage, thus, is by no means clear.

http://neurodiversity.com/library_bender_1968a.html (http://neurodiversity.com/library_bender_1968a.html)



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 12:27:16 AM
The Cohen study was a small-sample in vitro study.
No evidence that taking LSD in vivo causes permanent damage to your chromosomes.

Like any drug, don't take if pregnant.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 05:57:18 AM
"Iraq will, of course, continue to be a disaster.  But it is not our place to put it back together now.  They have to do it themselves."


Sorry, but I can not get 100% behind this. Unfortunately, everything that happened in Iraq is our fault. We were the ones that invaded an innocent (as far as 9/11 is concerned) country and turned their entire lives upside down. We are the ones who had no post-war plans to govern and control the country. And we are the ones who sent snot-nosed Republican kids in to run the show instead of the best experts that we could assemble. We blew every opportunity that there might have been to get this thing to work (yes--due to BushCo ineptitude) and now we are left in a situation where our presence does nothing but make the situation worse. In many ways I think that this current trend of blaming the Iraquis for not being able to get it together is just a case of moral cowardice by people who are desperate for any way to keep from saying "Yes, this war is no longer winnable and yes, it is time for us to go, and yes, this mess was and is our fault" If our remaining in Iraq could in any way help them to start their lives anew then I would say that we owe them that, but from what I see we are past the point of being a positive factor in the situation.

I learned early in life, that lying begats more lying and more trouble.  Obviously, Barb and George's son never learned that lesson.  And the  boy king's lies have led us to this point.  I would agree with your statement about responsibility; I just don't think we can fix it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 08:56:27 AM
This from CNN on pulling out of Iraq---I know, I know, liberals will now trash one of their own. ANY station that shows something that doesn't toe the liberal line will be savaged.

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn

CNN -- Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

President Bush vetoed a war spending bill Tuesday precisely because the Democrat-led Congress required the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by October 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

Bush said such a deadline would be irresponsible and both sides are now working on new proposals -- which may have no pullout dates.

A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 09:36:34 AM
Really nice mess Bush created, isn't it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 03, 2007, 10:21:42 AM
"We blew every opportunity to make this thing work..................."

-----Driver125

What should we have done?  What would the non-snotnosed Democrats have done?  After going in, that is.

You seem to think there are simple answers to the insanity in that region.

You're results-oriented party-biased and well...........lame.

Q:  If the Dems take the White House and the struggle continues - or they turn tail and run and the region is a catastrophe, will they for 4 years fall back on, "we never should have been in Iraq to begin with"?

Yeah - I figured that.  You all like to use your crystal balls, as in predicting Bush's legacy.  Predict your own.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 10:38:17 AM
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; A01



President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."


Transition, huh? Translation? We want to put into writing what you have been saying all along so we can say we had a part in it. PITIFUL!!!


This IS positive proof that the liberals in congress do not have the best interests of THIS nation in their hearts. Why would they choose to WASTE TIME on something they knew that had not a snowball's chance in hades of working? Easy answer---pure, unadulterated, overt, insane, sophomoric hatred of bush, and the desire to extract revenge for sick-willie's impeachment. Their constituencies get to take the backseat, again, to that which IS eternally petty, and liberals just can't see it, or refuse to admit to it.

Well, why do you think they are what they are? LIBERALS!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 10:48:11 AM
It would seem to me that the more obvios reason for the decision to put a drop dead date in the funding bill was to force the administration to sit down and discuss the conduct of the war and the possibilities of ending it, instead of dictating the course from on high, disdaining all input from anyone who doesn't already agree with them. 

But of course, all of your posts show pure, unadulterated, overt, insane, sophomoric hatred of anyone who doesn't kowtow to the Bushite/hard right line, and the desire to extract revenge for the failure to convict Bill Clinton after his impeachment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 03, 2007, 10:56:59 AM
To say Bush would not have "sat down" with Democrats and listened to their side if he had not had to veto the bill is silly.

The bill that was just vetoed was time wasting fluffing of feathers.  I'd think constituents would rather have their eloected officials working on something that could stick.  Democrats knew this was a dead end, but went with it anyway.

The additional tackons to the vetoed bill just put more egg on the party's face.

ONWARD!  Pelosi's grandstanding is over.  Lipstick smeared, now maybe she can earn her money and some respect fromall Americans, not just the "Yay, Nancy, you show that Bushman what's what" yahoo crowd.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 11:05:29 AM
Well, if the Bush junta had had a plan, we wouldn't be discussing this now, would we.  They went to war without any plan to get out.  But of course, they're all getting rich off the war, so why would rightwing fascists want to end it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 11:11:55 AM
Quote
To say Bush would not have "sat down" with Democrats and listened to their side if he had not had to veto the bill is silly.
When has he ever done so before?   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:26:19 AM
When has he ever done so before?


Well, uh, wasn't it just last week BEFORE the liberals in congress castrated themselves with the 'timeline' bill? You mean you didn't see reid and pelosi on the lawn at the white house talking to how many representatives of the media?

CATCH UP!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:27:19 AM
Pretty funny how Hannity is defending Randall Tobias -- the Bush administration's foreign aid programs head.  Does anyone really believe that he was using high-priced call-girls for 'just' massages?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:28:54 AM
When has he ever done so before?


Well, uh, wasn't it just last week BEFORE the liberals in congress castrated themselves with the 'timeline' bill? You mean you didn't see reid and pelosi on the lawn at the white house talking to how many representatives of the media?

CATCH UP!!

How does this answer Wisk's question?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 11:35:44 AM
Pretty funny how Hannity is defending Randall Tobias -- the Bush administration's foreign aid programs head.  Does anyone really believe that he was using high-priced call-girls for 'just' massages?

That's funny.  I don't listen to Rush, but I'm sure he knows all about high-priced call-girls.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:45:55 AM
Pretty funny how Hannity is defending Randall Tobias -- the Bush administration's foreign aid programs head.  Does anyone really believe that he was using high-priced call-girls for 'just' massages?

If the madam has any sort of record about the service purchased, or performed, he could really have egg all over himself---if one chooses to believe the records of the madam. Yet for the moment, there IS no real way of knowing. IS there? Only assumptions.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:48:36 AM
Tobias, himself, admitted to using the escort service -- do you really believe that he would call a high class hooker for just a massage?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:55:05 AM
Especially amusing since Tobias was one of the Bush administration's proponents of  "abstinence only until marriage" HIV prevention program


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:03:45 PM
Even funnier that Tobias required that contractors and grantees sign a pledge to condemn prostitution.

Next he'll claim he was conducting research....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 12:06:59 PM
As Jon Stewart noted last night...  "Because there's nothing this administration can do that ISN'T ironic."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 12:08:01 PM
Tobias, himself, admitted to using the escort service -- do you really believe that he would call a high class hooker for just a massage?

Does seem a bit disingenuous, since therapeutic massages are probably a lot less expensive than one from an escort service. And can be found just as easily in the yellow pages. Too true.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:15:48 PM
Kinda like that minister from CO who was getting his massages from a male prostitute.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:25:14 PM
Haggard I think his name was.  Wasn't he using meth too?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:41:47 PM
Yes, I guess the meth relaxed him when getting "massaged."  But he went through a program now, and he's all straightened out.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:55:44 PM
Just a month or so after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with senior Syrian government officials, and was labeled a traitor by Republicans for visiting "a terror state," US Secretary of State Condi Rice is now planning to meet with senior Syrian government officials. Imagine that.

So does Pelosi get credit for the breakthrough in relations, or is Condi a traitor too?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 02:07:17 PM
Yet no liberal says a thing about barney the frank. Double standards, liberals---double standards.

Non-liberals get the negative scrutiny, but a professed homosexual, if he's liberal, the pass IS given.

Double standards----ya want an example, it's in your face.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 02:31:26 PM
Haggard was a staunch, vocal opponent of gays and gay rights who had sex with a male prostitute. 


People are criticizing Haggard's hypocrisy not that he chooses to have sex with men

Barney Frank is a vocal proponent of  gay rights and is openly gay.  I don't quite see the double standard


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:42:00 PM
Yet no liberal says a thing about barney the frank. Double standards, liberals---double standards.

Non-liberals get the negative scrutiny, but a professed homosexual, if he's liberal, the pass IS given.

Double standards----ya want an example, it's in your face.

What are you wanking about now? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:45:05 PM
Yet no liberal says a thing about barney the frank. Double standards, liberals---double standards.

Non-liberals get the negative scrutiny, but a professed homosexual, if he's liberal, the pass IS given.

Double standards----ya want an example, it's in your face.

You're trying to compare Congress Barney Frank of MA with Ted Haggard? Barney had a companion who turned out to be a male escort?  Back in the 1980s?  Haggard paid for sex with a male escort?  Then lied about it?  Where's your double standard?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:54:38 PM
In remarks made Wednesday to the Associated General Contractors of America, President Bush defined his view of the success in Iraq that he hopes to accomplish.
Advertisement

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed," he said. "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence."

While saying "succeed," Bush appears to chuckle.

The president then compared Iraq to the United States, saying that there were parts of the US with "a certain level of violence," but that "people feel comfortable about living their daily lives" in those areas. That level of violence, said Bush, is what the US is aiming to achieve in Iraq.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 02:59:19 PM
In remarks made Wednesday to the Associated General Contractors of America, President Bush defined his view of the success in Iraq that he hopes to accomplish.
Advertisement

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed," he said. "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence."

While saying "succeed," Bush appears to chuckle.

The president then compared Iraq to the United States, saying that there were parts of the US with "a certain level of violence," but that "people feel comfortable about living their daily lives" in those areas. That level of violence, said Bush, is what the US is aiming to achieve in Iraq.

Don't let the dumbness fool you...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:06:12 PM
In remarks made Wednesday to the Associated General Contractors of America, President Bush defined his view of the success in Iraq that he hopes to accomplish.
Advertisement

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed," he said. "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence."

While saying "succeed," Bush appears to chuckle.

The president then compared Iraq to the United States, saying that there were parts of the US with "a certain level of violence," but that "people feel comfortable about living their daily lives" in those areas. That level of violence, said Bush, is what the US is aiming to achieve in Iraq.

Don't let the dumbness fool you...

OK


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 03:40:02 PM
The president then compared Iraq to the United States, saying that there were parts of the US with "a certain level of violence," but that "people feel comfortable about living their daily lives" in those areas. That level of violence, said Bush, is what the US is aiming to achieve in Iraq.


Washington, D.C., for example.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 03:42:52 PM
Quote
people feel comfortable about living their daily lives

I wouldn't say they are comfortable about it, but poverty and poor education will only go so far


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:55:33 PM
Quote
people feel comfortable about living their daily lives

I wouldn't say they are comfortable about it, but poverty and poor education will only go so far

Yep, living in with violence.  But that's acceptable according the the decider.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 04:27:31 PM
i I wouldn't say they are comfortable about it, but poverty and poor education will only go so far

In the sense that we accept a certain level of violence in our own society, you might have to agree with Bush.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 04:54:24 PM
You're trying to compare Congress Barney Frank of MA with Ted Haggard?

Nope---what was the guy, I think from Florida, that liberals were in a tizzy about? I can't remember the name...Emails to pages or something? None were found to be underage if I remember. Homosexuality IS what this was, and that what the frank IS.

Sure seems like double standard---and I have already heard liberals parse this.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 06:21:01 PM
NGC,

What would your reaction be if you received an email from your boss or supervisor (male) inviting a bang session? The issue was that those solicited were subordinant and expected to submit to orders, not whether or not they had passed a particular birthday.

How would you feel if it happened to you? Or your son?




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 06:22:48 PM
NGC,

What would your reaction be if you received an email from your boss or supervisor (male) inviting a bang session? The issue was that those solicited were subordinant and expected to submit to orders, not whether or not they had passed a particular birthday.

How would you feel if it happened to you? Or your son?




He might like it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 06:38:31 PM
NGC,

What would your reaction be if you received an email from your boss or supervisor (male) inviting a bang session? The issue was that those solicited were subordinant and expected to submit to orders, not whether or not they had passed a particular birthday.

How would you feel if it happened to you? Or your son?

A bang session? IS that a liberal term?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 09:42:49 PM
NGC,

I have no idea if it is a liberal, conservative, or whatever term. I thought it would convey the meaning without insulting the forum with baser language. I gather you understood it. What is your answer?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 09:45:15 PM
I have no idea if it is a liberal, conservative, or whatever term. I thought it would convey the meaning without insulting the forum with baser language. I gather you understood it. What is your answer?


You gather wrong. I have no idea what a 'bang' session IS.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 10:12:26 PM
Well, NGC, I'm not going to elucidate. Go home and ask your parents. They can help you out.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 03, 2007, 10:38:53 PM
Weezo:
  I can't be really sure here (due to the usual lumbering ineptitude of ngc's so-called 'logic') but what I think he is trying to do is to launch into one of the usual pillars of RW fundie intolerance--homophobia--but he can't seem to get it framed just right here in 'mixed' company (libs & conservs) so as not to sound like a complete Neanderthal.

"Yet no liberal says a thing about barney the frank."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 05:59:50 AM
Tommy Thompson made a fool of himself in the debate and showed his homophobia.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 06:13:47 AM
Tommy Thompson made a fool of himself in the debate and showed his homophobia.
So he's the front runner for the repos, then?

Quote
Rudy Giuliani said in campaign debate Thursday night "it would be OK" if the Supreme Court upholds a 1973 landmark abortion rights ruling.
So we won't have Giulianni to worry about then.

Brownbeck, Huckabee and... that yahoo from Colorado don't believe in evolution.  I've never been a single issue voter, but frankly I'd think flunking ninth grade science ought to be sufficient grounds for denying you the office.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:35:30 AM
Well, NGC, I'm not going to elucidate.


Then you won't get an answer to your question.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:33:03 AM
One of the reasons that I've been so patient with President Bush and his handling of the war on terrorism is because he is tackling a problem his predecessors have ignored for a quarter-century. The reason there are no "easy" answers or fixes to the problems in the Middle East is in large part because we've allowed the problem of Islamic jihadism to go unchecked for far too long.

We watched as radical Islamists seized power in Iran; we watched al-Qaida set up shop in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan; we watched Lebanon fall to Islamic militants. We've even pressured Israel to succumb to the demands of Palestinian groups that have repeatedly teamed up with Islamic terrorist groups in their war against the West.


Our nation will soon have to decide whether to entrust the "war on terrorism" – now a forbidden phrase in liberal quarters in Britain – to either one of the more responsible Republican candidates who will carry on the crusade that Bush launched in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to the liberals and their plans for "phased withdrawal" from the frontlines of the war on terror.

Trusting the war effort to one of the current liberal candidates would be a dumb and dangerous prospect.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 04, 2007, 10:19:08 AM
OK, NGC,

I probably know the answer already, as most of us on here do. I can surmise that although it's OK for a Republican guy to invade a young man you don't know, you would rally in the other direction if it was your or your son being courted and/or invaded. You are like some of the big d*cks that sit on juries, loving the titillation of the details of rape, and willing to let the perpetrator off with a chuckle and a slap on the wrist, until it is your wife or daughter who is the victim, then you yell to high heavens.

Do we see double standard here? Yes we do!





 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 10:19:27 AM
On Bush and patience:

Huckaby said it best last night

Asked to give the President a letter grade on the Iraq war, he said he could not, as it is incomplete.

Good show of party strength by all, aside from our Kucinich, the old codger who kept barking about the Constitution as written.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:27:15 AM
Asked to give the President a letter grade on the Iraq war, he said he could not, as it is incomplete.

This IS quite correct---it IS incomplete at this time. When we leave IS the proper time for the grading.

I'll bet that, regardless of circumstance, liberals will continue the 'hate bush' syndrome that has utterly consumed them and say it should be an F---so what would be the point of even asking a liberal for a grade? They hate bush's guts and nothing will change it. Period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:44:55 AM
Good show of party strength by all, aside from our Kucinich, the old codger who kept barking about the Constitution as written.

I can understand why after the last few presidents, you would think that a fundamental understanding of the Constitution has little to do with the qualifications for the office.

If only that were true.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 11:06:50 AM
Tommy Thompson made a fool of himself in the debate and showed his homophobia.
So he's the front runner for the repos, then?

Quote
Rudy Giuliani said in campaign debate Thursday night "it would be OK" if the Supreme Court upholds a 1973 landmark abortion rights ruling.
So we won't have Giulianni to worry about then.

Brownbeck, Huckabee and... that yahoo from Colorado don't believe in evolution.  I've never been a single issue voter, but frankly I'd think flunking ninth grade science ought to be sufficient grounds for denying you the office.

LOL


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 11:08:52 AM
Good show of party strength by all, aside from our Kucinich, the old codger who kept barking about the Constitution as written.

I can understand why after the last few presidents, you would think that a fundamental understanding of the Constitution has little to do with the qualifications for the office.

If only that were true.

Maybe you've been under a rock.............

Times change.  My guess is you missed the debate, therefore the point.

As you were, private.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:00:44 PM
On Bush and patience:

Huckaby said it best last night

Asked to give the President a letter grade on the Iraq war, he said he could not, as it is incomplete.

Good show of party strength by all, aside from our Kucinich, the old codger who kept barking about the Constitution as written.

I believe Kucinich is a Democrat? Yes?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 01:02:58 PM
I think kid was using "our Kucinich" in a transitive sense.  As in the nut case with no chance to win.

Although "nut case" in a race where three people indicated that they rely on faith over science to determine scientific issues may not be the right word.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 01:12:29 PM
they rely on faith over science to determine scientific issues may not be the right word.

Would that be like the science of determining global warming IS caused by man? Using 'concensus' as fact?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 01:14:21 PM
comrade ngc -

Ignoring context again, I see, in order to put words in someone else's mouth.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:19:48 PM
they rely on faith over science to determine scientific issues may not be the right word.

Would that be like the science of determining global warming IS caused by man? Using 'concensus' as fact?

Speaking of rightwing nutcases........have you taken your medicine today?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 01:23:58 PM
Ignoring context again, I see, in order to put words in someone else's mouth.

I put no words into anyone's mouth---I asked a question---pure and simple. You jump to hasty conclusions.

Not out of context at all---it said 'faith over science to determine scientific issues'---implying, I believe correctly, that SCIENCE should be used to determine SCIENTIFIC issues.

And my comment/question was 'Oh---like the SCIENCE of using 'concensus' as SCIENTIFIC fact for the basis to determine that global warming IS caused by humans? That was the context. Didn't accuse you or anyone else of subscribing or not to that thought. Did I?

Do you not subscribe to the man made side of the equation?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:29:38 PM
Ignoring context again, I see, in order to put words in someone else's mouth.

I put no words into anyone's mouth---I asked a question---pure and simple. You jump to hasty conclusions.

Not out of context at all---it said 'faith over science to determine scientific issues'---implying, I believe correctly, that SCIENCE should be used to determine SCIENTIFIC issues.

And my comment/question was 'Oh---like the SCIENCE of using 'concensus' as SCIENTIFIC fact for the basis to determine that global warming IS caused by humans? That was the context. Didn't accuse you or anyone else of subscribing or not to that thought. Did I?

Do you not subscribe to the man made side of the equation?

It sure would be nice if you could learn how to format your posts and responses, mister.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 02:03:37 PM
Ignoring context again, I see, in order to put words in someone else's mouth.

I put no words into anyone's mouth---I asked a question---pure and simple. You jump to hasty conclusions.

Not out of context at all---it said 'faith over science to determine scientific issues'---implying, I believe correctly, that SCIENCE should be used to determine SCIENTIFIC issues.

And my comment/question was 'Oh---like the SCIENCE of using 'concensus' as SCIENTIFIC fact for the basis to determine that global warming IS caused by humans? That was the context. Didn't accuse you or anyone else of subscribing or not to that thought. Did I?

Do you not subscribe to the man made side of the equation?

It sure would be nice if you could learn how to format your posts and responses, mister.

WOW!!! You didn't use a**hole, or d**kweed, or comrade, or commie, or jerk, or some other childish retort. Hmmm. Are you becoming less liberal now? Mister---that IS indeed a step up for me!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 02:07:01 PM
Ignoring context again, I see, in order to put words in someone else's mouth.

I put no words into anyone's mouth---I asked a question---pure and simple. You jump to hasty conclusions.

Not out of context at all---it said 'faith over science to determine scientific issues'---implying, I believe correctly, that SCIENCE should be used to determine SCIENTIFIC issues.

And my comment/question was 'Oh---like the SCIENCE of using 'concensus' as SCIENTIFIC fact for the basis to determine that global warming IS caused by humans? That was the context. Didn't accuse you or anyone else of subscribing or not to that thought. Did I?

Do you not subscribe to the man made side of the equation?

It sure would be nice if you could learn how to format your posts and responses, mister.

WOW!!! You didn't use a**hole, or d**kweed, or comrade, or commie, or jerk, or some other childish retort. Hmmm. Are you becoming less liberal now? Mister---that IS indeed a step up for me!!

Thank you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 02:08:17 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 02:44:36 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 03:02:02 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 03:04:18 PM
Times change.

Yeah, but the Constitution is the law of the land, and the point was, your snippiness, that the last few clowns in office don't seem to be that familiar with it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 03:15:16 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 03:23:04 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 03:34:16 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

 
In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.

That's fu*King bullsh!t!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 04:18:42 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

 
In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.

That's fu*King bullsh!t!!!

Nice!  You'll be NGC shi!list.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 04:18:48 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.


Vulgarities are never necessary. It only shows a weak mind and a weak position.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 04:39:59 PM
Times change.

Yeah, but the Constitution is the law of the land, and the point was, your snippiness, that the last few clowns in office don't seem to be that familiar with it.

and my point was the old codger has no clue, no shot, but is taking his 15 minutes


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 04, 2007, 05:27:06 PM
NGC,

You are a riot! You pretend to not understand a post in which I chose an illustrative but not vulgar word to describe a vulgar act, and as a results, chose to not answer the question on how you would feel if you were the victim of a seduction for such an act. I gather you wouldn't like it much, but didn't want to say so since the man accussed of seducing victims was one of your "heroes".

Now you complain about the use of vulgarity when people are fed up with your namecalling. Remember, I am NOT a liberal, yet you persist in LABELING me as such, and thereby accuse me of stuff in which I am absolutely NOT involved in. You claim you can identify liberals, but you continue to say I am when when I am not.

Yes, I do believe that most people are good. That is a required quality in order to be an good teacher. But, when it comes to you yourself, I see very little goodness in your heart. You call people "animals" for committing certain attrocities, and thereby insult all of animaldom. Animals do not kill for the glory and honor of it! They kill only to survive. So the behavior you describe as "animal" is not at all accurate.

I do not advocate the government taking over any resources under any rubric your over-taxed mind can devise. It is nothing more than communism. Your idea of taking away the ownership of resources, and then paying the producers to produce them, is communism to the max. How will you protect from the government declaring that the land your home sits on is a non-reproducable resource, and they take over ownership of it, and charge you rent to park your home on it? Do you ever think past your nose?

If you believe that murder is murder, which you have asserted that you do, then you cannot rightly excuse "collateral damage" or the bombing of civilian population. It makes no sense to counter that your targets are hiding among the civilians. Considering your inability to assess people, you are mistaking your "enemies" who are in fact civilians defending their own homes and property.

Even though I favor Obama at this early point in the race, I am almost inclined to hope that Hillary wins just to see the egg on your face. She is no worse (and no better) than other policians who have been in office too long. I'm somewhat inclined to think we should enact whatever laws are needed to limit terms in congress to no more than two, as we do the presidency. Too many of our legislators have lost touch with the people they are supposed to be serving, and serve corporate masters instead.




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 06:43:45 PM
I agree with you about term limits, but I doubt that the current batch in Congress would vote to change that.  They'd lose their job.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 07:37:44 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

 
In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.

That's fu*King bullsh!t!!!

Nice!  You'll be NGC shi!list.

Surely he has a sense of humor. I've even seen one on you...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 07:42:13 PM
I agree with you about term limits, but I doubt that the current batch in Congress would vote to change that.  They'd lose their job.

Term limits have impaired the presidency by removing accountability to the populace during the second term. There are also experience legislators who know how to get things done. What about term limits for teachers, Anne? Or lawyers?


The only limit on a term should be what the people themselves impose through the ballot box.

To do otherwise is to subvert the democratic process. There's enough of that going on already.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:58:05 PM
FYI, I believe the "f-word" is a favorite of both Bush and Cheney.

But it ISn't either one of them that has used it at me here.

Has someone here used the "f-word" at you?


It was used in a post by Kam---that has since been changed. It wasn't used 'at' me, but was in a post. Using the word ISn't necessary. Using ANY vulgarities ISn't necessary. It just shows weakness of mind and position, wouldn't you agree?

 
In general, I would agree.  There are times, though, when you need to get someone's attention, and vulgarities will sometimes do that.  But not necessarily.

That's fu*King bullsh!t!!!

Nice!  You'll be NGC shi!list.

Surely he has a sense of humor. I've even seen one on you...

Well, of course.  Why go through life without a sense of humor. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 04, 2007, 08:06:26 PM
Utley,

By your definition, Governors in Virginia are never accountable to the populace since they are allowed but a single consecutive term. This came about because of the Harry F Byrd Machine that hampered development, integration, and otherwise ignored the wishes of the people for far too many years.

I agree that experienced legislators know how to "get things done". What they "get done" is not always in the best interests of their constituents. Then, to rub salt in the wound, they raise huge sums of money not from the people they are expected to represent, but by the huge corporations and lobbyists whose interests are often far away from the interests of the constituents.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:07:47 PM
Surely he has a sense of humor. I've even seen one on you...


Sure I do---but vulgarities simply have no place with debate or discussion. True?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 05:59:22 AM
Tell that to Dick Cheney.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 06:22:16 AM
You pretend to not understand a post in which I chose an illustrative but not vulgar word to describe a vulgar act, and as a results, chose to not answer the question...


I have no idea what you are talking about. Since you have now indicated that it IS something vulgar, I AM NOT SURPRISED!!  You insult my service to the military. You say I have a yellow streak. And since you loathe the military and anything connected to it, why should I waste my time with answers to you? Nothing I can say will convince you of anything anyway. It IS pointless. Enjoy your life.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 07:58:26 AM
NGC,

On what do you base your assertion that I "loathe" the military? I have two sons who have served in the military, and one of them has served in two Bush wars. Why would I "loathe" the military? I have great respect for those who serve their country. I do not have much respect for George Bush who shirked his duty. But, he is not representative of the military. When we are about town, hubby makes a point to say "thank you" to those we see in uniform (pretty many, since the town sits on the edge of a military training area, originally an army "fort".)

It is merely another of your mischaracterizations for which you are notorious in these forums.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 05, 2007, 08:46:01 AM
Quote
And since you loathe the military...
Boy, comrade pot, you are kelling the kettle black!  Given your hatred of the air force for killing people other than in face to face combat, you have no business accusing anyone else of loathing the military.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 05, 2007, 10:56:58 AM
You pretend to not understand a post in which I chose an illustrative but not vulgar word to describe a vulgar act, and as a results, chose to not answer the question...


I have no idea what you are talking about. Since you have now indicated that it IS something vulgar, I AM NOT SURPRISED!!  You insult my service to the military. You say I have a yellow streak. And since you loathe the military and anything connected to it, why should I waste my time with answers to you? Nothing I can say will convince you of anything anyway. It IS pointless. Enjoy your life.

What EXACTLY did you do in the military?

And, why do you still have that tag line?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 12:30:53 PM
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 05, 2007, 03:37:26 PM
they rely on faith over science to determine scientific issues may not be the right word.

Would that be like the science of determining global warming IS caused by man? Using 'concensus' as fact?
Which, of course, is not what citing the consensus of scientific opinion is, but no sense in your starting to properly represent the arguments of your opponents this late in the game, comrade.

Far better of course to accept that scientific opinion whose primary attribute is it runs in accordance with your own wishful thinking.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 03:59:22 PM
Which, of course, is not what citing the consensus of scientific opinion is, but no sense in your starting to properly represent the arguments of your opponents this late in the game...

Only a liberal will accept concensus as fact. There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS caused by man---period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 07:09:40 PM
NGC,

You claim there is NO scientific evidence of global warming? I suggest you check you evening weather news and note that on most days, the temperatures recorded from downtown in large cities is higher than the temperatures recorded from outlying areas especially rural areas. It's an easy way to test it, even you can do it.

Incidently, according to a poll on the tv tonight, I am not the only one in a "military family" to feel the troops should come home. Apparently some 57% of military families are in favor of an immediate end to Iraq, compared to 61% of non-military families.

So stop your nonsense about my "loathing" the military. I'm right in tune with other mothers of soldiers who have put or are putting their lives on the lines..... something you couldn't bring yourself to do.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 08:22:45 PM
There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS caused by man---period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 08:27:08 PM
There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS caused by man---period.

So what is causing global warming?  An act of God?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 10:38:44 PM
Actually, Sam, the history of the earth shows many periods of warming and cooling. The problem with the current theory of "warming" is that it was just about a decade ago that the climitologists were forcasting a coming "ice age". Suddenly, they seem to have changed their minds. Whether or not a climate change of the whole planet is due to the pollution put out by the highly industrialized areas is questionable. Certainly, pollution increases the heat in industrial areas, but whether this spreads across the globe or just does its damage in place is the question.

Only time will tell.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 08:16:58 AM
Whether or not a climate change of the whole planet is due to the pollution put out by the highly industrialized areas is questionable. Certainly, pollution increases the heat in industrial areas, but whether this spreads across the globe or just does its damage in place is the question.


IS this an inconvenient truth for algore? This contradicts his alarmist views that global warming IS man made. His 'concensus' "IS" not scientific fact---period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 08:18:36 AM
Actually, Sam, the history of the earth shows many periods of warming and cooling. The problem with the current theory of "warming" is that it was just about a decade ago that the climitologists were forcasting a coming "ice age". Suddenly, they seem to have changed their minds. Whether or not a climate change of the whole planet is due to the pollution put out by the highly industrialized areas is questionable. Certainly, pollution increases the heat in industrial areas, but whether this spreads across the globe or just does its damage in place is the question.

Only time will tell.



Actually, there is much evidence that the current warming trend is being caused by man and his use of carbon.  Have you seen Al Gore's film? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 08:35:59 AM
ngc,

IS this an inconvenient truth for algore? This contradicts his alarmist views that global warming IS man made. His 'concensus' (sic.) "IS" not scientific fact---period.

Poor demented fool.

Why don't you try to understand what the word consensus means in scientific terms before you shoot your keyboard off.

For the record, if a climatologist in London makes a finding that is replicated by climatologists in Auckland, Golden, CO, Tokyo, Lima, Peru, Novosibirsk, Mumbai, Capetown, and others around the world, the scientific consensus is that the observations are consistent and are best explained by the principle of Occam's Razor (Look it up!).


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 06, 2007, 08:38:33 AM
Quote
Only a liberal will accept concensus as fact. There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS caused by man---period.
comrade ngc -

Only a person suffering from chronic and incurable cranial rectal immersion would confuse "I don't want to believe the scientific evidence" with "no scientific evidence."

Plus, every time some right wing idiot makes tha consensus as fact statement, I laugh at what idiots they are.  It is a statement made by someone who either does not understand science or does not want others to.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 08:54:10 AM
Why do you liberals feel the need to call names? Fool, idiot, d**kweed, a**hole, jerk, coward with a yellow streak, using profanities...I cannot count them all. All I refer to you liberals as IS liberals. You just do not SEE that all this does IS show a weak mind, a weak position, and it shows just how 'tolerant' (rrriiiggghhhttt) that you truly are. But this IS just a page from the liberal book of tolerancy, right? When you hear something you do not like, start the character asassination, slander with every type of nasty accusation that you can think of, and turn the debate away from the topic into a politics of personal destruction matter---my family has even been brought into it. Sounds like you have been educated by sick-willie himself. Do you think that making commenst like these are rational? Does it make you feel superior? Or IS just a question of hatred towards that with which you disagree? After all, the only possible 'sin' that I could have possibly committed here IS calling you 'liberal', right? But, alas, if you feel the need to continually demostrate that the only opinion that matters IS the opinion of a liberal, that your way IS right and any other way IS wrong, you will more and more sound like the thought police trying to impose your version of reality on the world. And I have not called any of you liberals fool, idiot, d**kweed, a**hole, jerk, or some other juvenile reference to someone here. It IS you liberals that commit to the continuos slander---and it IS so very predictable. So---if you want to continue being juvenile, go ahead. It will just confirm what I have said here.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:01:16 AM
Actually, Sam, the history of the earth shows many periods of warming and cooling. The problem with the current theory of "warming" is that it was just about a decade ago that the climitologists were forcasting a coming "ice age". Suddenly, they seem to have changed their minds. Whether or not a climate change of the whole planet is due to the pollution put out by the highly industrialized areas is questionable. Certainly, pollution increases the heat in industrial areas, but whether this spreads across the globe or just does its damage in place is the question.

Only time will tell.





Actually, there is much evidence that the current warming trend is being caused by man and his use of carbon.  Have you seen Al Gore's film? 

 There are only suspicions and theories that man may be CONTRIBUTING to global warming. You are choosing to only look at that which agrees with your point of view, and apparently you reject any finding from any scientists that disagree with those that say otherwise. It IS possible that man IS contributing to global warming, albeit in some infinitely small way, but to say flat out that global warming IS caused by man IS ridiculous. There IS no universally agreed upon scientific evidence that man IS the reason. Only concensus by some.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 09:25:04 AM
Actually, Sam, the history of the earth shows many periods of warming and cooling. The problem with the current theory of "warming" is that it was just about a decade ago that the climitologists were forcasting a coming "ice age". Suddenly, they seem to have changed their minds. Whether or not a climate change of the whole planet is due to the pollution put out by the highly industrialized areas is questionable. Certainly, pollution increases the heat in industrial areas, but whether this spreads across the globe or just does its damage in place is the question.

Only time will tell.



So your solution to the problem would be "do nothing."  And one day your grandchildren will wake up to a world very different from the one YOU'VE left them, a world that won't support them.  Yeah, that's about what I figured from someone with a conservative point of view.  Perhaps you figure you will all have been raptured by them and it won't matter.  Well, bud, that's just another hoax.


Actually, there is much evidence that the current warming trend is being caused by man and his use of carbon.  Have you seen Al Gore's film? 

 There are only suspicions and theories that man may be CONTRIBUTING to global warming. You are choosing to only look at that which agrees with your point of view, and apparently you reject any finding from any scientists that disagree with those that say otherwise. It IS possible that man IS contributing to global warming, albeit in some infinitely small way, but to say flat out that global warming IS caused by man IS ridiculous. There IS no universally agreed upon scientific evidence that man IS the reason. Only concensus by some.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:46:12 AM
So your solution to the problem would be "do nothing."  And one day your grandchildren will wake up to a world very different from the one YOU'VE left them, a world that won't support them.  Yeah, that's about what I figured from someone with a conservative point of view.  Perhaps you figure you will all have been raptured by them and it won't matter.  Well, bud, that's just another hoax.

I have not said that we should do nothing---I have said, and correctly so, that there IS no scientific evidence of man-made global warming---period! I am not against trying to curb carbon emissions. But your comment back IS what should be expected from the liberal side---project that which has not been said for political expediency. You project, assume, twist, fabricate and change that which has been said to fit YOUR belief. Not good. Not scientific. Not rational. Not acceptable. VERY liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 11:46:46 AM
NGC,

If I remember correctly, I posted an experiment you could use to determine if man is causing higher temperature. Have a friend help you with this. One of you take a thermometer into a city, the other a thermometer into a rural area. Converse by cell phone. Compare the temperature. Do this on a nice clear day with no fronts arriving in one place or the other and you will see that the temperature in the inner city is at least a few degree higher than the surrounding area. That is you proof of man-man warming. That is a fact that supports the theory of man-made warming.

You can't have a scientific theory without facts that point to it. There are lots of facts that point to global warming. There are facts, such as your temperature experiment that indicate it could be man-made.

What is uncertain is whether the whole global warming is caused by man, or if man is just accelerating a natural climate change. The concensus of scientists means that a concensus of scientists have all found FACTS that support the theory.

You can, of course, continue to deny it. But you are insignificant. If mankind agrees with the theory, you will be left in the dust no matter what happens. If a global warming is coming there is no way we can stop it. Even if we stopped polluting the air and warming it from human waste, it may not reverse the trend.

In some cases you correctly identify liberals as liberals. They do not object. I have objected since I am not a liberal, and you continue to so label me. There was a new poster in Education, Digital DrZ, and you immediately labeled HIM a liberal, based on one of two posts. I've known him for twenty years, and he is, like me, a moderate - liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and dead in the middle a lot of the time.

If you would stop posting preposterous stuff and insisting that is what all liberals believe, and labeling all who point out the errors in your arguments as liberals, you would not be considered a fool and worse. If you look back to the beginning of the Exiles, now on the old site, you will notice that you came out swinging from the start. What did you expect? To rule the roost? Your failure to reason out your positions would deny you that. And your continued characterization of "liberals" earns you the disdain you are receiving.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 12:06:02 PM
If I remember correctly, I posted an experiment you could use to determine if man is causing higher temperature. Have a friend help you with this. One of you take a thermometer into a city, the other a thermometer into a rural area. Converse by cell phone. Compare the temperature. Do this on a nice clear day with no fronts arriving in one place or the other and you will see that the temperature in the inner city is at least a few degree higher than the surrounding area. That is you proof of man-man warming. That is a fact that supports the theory of man-made warming.


Well, the reason IS simple---ask meteorologists---the temps are higher in a city where there IS more cement and concrete to absorb heat and hold it---nothing to do with the atmosphere. Man made warming? Yes. Global warming caused by man? Nope.

There are lots of facts that point to global warming. There are facts, such as your temperature experiment that indicate it could be man-made.

Not with the example you have given.



What is uncertain is whether the whole global warming is caused by man, or if man is just accelerating a natural climate change. The concensus of scientists means that a concensus of scientists have all found FACTS that support the theory.


Theory IS not scientific fact.


You can, of course, continue to deny it.

Only because there are many scientists that also disagree. Concensus from one portion of scientists does not constitute scientific fact.



a new poster in Education, Digital DrZ, and you immediately labeled HIM a liberal, based on one of two posts. I've known him for twenty years, and he is, like me, a moderate - liberal on some issues. In some cases you correctly identify liberals as liberals.

Could it be that he posted something liberal?


I have objected since I am not a liberal, and you continue to so label me.

If you say there IS never a reason for war, and I believe you have, that IS a liberal position. If you attempt to equate deaths under a capitalist system even remotely being able to be compared to the deaths from communist brutalities, that IS a liberal position. You have resorted to calling me names---coward and having a yellow streak, no? Calling someone liberal IS a political conotation---calling me what you have IS a liberal trait of reducing debate to a personal level with slander. No?


you would not be considered a fool and worse.

See what I mean?


What did you expect? To rule the roost?

Nope. I offer you this---I will only make political conotations if you will agree to the same. That means, effectively, that even if I call you a liberal, in error in your mind as you say, you may call me the opposite of a liberal---conservative, OK? Fair enuff? But no need to commit to any part of the names I have been called here---d**kweed, a**hole, jerk, fool, coward with yellow streak, bringing my family into the insults, and so many more that I cannot remember them all---all for the sin of having accused someone of being liberal---OK? Fair enuff?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 01:12:08 PM
ngc,

Theory IS not scientific fact.

Absolutely incorrect!

If you knew anything whatsoever about science, you would know that theory in science is scientific fact in so far as it most nearly comports with Occam's Razor as an explanation of observable phenomena.

However, since you know neither what a scientific theory is nor Occam's Razor and how it applies, you may continue to spew your scientific ignorance.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 06, 2007, 01:24:23 PM
WTF is a discussion on global warmind doing on the Bush adm. board?

Not so much else to bark about, eh?

28%.  Sheesh.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 01:25:34 PM
ngc,

Theory IS not scientific fact.

Absolutely incorrect!

If you knew anything whatsoever about science, you would know that theory in science is scientific fact in so far as it most nearly comports with Occam's Razor as an explanation of observable phenomena.

However, since you know neither what a scientific theory is nor Occam's Razor and how it applies, you may continue to spew your scientific ignorance.

From the American Heritage Dictionary---THEORY--Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

And you want to say a theory IS fact? Even your own words state "NEARLY comports". Nearly just ISn't fact---is IS assumption; speculation. Period. Sorry to rain on your parade.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 01:27:00 PM
WTF is a discussion on global warmind doing on the Bush adm. board?

Not so much else to bark about, eh?

28%.  Sheesh.

You are correct. Discussion often degenerate into other subjects.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 02:17:41 PM
NGC,

In case you haven't noticed, concrete sidewalks and streets are as man-made as the air emissions. They are part of the warming. So, yes, you do realize that with more people, there is more heat sent into the air. That is a beginning. That extra heat, which is man-made is, in theory, what is causing the whole planet temperature to rise. The facts are that temperatures are higher where the most people live. That is a scientific fact. It can be interpreted to the theory that man is causing the globe to warm at a faster rate than would happen naturally. The only questionable part is whether the rate is indeed faster than naturally. There is no question that man is making his environment warmer. There is no question that the planet is getting warmer. These are the scientific facts. A good theory, one which is subscribed to by a concensus of scientists, is supported by facts. The theory is not a fact, the facts support the theory. And, yes, there will always be people who believe the earth is flat. So what?

You really need to distinguish between those who ARE liberals, and those who espouse a liberal POV on a given issue. Digital DRZ asked you to define what a liberal was, and you accused him of being a liberal. He had come to the education forum to discuss his theories on education, as a retired educator who spent 30 years in the field. And you replied to him with hob-goblines and werewolves. How sad!

NGC, you've made a mess of these National forums with your constant labeleing of this or that POV as "liberal", and then extending it to mean what it doesn't. Now you want to cry in your beer! Well, the bar tender is going on break and none of the rest of us want to wipe your tears for you. If you would stop characterizing liberals in a ways that are not accurate, you will continue to be called the names you feel are not accurate about you. You bring it on yourself. As you say, calling a fool a fool is stating the obvious, it isn't labeling. Or is it only labeling when it's turned on you?????






Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 06, 2007, 02:42:38 PM
Quote
From the American Heritage Dictionary....
Which only goes to prove you haven't understood a word cap said.  But that's no surprise.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 04:08:51 PM
Which only goes to prove you haven't understood a word cap said.  But that's no surprise.


I understood every word. The use of the english language IS wrong, and I put up the definition of the word theory to show it. It IS speculation...assumption, and IS not scientific fact. Period.

It IS scientific fact that water boils at 212 degrees F...not speculation or 'theory'. It IS proven. If you choose to believe that this IS theory, that IS your affair.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 04:31:36 PM
 BAGHDAD (AP) -- Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in separate attacks Sunday in Diyala province and Baghdad, and a car bomb claimed 30 more lives in a wholesale food market in a part of the Iraqi capital where sectarian tensions are on the rise.

In all, at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Sunday, police reported. They included 12 policemen in Samarra, among them the city's police chief, who died when Sunni insurgents launched a suicide car bombing and other attacks on police headquarters.

The deadliest attack against U.S. forces occurred in Diyala, where six U.S. soldiers and a European journalist were killed when a massive bomb destroyed their vehicle, the U.S. military said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded, the military said.

Two other American soldiers died Sunday in separate bombings in Baghdad.

The military Sunday also reported three other deaths - two Marines in a blast Sunday in Anbar province and a soldier who died Sunday in a non-combat incident in northern Iraq.

Those deaths raised to at least 3,373 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: lordbroket on May 06, 2007, 04:35:09 PM
Bush was elected by fraudulent means. Americans: get real.!Bush  is seen as a vapid, insecure, recovering alky who hasn't a clue what to do. Put him as the centre of attraction  and let him be the buffoon while cheny and his crew lead America to the abyss!  The Saudis see him as an idiot and have dismissed future ties with him and his family.The American Intelligence agency remains at the same crassly low standard as per Pearl harbor. High tech stuff don't bring REAL intelligence.! Great need to refresh American attitudes in the ME and Iran. Iran couldn't develop a primitive n. bomb for 5 years. Pakistan, a muslim country, has 27 already in stock.Are we all being duped by cheny?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 05:24:19 PM
ngc,

It IS scientific fact that water boils at 212 degrees F...not speculation or 'theory'. It IS proven.

Wrong again, clown!

Water boils @ 212 F ONLY at sea level, and there only when the atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI or 30.00" of mercury. 

Come to Leadville, CO, home of the Climax molybdenum mine, elev. 10,400 feet, and I will show you water boiling at 186 degrees F.  Turns pasta into a gooey, gluey mess, BTW.

Now tell us what you know about Occam's Razor.

Why is this on the Bush Administration thread? Simply because both you and he show your contempt for the world of science when it does not comport with your view of the world.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 05:47:58 PM
Water boils @ 212 F ONLY at sea level, and there only when the atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI or 30.00" of mercury. 

Come to Leadville, CO, home of the Climax molybdenum mine, elev. 10,400 feet, and I will show you water boiling at 186 degrees F.  Turns pasta into a gooey, gluey mess, BTW.


Ok---Did I say it ONLY boils at 212 degrees? Seems to me at 10,400' it IS boiling before it gets to 212. Regardless of the lesser temp needed above sea level, anywhere you go, when the temp hits 212, it will be boiling. Fact, huh?



Simply because both you and he show your contempt for the world of science when it does not comport with your view of the world.


No contempt. There still IS zero scientific evidence that global warming IS caused by man. Period. There may be some help from man, but all caused by man? It ain't so. Still gotta call names, huh? Weak mind in action. Just ISn't necessary---unless you are weak.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 05:50:06 PM
Bush was elected by fraudulent means.

Oh, OK. Nader had nothing to do with it, huh? How many thousands of votes did he get in how many states? Causing the loss of how many electoral votes? Whining liberal alert!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 06, 2007, 06:00:32 PM
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in separate attacks Sunday in Diyala province and Baghdad, and a car bomb claimed 30 more lives in a wholesale food market in a part of the Iraqi capital where sectarian tensions are on the rise.

In all, at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Sunday, police reported. They included 12 policemen in Samarra, among them the city's police chief, who died when Sunni insurgents launched a suicide car bombing and other attacks on police headquarters.

The deadliest attack against U.S. forces occurred in Diyala, where six U.S. soldiers and a European journalist were killed when a massive bomb destroyed their vehicle, the U.S. military said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded, the military said.

Two other American soldiers died Sunday in separate bombings in Baghdad.

The military Sunday also reported three other deaths - two Marines in a blast Sunday in Anbar province and a soldier who died Sunday in a non-combat incident in northern Iraq.

Those deaths raised to at least 3,373 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

We don't need the body count here, asswipe.  We watch the news, read the reports in the tabs.

Funny thing is you seem to post that like you are keeping score.  "More dead means I am more right."  You're a sad excuse for an American.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:22:18 PM
Have you lost your son to the military?  When you have, then talk to me, otherwise shut the fuck up.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 06, 2007, 06:28:21 PM
Quote
It IS proven. If you choose to believe that this IS theory, that IS your affair....
And if you choose to believe that you can discount a scientific theory just because it is a theory, well, good luck with the suction cups on the soles of your shoes.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:30:55 PM
It's the same kind of thinking that says that some god created heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh 6000 years ago.  Three repuke candidates think this is the case.  We need help.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 06, 2007, 06:32:57 PM
Quote
You're a sad excuse for an American.
Look in the mirror before you speak next time.  A sadder excuse for an American is one who equates dissent with disloyalty.

Quote
We don't need the body count here, asswipe.

Prepare to have comrade ngc call you "Weak mind in action."  Except, of course, he agrees with you and so would probably overlook it, since it does not feed his "I am so superior" argument style.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 06:47:09 PM
ngc,

Your quote re. the boiling point of water: It IS scientific fact that water boils at 212 degrees F...not speculation or 'theory'. It IS proven.

There it is in its entirety - no qualifiers, no dependencies, no contingencies - nothing but your silly absolutist assertion.

I'll be generous and accept your most humble and abject apology now.

Too bad the Son-of-a-Bush has the same myopic view of science as you.  No, for him to have such a view is worse, because he still has some tiny shred of influence over policy.

About Occam's Razor...?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:48:40 PM
The sad excuse for an American is George W. Bush whose ego is the reason that so many young American men and women are dying in Iraq.  The US should have pulled its troops from the region once Saddam was toppled and no WMD were found. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 10:09:58 PM
Prepare to have comrade ngc call you "Weak mind in action."  Except, of course, he agrees with you and so would probably overlook it, since it does not feed his "I am so superior" argument style.

Well, that IS your liberal outlook on things. There IS no excuse for vulgarities whomever they come from. But you think you are superior, no doubt about it. Your feelings are "My way IS right and your way IS wrong". You are like so many liberals that only care to reduce a debate to a personal level, and assume that you know what IS in other people's minds. That IS sooooo very liberal of you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 10:12:39 PM
You liberals are just pathetic in the levels you stoop to in order to disagree with others. But, that IS what liberals are all about. You go vulgar and personal. Well, it IS predictable.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 10:46:12 PM
NGC,

As long as you've been on here, you have been quite personal in telling those you label as "liberals" what they think. You don't ask what they think, you TELL them what they believe, what they do, and what they think. It is personally insulting, both to those who are honest liberals seeking the best for the nation, and for those of us who are NOT liberals, and resent being labeled in either direction.

STOP LABELING!!! There is no justification for it!!! You don't know anything at all about liberals, you are just being plain vulgar!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 11:25:29 PM
Well, little boys and girls----- getting soooo upset at being called liberal....there's a whole lot worse you know, and you have been seeing it here. To be getting the reactions I am, I MUST be hitting the mark. If you think calling you liberal IS vulgar, you're pitiful. D**kweed, f**k, a**hole, etc. IS what IS vulgar, and you know it. When you make this realization, it'll be a step forward for you. And there IS a cure for liberalism---but you must first realize that you are a liberal. Barring that, you're doomed to the pits.  You cannot turn a debate into something personal and think it IS going to be accepted. People bringing in a posters family, children---just plain pathetic. Liberals do it regularly. Calling people cowards with yellow streaks, the above mentioned vulgarities, jerk, all the things you have seen here and not admonished a single other poster for doing so---well, that's verrrry liberal of you.

It bugs you, huh? That IS your problem! You may call me the opposite of liberal---conservative---all day, and I'll promise to be as properly annoyed as you are. ROTFLMAO!!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 01:17:07 AM
Quote
Well, that IS your liberal outlook on things. There IS no excuse for vulgarities whomever they come from. But you think you are superior, no doubt about it. Your feelings are "My way IS right and your way IS wrong". You are like so many liberals that only care to reduce a debate to a personal level, and assume that you know what IS in other people's minds. That IS sooooo very liberal of you.
You couldn't've been more ironic if you'd tried.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 05:37:11 AM
Well, little boys and girls----- getting soooo upset at being called liberal....there's a whole lot worse you know, and you have been seeing it here. To be getting the reactions I am, I MUST be hitting the mark. If you think calling you liberal IS vulgar, you're pitiful. D**kweed, f**k, a**hole, etc. IS what IS vulgar, and you know it. When you make this realization, it'll be a step forward for you. And there IS a cure for liberalism---but you must first realize that you are a liberal. Barring that, you're doomed to the pits.  You cannot turn a debate into something personal and think it IS going to be accepted. People bringing in a posters family, children---just plain pathetic. Liberals do it regularly. Calling people cowards with yellow streaks, the above mentioned vulgarities, jerk, all the things you have seen here and not admonished a single other poster for doing so---well, that's verrrry liberal of you.

It bugs you, huh? That IS your problem! You may call me the opposite of liberal---conservative---all day, and I'll promise to be as properly annoyed as you are. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Get thee to a nunnery.  Isolate yourself and protect yourself from your paranona.  Take the meds.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 06:53:22 AM
How much do we owe the Iraqi people to restabilize their country after we messed it up? I think we have given them three years, during which they have done little. They held an election, ignored by some who were not satisfied with the available candidates. It is from these disaffected voters that the "insurgents" have arisen. The Iraqis are due to hold another election that includes a broader concensus of its population. If they vote in an extremist religious regime, that is not our problem. We need to get the heck out of there. And real, real soon! We have met our promise to rebuild. It is over.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 08:17:43 AM
The failure of the Bush administration to have a plan for after the attack is the cause for what Iraqi looks like today; but how long can we be held responsible when the people themselves can't forge a government with all the help we've provided.  There are too many conflicting points of view and too much outside influence coming from places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Syria, for us to stablize the situation.  Bring the troops home now.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 08:45:18 AM
It is from these disaffected voters that the "insurgents" have arisen.


Iranian terrorists/insurgents are not iraqi voters.


The Iraqis are due to hold another election that includes a broader concensus of its population.

The kurds, sunnis, and shiites all voted in the last election. That what percentage of the population of Iraq?


We need to get the heck out of there. And real, real soon! We have met our promise to rebuild. It is over.

We do need to leave---when they are capable of taking care of themselves, or if they ask us to leave. Even CNN analysts agree that leaving early would not be a good thing. Iraqis were polled and they even said they wanted us to leave---but not just yet. The mes over there that so gratuitously attribute to being the fault of American forces IS hogwash---there would be a lot less problems if the Iranians were not there. You slander your own military forces. Whatta liberal mindset.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 08:55:52 AM
The failure of the Bush administration to have a plan for after the attack is the cause for what Iraqi looks like today;

Very gratuitous comment--since one of your next statements defines the vast majority of the problem. But this IS expected from a liberal.




There are too many conflicting points of view and too much outside influence coming from places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Syria...

There are basically 3 points of view---kurdish, sunni, and shiite---I wonder what their successes would look like right now today were it not for terrorists and insurgents from Iran, Syria, and Saudi arabia indiscriminately murdering people?


 

when the people themselves can't forge a government...

they have---it was called voting in a democracy. It even America took 11 years to iron things out after its' beginning. But the liberals 'hate bush and anything connected to him mindset' rules their thinking---even to the detriment of this country. As long as he IS slimed, nothing else IS of value. Pitiful.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 09:03:25 AM
NGC,

Who was it that occupied our country while we decided on first one then another form of government until we got it right? No one! We did it ourselves. Why do you think the Iraqis need us there to build a government? It is nothing more than your imperialist notion that other people are incapable of directing their own affairs.

I see no reason to believe that all of the insurrection is only provided by outsiders. If it were so, it would still be an Iraqi problem. Didn't we, as a nation, solve our problems ourselves? Why are you so disdainful of the ability of the Iraqis to solve their own problems? Why do you think they need our troops and our money?

Bring our troops home now. They are not supposed to be there to build a government, only to fight a war. The war is over. Bring them home.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 09:09:52 AM
You can't depose a dictatorship, remove the entire party from every position in government, disband the military and police forces and expect the country to pick itself back up on its own.  The quagmire that is Iraq is our fault.  Should we have gone in knowing what we know now about their WMD programs - or lack thereof?  Probably not.  But hindsight is 20/20, the country is on the verge of a civil war and it is our fault.  The blood is on our hands. We can't just wipe our hands clean of it and say, 'Oops, my bad' and walk away. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 09:11:44 AM
You can't depose a dictatorship, remove the entire party from every position in government, disband the military and police forces and expect the country to pick itself back up on its own.  The quagmire that is Iraq is our fault.  Should we have gone in knowing what we know now about their WMD programs - or lack thereof?  Probably not.  But hindsight is 20/20, the country is on the verge of a civil war and it is our fault.  The blood is on our hands. We can't just wipe our hands clean of it and say, 'Oops, my bad' and walk away. 
On the other hand, there will come a time, regardless of who is in office, when we will pretty much do exactly that.  We need to get Iraq into as close to a reasonable condition as we can before we leave.  But we must leave.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:37:04 AM
It is nothing more than your imperialist notion that other people are incapable of directing their own affairs.

Not really. If Iran and other foreign presences were gone, the problem would be a lot more manageable, and you should know it.



I see no reason to believe that all of the insurrection is only provided by outsiders.

It ISn't. Iraq has its' own breed of animals as well. But even that would be more manageable if the foreign presence of terrorists wasn't there.



Why are you so disdainful of the ability of the Iraqis to solve their own problems?

I am not. They are almost there. It even took America over 11 years to get its act together at its' beginning. The Iraqis just need a little time. But you just don't see this.



Bring our troops home now. They are not supposed to be there to build a government, only to fight a war.

They are not building a govt---the iraqis already have a duly democratically elected one, regardless of your spins on it, and your liberal 'cut and run' philosophy (There IS nothing moderate about cutting and running. It IS absolutely liberal.) Iraqis have even been polled and they want us to go---so do I--but as the Iraqis themselves said, not just yet. Even CNN analysts agree that leaving early would be a mistake. You just assume the liberal position of "My way IS right and any other suggestion IS wrong". I wonder why the UN will not assist, as you suggested in another thread? That would certainly help, wouldn't it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 09:55:59 AM
 Madman or prophet of doom?
Created 05/07/2007 - 8:44am

I've tried, believe me I have. I've stepped back, taken a second look and attempted to give the President of the United States a second chance to prove he's not nuts.

Won't work. Can't work. There's just too much evidence out there to show George W. Bush is out of his freaking mind.

A statement last week during an appearance before the Associated General Contractors of America iced it as Bush tried for the umpteenth time to justify his escalation of his war in Iraq along with his continued refusal to accept any timetable for withdrawal:

    Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve.

Yep. That's what the man said. The quote above comes off the official transcript [1] on the White House web site.  He said "success is not, no violence" and followed that up with "there are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives."

Listen closely to what the man said. Iraq can never be a safe place to live because we aren't safe in our own country.

But we have learned to live with it.

Yet in a sad, insane way, Bush gave opponents of the war all they reasons they need to pull out of Iraq.

He admits Iraq will never be safe, that our goal now is to make it "relatively safe" and reach a level of acceptable violence based on the American model.

Hell, we're already there.

Murderers kill 16,000 to 17,000 people in this country every year - an average of 43 to 46 people a day.  So far this year, Iraqis are dying at the rate of 20-30 a day.

Mission accomplished: An "acceptable" level of violence is achieved. Bring the troops home. Baghdad is now just like East St. Louis. We've brought all the fear and dread of violent American life to a new country. Democracy is served.

This, of course, is a crazy conclusion based on inaccurate statistics. The per capita death rate from violence in Iraq is far higher. We have more than 300 million Americans to serve as fodder for violent death. They have, give or take a few million refugees who have fled the country, about 27 million. Our per capita death rate is one-tenth of theirs.

But since Bush used inaccurate intelligence to justify his invasion of Iraq, why can't we use inaccurate statistics to bolster a case for withdrawal. Maybe the best way to deal with a crazy man is to offer even crazier solutions.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:12:34 AM
I've tried, believe me I have. I've stepped back, taken a second look and attempted to give the President of the United States a second chance to prove he's not nuts.

Won't work. Can't work. There's just too much evidence out there to show George W. Bush is out of his freaking mind.


He may very well be nuts. I agree.




his continued refusal to accept any timetable for withdrawal:

And he should reject a timetable.




Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve.


This IS true. Or are you in denial over Detroit, Michigan? DC? Durham, NC? etc., etc., etc.? When foreign terrorists stop coming, things will look a LOT different, and you know it. Or maybe you don't accept the percentages of the horror over there that IS not iraqi generated.




Murderers kill 16,000 to 17,000 people in this country every year - an average of 43 to 46 people a day.  So far this year, Iraqis are dying at the rate of 20-30 a day.

Are you counting drunk driving deaths as well? That IS another 16-17,000 per year.





But since Bush used inaccurate intelligence to justify his invasion of Iraq, why can't we use inaccurate statistics to bolster a case for withdrawal.

Geeze---back to this again. Liberals in congress voted to authorize the war, so they were just as duped as he was---so why do you not blame your liberals as well? They saw the same intel, right? IS it selective outrage, mr. liberal? Very liberal of you. Purposely use inaccurate statistics as rationale for leaving? Gawd---whatta liberal thought!! What absurdity---but expected from a liberal.



Maybe the best way to deal with a crazy man is to offer even crazier solutions.

More liberalism in action. You sure do serve up some tortured logic, mr. liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:17:46 AM
You serve up a lot of commie crap, Mr. Ngc, soviet loving commie.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:21:47 AM
You serve up a lot of commie crap, Mr. Ngc, soviet loving commie.

Now, now---little juvenile liberal. Drink some more kool aid and exhale.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:46:28 AM
You serve up a lot of commie crap, Mr. Ngc, soviet loving commie.

Now, now---little juvenile liberal. Drink some more kool aid and exhale.

I think it's time you drank the cool aid, my soviet loving commie juvenile.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:53:17 AM
rrriiiggghhhttt...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 11:17:52 AM
You can't depose a dictatorship, remove the entire party from every position in government, disband the military and police forces and expect the country to pick itself back up on its own.  The quagmire that is Iraq is our fault.  Should we have gone in knowing what we know now about their WMD programs - or lack thereof?  Probably not.  But hindsight is 20/20, the country is on the verge of a civil war and it is our fault.  The blood is on our hands. We can't just wipe our hands clean of it and say, 'Oops, my bad' and walk away. 
On the other hand, there will come a time, regardless of who is in office, when we will pretty much do exactly that.  We need to get Iraq into as close to a reasonable condition as we can before we leave.  But we must leave.

I don't disagree but I do think the drop-dead date approach is a faulty one.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 11:19:46 AM
NGC, any chance that you guys could italize quotes from other posters or put quotation marks around the arguments that you are addressing?  Its kind of hard to follow some of your posts


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:24:54 AM
liq -

As do I - right now.  I think the point of the drop dead in the Dem's bill was in large measure to force the Bush administration to deal with the Dems on an end game strategy more than to force a withdrawal by that date.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:26:28 AM
liq -

As do I - right now.  I think the point of the drop dead in the Dem's bill was in large measure to force the Bush administration to deal with the Dems on an end game strategy more than to force a withdrawal by that date.

This IS a correct assessment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:28:00 AM
"NGC, any chance that you guys could italize quotes from other posters or put quotation marks around the arguments that you are addressing?  Its kind of hard to follow some of your posts"

I'll try to do that for you. Or hit the quote if the main post ISn't too long.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 11:31:02 AM
I do too. Unfortunately, the Bush administration isn't much into compromises, so it will be interesting to see how it handles the benchmark concept.  I really don't think the Bush administration will be able to right the ship in Iraq - they've made way too many mistakes and don't seem to learn from them.  I fear our presence in Iraq is like a dam trying to hold back a flood.  Its a losing battle but if we open up the gates, everyone drowns.   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 11:47:10 AM
I do too. Unfortunately, the Bush administration isn't much into compromises, so it will be interesting to see how it handles the benchmark concept.  I really don't think the Bush administration will be able to right the ship in Iraq - they've made way too many mistakes and don't seem to learn from them.  I fear our presence in Iraq is like a dam trying to hold back a flood.  Its a losing battle but if we open up the gates, everyone drowns.   

How long have we been hearing, "When the Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down"?  It seems like that was what the Bushs said in the 2004, and here it is 4 years later, and billions of dollars later, and many lives later, and still they are not ready to stand up? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:56:47 AM
I fear our presence in Iraq is like a dam trying to hold back a flood.

I wonder what will be in store down the road if we just agree to let Iran continue what it IS doing over there? Did you see the report today where the Hezbollah rep in Lebanon said that Iran IS directing the firing of rockets into Israel?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 12:00:29 PM
Quote
How long have we been hearing, "When the Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down"?  It seems like that was what the Bushs said in the 2004, and here it is 4 years later, and billions of dollars later, and many lives later, and still they are not ready to stand up?

Slogans aren't going to stabilize Iraq.  U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces themselves.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:03:33 PM
"U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces themselves."

I wonder if you would think that laying some smack on Iran would help out at all? Their insurgents abscence would greatly improve things, would it not?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:04:57 PM
Who was it that occupied our country while we decided on first one then another form of government until we got it right? No one! We did it ourselves. Why do you think the Iraqis need us there to build a government? It is nothing more than your imperialist notion that other people are incapable of directing their own affairs.


Often defendants of the "stay the course" strategy of the Bush Administration like the Iraqui situation to the American Revolution struggles in our own country.

I would say that the better comparison would be to the post-Civil War South, in which states like Louisiana and Mississippi erupted in violence and terrorist activism  as Southern Whites found themselves suddenly disefranchised and unable to participate in the restructuring of their own state government. They were also forced to watch as the foreign government--in this case, the Republcans of the North and their ardent abolishnist supporters arranged for the election of blacks as governors, mayors, and representatives to Congress. This led to the formation of the Klu Klux Klan, America's most famous terrorists and insurrectionists. When the Republicans became bogged down in scandal after scandal in the national government, it led to the eventual abandonment of Reconstruction. That abandoned policy allowed whites to regain legislative power in the South and which was then used to enact Jim Crow laws, and a new reign of Southern oppression began, which essentially carried on unabated until the Civil Rights era in the last century.

Interestingly, the Republican party made its national comeback in the latter part of the 20th Centruy by appealing to the newly disefranchised Whites in the post-Civil Rights South--those whom one would find voting for George Wallace in the 1968 Democratic primaries, found they couldn't vote for Hubert H. Humphrey, the northern liberal, once Wallace was disabled, and so they threw their support to Richard M. Nixon.

The point is, much of the course of action that is taken in Iraq---or the course of any inaction taken---will impact their country and ours for untold numbers of years and generations.

So, if we are to learn a lesson from our own history it is to choose wisely. Both your leaders and your goals for improving a situation born of extreme volatility.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 12:06:21 PM
Quote
I wonder if you would think that laying some smack on Iran would help out at all? Their insurgents abscence would greatly improve things, would it not?

I have no interest in opening up that Pandora's box.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:12:10 PM
"I have no interest in opening up that Pandora's box."

So just permitting Iran to continue their actions in Iraq IS what should happen? Just asking, not putting words into your mouth.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 12:28:19 PM
There is no evidence that the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into Iraq.  That was an assertion by Rumsfeld that the Joint Chiefs of Staff debated


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 12:31:34 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure why Iran would want an unstable neighboring country.  I think it is in their best interest for Iraq to be stabilized with a Sh'ia majority in power.  I don't really see how empowering the Sunni insurgents would benefit Iran.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:34:52 PM
There is no evidence that the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into Iraq.  That was an assertion by Rumsfeld that the Joint Chiefs of Staff debated.

Well, I guess people I know over there are lying to me when they describe the Iranians they are fighting. And documents found on insurgents have also been Iranian. And some of the shrapnel from IEDs that has been inspected DOES show that it IS coming from Iran. Your statement IS flat out wrong. There have been many reports about insurgents and some IEDs coming from Iran. If you have missed them, do some homework!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:36:45 PM
Quote
How long have we been hearing, "When the Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down"?  It seems like that was what the Bushs said in the 2004, and here it is 4 years later, and billions of dollars later, and many lives later, and still they are not ready to stand up?

Slogans aren't going to stabilize Iraq.  U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces themselves.

Unfortunately, we don't have a military big enough or able enough to do that today, after 5 years in Iraq.  That won't happen.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:37:13 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure why Iran would want an unstable neighboring country.

Well, they are playing both sides of the coin---killing civilians in both sunni and shiite areas trying to foment hatred between the two groups. What their TRUE end game IS IS only something that be guessed at right now---but it probably has to do with the spread of islamic fundamentalism---my guess.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 12:37:26 PM
Quote
Well, I guess people I know over there are lying to me when they describe the Iranians they are fighting. And documents found on insurgents have also been Iranian. And some of the shrapnel from IEDs that has been inspected DOES show that it IS coming from Iran. Your statement IS flat out wrong. There have been many reports about insurgents and some IEDs coming from Iran. If you have missed them, do some homework!


Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:42:33 PM
“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” ...

It IS certainly a logical assessment...but it IS true, there IS no way to be 100% sure of 'direct' govt involvement.

Did you see the article with the Hezbollah rep admitting that Iran was directing the rocket fire into Israel from Lebanon? So their involvement there does put a measure of creedence of their possible/probable involvement in Iraq. true?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:49:12 PM
"The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, KS, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state's governor. Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 01:01:41 PM
Damn!  Just think - they coulda stopped that tornado.........


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 01:02:23 PM
Iran is very active in continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon in large part because they do not want another civil war there. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 01:08:11 PM
Damn!  Just think - they coulda stopped that tornado.........

You really are a loser, aren't you Mr. Dumbfuck.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 01:28:18 PM
The House Republican leader said Sunday that GOP support could waver if
President Bush's Iraq war policy does not succeed by the fall.  House Minority
Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Bush's troop increase deserves a chance and
should be funded even if benchmarks for success are not met. senior House
Democrat said it would be "ridiculous" not to condition war money on progress in
Iraq. Bush and his supporters say a fixed date is unworkable.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18530710/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:07:11 PM
Iran is very active in continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon in large part because they do not want another civil war there.

What does that have to do with the Iranians directing rocket fire into Israel?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 02:39:46 PM
Iran is very active in continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon in large part because they do not want another civil war there.

What does that have to do with the Iranians directing rocket fire into Israel?

Would you provide a link to your accusation about Iran.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 03:09:04 PM
He won't.

I suspect, as I think most people do - that Iran is backing a certain amount of chaos in Iraq.  It is, after all, in their best interest to have a weak and dvidied Iraq, provided the Shi'a majority remains linked to them.  Of course, for comrade ngc this has become Iran being THE insurgency, because he cannot admit that any part of the insurgency is homegrown, a response to our invasion, caused by the lifting of order as a result of our invasion, and anything other than terroristic.  There is a difference between an insurgency and terror that the administration and habitual liars like comrade ngc want you to ignore.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:20:13 PM
I've pretty much concluded the comrade ngc was a rightwing repuke shill and liar.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
There is a simple reason why Iraq continues to harrass Israel, and that is because Israel was created by stealing the land from its "neighbors". The long and the short of it. It is no different than the Indians continuing to attack the "brave pioneers" who pushed west and took more and more land from the Indians.

Liquid, I enjoyed your comparison of the situation in Iraq to the situation in the south after the "War of Northern Aggression" as the locals call it. What is not clear is who are the winning and losing sides in Iraq.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 03:34:13 PM
That was Mr.Utley I believe -- not I


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:42:05 PM
Would you provide a link to your accusation about Iran.

It was on the CNN site. They have since changed the page from when I first saw it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:43:08 PM
Israel was created by stealing the land from its "neighbors".

An act of the UN in 1948, right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:54:16 PM
Weren't the British involved in the creation of Israel as they were in the creation of Iraq?  Palestine was a British protectorate, I believe, after WW1


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:56:16 PM
Weren't the British involved in the creation of Israel as they were in the creation of Iraq?  Palestine was a British protectorate, I believe, after WW1

I believe they were. Still, wasn't Israel created by the UN?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:57:55 PM
The UN was very new then.  There may have been some type of resolution, I'm not sure without researching it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 03:58:08 PM
"The U.N." which, as we know, is a liberal body.  But the staunchest defenders of Israel are now conservatives.  But, thirty years ago, Israel's staunchest defenders were liberal.  And still confused, I remain.

Love,

Yankguy.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:59:51 PM
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000520.html

United Nations, 1947, Resolution 181 approves the creation of Israel, the Jewish State



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:02:44 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 04:04:09 PM
Actually, the most important impetus for the creation of modern-day Israel was the "Balfour Declaration".  Balfour, of course, was a member of the Conservative Party and thus his declaration held a lot more credence than the later document of that dastardly liberal U.N.  


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:07:09 PM
Actually, the most important impetus for the creation of modern-day Israel was the "Balfour Declaration".  Balfour, of course, was a member of the Conservative Party and thus his declaration held a lot more credence than the later document of that dastardly liberal U.N.   

Oh, oh, you used that word, "liberal" as if it were a swear word.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 05:10:24 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.

Just the ones in which the goal is  to weaken Israel. I can't think of any other country that would act out of self-interest, can you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 06:41:11 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.

Just the ones in which the goal is  to weaken Israel. I can't think of any other country that would act out of self-interest, can you?

You mean, like Iraq?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 07:46:08 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.

Just the ones in which the goal is  to weaken Israel. I can't think of any other country that would act out of self-interest, can you?

You mean, like Iraq?

I mean any country. But since you brought it up, don't try to spin it differently, now.
The Israelis are a template for patriotism for any country that is interested in preserving its people under extreme duress. Does this make them perfect? No.

But few countries have to operate under the same set of stressors as this one does. A most admirable country, in my opinion.

 I think the Bush Administration has at times used the US-Israel relations as a shield in order to pursue aggression in the region for other than stated purposes, and I don't think that has helped Israel. Israel is not in a position to be to disingenuous to the USA, though, given the very few number of countries around the world that support the maintenance of a Jewish state.
 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 08:02:15 PM


I mean any country. But since you brought it up, don't try to spin it differently, now.
The Israelis are a template for patriotism for any country that is interested in preserving its people under extreme duress. Does this make them perfect? No.

But few countries have to operate under the same set of stressors as this one does. A most admirable country, in my opinion.

 I think the Bush Administration has at times used the US-Israel relations as a shield in order to pursue aggression in the region for other than stated purposes, and I don't think that has helped Israel. Israel is not in a position to be to disingenuous to the USA, though, given the very few number of countries around the world that support the maintenance of a Jewish state.
 


I believe that had the US been more supportive of the Palestines in the beginning, things might be very different in the region today,  I agree with you that Bush has used the relationship to pursue aggression, as with the battle in Lebanon last year.  Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 08:17:40 PM
Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?

Because they hate Jews.

Got any harder questions?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:19:54 AM
Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?

Because they hate Jews.

Got any harder questions?



Why do they hate Jews?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 07:04:09 AM


By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press WriterMon May 7, 10:36 PM ET

Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) said Monday that President Bush's new strategy in Iraq has until about fall before GOP members will need to see results.

Lott's comment put a fine point on what Senate Republican stalwarts have been discussing quietly for weeks. It also echoed remarks made this weekend by House Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, indicating the GOP's limited patience on the war.

"I do think this fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding areas," Lott, R-Miss., told reporters.

Lott declined to say what he thinks should happen if Congress does not see improvement in the security situation by then. But he said lawmakers have time before they must decide.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 07:19:47 AM
Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?

Because they hate Jews.

Got any harder questions?



Why do they hate Jews?
The irrational hatred of Jews has been a fixture of Western Society at some level for a couple thousand years now.  And in the middle east you can go back to... Hagar and Ishmael, I guess.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 10:25:09 AM
Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?

Because they hate Jews.

Got any harder questions?



Why do they hate Jews?
The irrational hatred of Jews has been a fixture of Western Society at some level for a couple thousand years now.  And in the middle east you can go back to... Hagar and Ishmael, I guess.

That's a good way to put it, whiskey.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 08, 2007, 10:29:27 AM
In addition I would argue that Israel has been more kind to the "Palestinians" than the "Palestinians'" Arab brethren have been to them.

"Palestinians" have long been the source of scorn and hatred for much of the Middle East, yet strangely enough, it's always Israel that's criticized for it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 08, 2007, 12:23:07 PM
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in separate attacks Sunday in Diyala province and Baghdad, and a car bomb claimed 30 more lives in a wholesale food market in a part of the Iraqi capital where sectarian tensions are on the rise.

In all, at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Sunday, police reported. They included 12 policemen in Samarra, among them the city's police chief, who died when Sunni insurgents launched a suicide car bombing and other attacks on police headquarters.

The deadliest attack against U.S. forces occurred in Diyala, where six U.S. soldiers and a European journalist were killed when a massive bomb destroyed their vehicle, the U.S. military said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded, the military said.

Two other American soldiers died Sunday in separate bombings in Baghdad.

The military Sunday also reported three other deaths - two Marines in a blast Sunday in Anbar province and a soldier who died Sunday in a non-combat incident in northern Iraq.

Those deaths raised to at least 3,373 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

We don't need the body count here, asswipe.  We watch the news, read the reports in the tabs.

Funny thing is you seem to post that like you are keeping score.  "More dead means I am more right."  You're a sad excuse for an American.

What an ass! Did he really say that?  The great american patriot kidcarter calling out a grief stricken mother.  A new low!  Never thought it could happen for you but you stuck your entire foot in your mouth.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 08, 2007, 12:25:31 PM
George Bush was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings.
 
The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on
the word "tragedy". So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a "tragedy".
 
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy."
 
"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident."
 
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove
over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
 
"I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call great loss."
 
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
 
Finally at the back of the room a small boy raised his hand...
 
In a quiet voice he said: "If 'Air Force One' carrying you and Mrs. Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
 
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
 
"Well," said the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be a f--king accident either".


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 12:34:41 PM
kam -

Heh.  That's the beauty of that kind of joke; you just change the person every so often and it still works.  In two years, comrade ngc will be telling the same joke, and will reattach Hilary's name to it - who was the butt of it the first time I heard it.

So Bush is sitting in a meeting with his top military advisers, discussing the situation in Iraq.  After a long discussion, one of the advisers notes, "We just got some bad news sir.  It appears to Brazillian soldiers were killed by insurgents in Anwar province today."

Bush turned pale, and covered his face with his hands.  "Oh my God!"  he mumbled, "Two Brazillian soldiers!  That is horrible!"

The others at the table were surprised by the depth of feeling that Bush demonstrated over the loss of these two coalition soldiers.  He seemed overcome.  Finally, he took his hands down from my face and, with red eyes, asked, "How many is a Brazillian?"


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 12:44:15 PM
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in separate attacks Sunday in Diyala province and Baghdad, and a car bomb claimed 30 more lives in a wholesale food market in a part of the Iraqi capital where sectarian tensions are on the rise.

In all, at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Sunday, police reported. They included 12 policemen in Samarra, among them the city's police chief, who died when Sunni insurgents launched a suicide car bombing and other attacks on police headquarters.

The deadliest attack against U.S. forces occurred in Diyala, where six U.S. soldiers and a European journalist were killed when a massive bomb destroyed their vehicle, the U.S. military said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded, the military said.

Two other American soldiers died Sunday in separate bombings in Baghdad.

The military Sunday also reported three other deaths - two Marines in a blast Sunday in Anbar province and a soldier who died Sunday in a non-combat incident in northern Iraq.

Those deaths raised to at least 3,373 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

We don't need the body count here, asswipe.  We watch the news, read the reports in the tabs.

Funny thing is you seem to post that like you are keeping score.  "More dead means I am more right."  You're a sad excuse for an American.

What an ass! Did he really say that?  The great american patriot kidcarter calling out a grief stricken mother.  A new low!  Never thought it could happen for you but you stuck your entire foot in your mouth.

Take a pill or somethin


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 05:37:20 PM
Kid,

You really did put your foot in it with Sam. If you are a patriotic American you should be much more appreciative towards those who provide the "ultimate sacrifice" for America. I guess next you'll or NGC will be asserting that the brave Americans who lose their lives in the military are merely "collateral damage" and not worth counting. I'm sorry it's so inconvenient to you two war-mongers that true blue Americans actually DIE in these senseless wars!

 



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 05:45:00 PM
Kid,

You really did put your foot in it with Sam. If you are a patriotic American you should be much more appreciative towards those who provide the "ultimate sacrifice" for America. I guess next you'll or NGC will be asserting that the brave Americans who lose their lives in the military are merely "collateral damage" and not worth counting. I'm sorry it's so inconvenient to you two war-mongers that true blue Americans actually DIE in these senseless wars!

Real Americans don't set conditions for the patriotism of other Americans.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 05:51:42 PM
Kid,

You really did put your foot in it with Sam. If you are a patriotic American you should be much more appreciative towards those who provide the "ultimate sacrifice" for America. I guess next you'll or NGC will be asserting that the brave Americans who lose their lives in the military are merely "collateral damage" and not worth counting. I'm sorry it's so inconvenient to you two war-mongers that true blue Americans actually DIE in these senseless wars!

 



Inconvenient.

Yeah, I guess.  Death usually is.

I should not have used the word a--wipe.  My bad.  I get that way sometimes.

I stand by my point that a body count here serves no purpose and really proves no point on your side.

Cheers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
I believe that those young people who've died for OIL and a lie deserve to be recognized for the sacrifice they've made in Bush's immoral war.  That you don't want to know about them says a great deal about you.  You reminded me of Bush's mother, Barbara.  She is an asswipe too.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 06:27:11 PM
You're wrapping your comments in silliness

"Died for oil"

"Immoral war"

You don't get anywhere that way.

Discuss specifics.  Might get you somewhere.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 06:37:02 PM
Even NGC admitted that this war was fought because America needs all the oil it can get, or we will all just die! And the fact that there was available another solution to the problem other than going to war, means that it was an immoral war.

Kid, if you would prefer not to be reminded that Americans are still losing their lives in large numbers in Iraq, that is your problem. But, I agree with Sam, that for the sake of our men and women in uniform, we have to keep the statistics in front of us as we discuss political issues. Until those deaths stop, we need to know about each and every one of them, and understand the loss, not only to their families, but also to our nation, from the loss of another man or woman who will never reach their dreams or fulfill their destiny.

Kid, if you are a patriotic American, why do you want to ignore what is happening to other patriotic Americans?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:38:53 PM
I find your commentary arrogant, nasty, and of very little value.  Why don't you start a discussion.  Why are you opposed to seeing the death toll from Iraq? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 06:46:56 PM
Even NGC admitted that this war was fought because America needs all the oil it can get, or we will all just die! And the fact that there was available another solution to the problem other than going to war, means that it was an immoral war.

Kid, if you would prefer not to be reminded that Americans are still losing their lives in large numbers in Iraq, that is your problem. But, I agree with Sam, that for the sake of our men and women in uniform, we have to keep the statistics in front of us as we discuss political issues. Until those deaths stop, we need to know about each and every one of them, and understand the loss, not only to their families, but also to our nation, from the loss of another man or woman who will never reach their dreams or fulfill their destiny.

Kid, if you are a patriotic American, why do you want to ignore what is happening to other patriotic Americans?

No need to be reminded of the number.  But rock on with it to your heart's delight.  It changes not a thing.

And I believe it is YOU who are ignoring many aspects of what is occurring in Iraq,

Hal Ford Jr was great on Maher the other night.  Set some things straight that Maher had cockeyed.  Disagreed with Penn's over the top delivery, while praising his efforts and patriotism.

THAT is a great American.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 08:02:58 PM
The second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate said on Monday there must be "significant changes" in Iraq well before the end of the year, signaling President George W. Bush could face new challenges on war policy from members of his own party.

Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, who holds the No. 2 leadership position in his party, made his comments a day after similar remarks by another powerful Republican lawmaker, House Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

"I do think this fall we've got to see some significant changes in the situation on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding areas ... or else," Lott told reporters.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 09:50:03 PM
Kid, I have no idea who Hal Ford is, nor Moher. The only Penn I know about was William Penn who founded the Pennsylvania Colony. So I have no idea what you said.

On the other hand, Sam's post explained who Lott was and quoted him. I am curious what the "or else" means. I guess we'll find out in the fall. It seems the bill in Congress has put a timetable in the minds of our congresspeople even tho Bush vetoes it. American politics in action!



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 11:00:32 PM
LOL

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 11:05:17 PM
Kid, I have no idea who Hal Ford is, nor Moher. The only Penn I know about was William Penn who founded the Pennsylvania Colony. So I have no idea what you said.

On the other hand, Sam's post explained who Lott was and quoted him. I am curious what the "or else" means. I guess we'll find out in the fall. It seems the bill in Congress has put a timetable in the minds of our congresspeople even tho Bush vetoes it. American politics in action!



"I am curious to find out in the fall............."

You are rooting for failure.  I don't believe the bulk of the Democratic party (or what NGC would call "the liberals") are.  I just won't believe that.  I think deep down, because they are GOOD, they hope for as much success in Iraq as they could imagine.

And Lott is right.  In time, we  reevaluate.  If necessary, make adjustments.  That's proud governing.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 12:07:23 AM
Kid,

I'm not rooting for failure, but I am expecting it. I don't think "the surge" will do much, if any good. I think those who NGC calls the "insurgents" have dug in as much as the Colonists did in the Revolutionary War.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 09, 2007, 03:15:51 AM
kidc,

I think deep down, because they are GOOD, they hope for as much success in Iraq as they could imagine.

Once, just ONCE, I would like to have one of you warmongers define "success in Iraq."

After all, when the Clown-in-Chief stood on the deck of that carrier in his little Halloween outfit, didn't the banner flying from the bridge read Mission Accomplished!?

BTW, you are correct about one thing.  Body counts are irrelevant.  One more death, American or Iraqi, in this morass we have been led into by the Bush Cabal is too many.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 07:23:26 AM
There will be no success in Iraq, because there is no definition of what success is.  It changes with the wind.  Too many have died in vain.  That one more would die for a lie is evil.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:29:23 AM
I'm not rooting for failure, but I am expecting it.

That IS exactly my own assessment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 07:34:13 AM
I'm not rooting for failure, but I am expecting it.

That IS exactly my own assessment.

Again, I agree with this evaluation.  We are just wasting money and time and lives at this point.  The blood letting will continue whether we stay or leave.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:35:55 AM
Even NGC admitted that this war was fought because America needs all the oil it can get...

No, I didn't. To this day I believe that Bush TRULY went to Iraq to get revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his father. His great political mistake was not leaving when regime change was accomplished.




I guess next you'll or NGC will be asserting that the brave Americans who lose their lives in the military are merely "collateral damage" and not worth counting. I'm sorry it's so inconvenient to you two war-mongers that true blue Americans actually DIE in these senseless wars!

I am not a warmonger. All deaths in combat are worth remembering--especially since our military IS 100% volunteers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 09, 2007, 10:13:03 AM
An interesting article by Bob Herbert on the increase in families living in poverty under the Bush administration's tenure. John Edwards has some "populist" ideas on what to do about it. (Duh! Get out of Iraq???)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050807H.shtml


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 10:28:25 AM
Let's get out of Iraq and there will be a chicken in every pot - lol

Forget about what else happens.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 10:49:23 AM
In light of yesterday's events surrounding the Fort Dix terrorist cell, it comes to mind that the Bush Administration while it may wish to take a bow for stopping this group, has to come under criticism for not taking enough steps to reduce and impair illegal immigration.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 10:51:14 AM
In light of yesterday's events surrounding the Fort Dix terrorist cell, it comes to mind that the Bush Administration while it may wish to take a bow for stopping this group, has to come under criticism for not taking enough steps to reduce and impair illegal immigration.

I wonder if the Ds will use this as the reason for impeachment just before the 2008 elections?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 11:03:55 AM
I'm not quite following your line of reasoning. Perhaps you can explain the impeachable offense regarding yesterday...not that there haven't been plenty of others before.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 11:16:13 AM
FOR THOSE OF YOU KEEPING SCORE IN THE CASUALTIES OF WAR GAME

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - Airstrikes called in by U.S. Special Forces soldiers fighting with insurgents in southern Afghanistan killed at least 21 civilians, officials said Wednesday. One coalition soldier was also killed.
Helmand provincial Gov. Assadullah Wafa said Taliban fighters sought shelter in villagers' homes during the fighting in the Sangin district Tuesday evening, and that subsequent airstrikes killed 21 civilians, including several women and children.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly said more must be done to prevent civilian casualties during military operations. He warned last week, after reports that 51 civilians were killed in the west, that Afghanistan "can no longer accept civilian casualties they way they occur."
The U.S.-led coalition said militants fired guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars at U.S. Special Forces and Afghan soldiers on patrol 15 miles north of Sangin.
Maj. William Mitchell, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said troops killed a "significant" number of militants.
"We don't have any report of civilian casualties. There are enemy casualties—I think the number is significant," Mitchell said without releasing an exact figure.  

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-09_D8P0QTNG0&show_article=1&cat=breaking

BAGHDAD (AP) - A suicide truck bomb ripped through the Interior Ministry headquarters in the relatively peaceful Kurdish city of Irbil on Wednesday morning, killing at least 14 people and wounding dozens, officials said.
Kurdish officials blamed al-Qaida linked insurgents for the devastating bombing—the first major attack to hit the regional capital in more than three years.
The bombing came as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad for an unannounced visit that was to include meetings with top Iraqi government officials, leaders of influential Iraqi factions and the senior U.S. military commander here.
Cheney's visit was aimed at encouraging rival Iraqi factions to work together to overcome their divisions to work together to end the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 3,370 American troops.
The U.S. military announced Wednesday that an American soldier was killed and four others were wounded the day before in a shooting attack in the volatile province of Diyala, northeast of Baghdad.
The explosion in Irbil, 215 miles north of Baghdad, underscored how even relatively safe areas of the country were not immune from the violence.
Irbil, the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region, had been spared much of the sectarian violence wracking the rest of Iraq.
But attacks have been on the rise in southern and northern areas in Iraq as Sunni and Shiite militants have fled a three-month-old security crackdown in Baghdad and brought their brutal tactics with them.
The Interior Ministry building was badly damaged. Kurdish television showed piles of rubble and twisted metal beams. Rescue workers reached into the wreckage to pull out one of the victims of the blast. Windows were blown out down the street and wreckage was scattered nearly 100 yards away.
The nearby security headquarters was also damaged.
Zariyan Othman, the Kurdish health minister, initially said 19 people were killed. But the regional minister for the interior, Karim Sinjari, later said 14 were killed and 87 wounded. Officials blamed the discrepancy on the doublecounting of some bodies  

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-09_D8P0R0HO0&show_article=1&cat=breaking[/b]


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:18:51 AM
I'm not quite following your line of reasoning. Perhaps you can explain the impeachable offense regarding yesterday...not that there haven't been plenty of others before.

Only that I believe the Ds will impeach bush before the next elections, and that abandoning enforcement of immigration law could be the rationale for it. I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 09, 2007, 11:35:41 AM
Garrick,
In light of yesterday's events surrounding the Fort Dix terrorist cell, it comes to mind that the Bush Administration while it may wish to take a bow for stopping this group, has to come under criticism for not taking enough steps to reduce and impair illegal immigration.

Let's remember that NOTHING happened at Fort Dix yesterday.

Given the Bush Cabal's need for some press distraction to take the heat off its failures and to make the American people fearful once again, more than one of us believes the whole thing was staged.

Case in point: What ever happened to the supposed AQ bigwig that was "caught" last week?

The thought of the Bushies staging their own Twilight of the Gods before they leave office is not outside the realm of probability.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 11:43:31 AM
I agree

I thought I saw those 3 brothers in an episode of Black Donnellys


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 09, 2007, 11:55:38 AM
It seems highly unlikely that the Dems would impeach Bush for not enforcing immigration law, since a large percentage of them are in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. Anyway, trying to impeach Bush would probably just divide the country even further, if that is possible.

Only that I believe the Ds will impeach bush before the next elections, and that abandoning enforcement of immigration law could be the rationale for it. I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 11:59:44 AM
I'm not sure enforcement of immigration law or lack thereof constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 12:07:59 PM
Garrick,
In light of yesterday's events surrounding the Fort Dix terrorist cell, it comes to mind that the Bush Administration while it may wish to take a bow for stopping this group, has to come under criticism for not taking enough steps to reduce and impair illegal immigration.

Let's remember that NOTHING happened at Fort Dix yesterday.

Given the Bush Cabal's need for some press distraction to take the heat off its failures and to make the American people fearful once again, more than one of us believes the whole thing was staged.

Case in point: What ever happened to the supposed AQ bigwig that was "caught" last week?

The thought of the Bushies staging their own Twilight of the Gods before they leave office is not outside the realm of probability.

CAPON:

I think we you find people PLOTTING the DESTRUCTION of a military base, who just happen to for the most part be here ILLEGALLY, it goes a little bit beyond NOTHING.

But, you go ahead with the UNFOUNDED conspiracy theories, and the divisive hate mongering.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 12:09:24 PM
I'm not sure enforcement of immigration law or lack thereof constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor

Bingo.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 12:10:16 PM
I would think that the domestic spying program that allows warrantless surveillance of telephone and email traffic would warrant impeachment proceedings far more than failure to enforce immigration law as it is a violation of federal law and the Constitution.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 12:15:33 PM
I would think that the domestic spying program that allows warrantless surveillance of telephone and email traffic would warrant impeachment proceedings far more than failure to enforce immigration law as it is a violation of federal law and the Constitution.

Agreed.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 12:31:12 PM
I'm for Congress instigating impeachment proceedings about as much as I was in favor of them conducting steroids in baseball hearings. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 12:34:10 PM
Sending the nation to war on cooked intelligence is another reason for impeachment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 09, 2007, 12:39:41 PM
Garrick,
 divisive hate mongering.

Damn right I will!

I love my country enough to hate what your President has done to it.

It's time toi divide this country once and for all, just as we almost did 35 years ago, into the DECENT AMERICANS ON ONE SIDE AND THE WARMONGERS ON THE OTHER.

The Fist Amendment protects my right to be divisive, should I choose, whether on not some creature who calls himself Mr.Utley likes it or not.

If Mr. Utley finds what I post to be divisive, that's HIS issue.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 12:43:51 PM
Impeachment and removal from office have to be based on treason, bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors".  Assuming that threshold can be met (extremely debateable), how comfortable are you impeachment advocates with "President Cheney"?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 12:58:29 PM
I would think that the domestic spying program that allows warrantless surveillance of telephone and email traffic would warrant impeachment proceedings far more than failure to enforce immigration law as it is a violation of federal law and the Constitution.

YES

YES YES YES!!!!!!

MY LORD - it has affected so many millions of Americans adversely, after all.

Good call.  No spying, even if it hinders terror cells, dammit!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: bankshot1 on May 09, 2007, 01:07:57 PM
Quote
Assuming that threshold can be met (extremely debateable), how comfortable are you impeachment advocates with "President Cheney"?


IMO the Dem's should use the 1974 impeachment model.

1-Nail Cheney on bribes related to Iraq/ Halliburton,

2-then turn its attention to the Pres.

of course you gotta prove the charges, but maybe the question should be:

how comfortable are you impeachment advocates with "President Pelosi"?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:20:39 PM
Quote
Assuming that threshold can be met (extremely debateable), how comfortable are you impeachment advocates with "President Cheney"?


IMO the Dem's should use the 1974 impeachment model.

1-Nail Cheney on bribes related to Iraq/ Halliburton,

2-then turn its attention to the Pres.

of course you gotta prove the charges, but maybe the question should be:

how comfortable are you impeachment advocates with "President Pelosi"?



Articles of Impeachment against Cheney have been introduced in Congress.  Whether they go anywhere, time will tell.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:21:59 PM
President Pelosi doesn't scare me as much as the rightwing christers' dream of American Theocracy.  Learn more:  http://www.theocracywatch.org/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 01:22:28 PM
Quote
Good call.  No spying, even if it hinders terror cells, dammit!!!

I don't have any issue with court-approved warrants for domestic spying.  It is certainly a major change to have NSA spying domestically.  To allow them to spy domestically without a warrant is a violation of Americans' civil liberties


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 01:24:58 PM
Garrick,
 divisive hate mongering.

Damn right I will!

I love my country enough to hate what your President has done to it.

It's time toi divide this country once and for all, just as we almost did 35 years ago, into the DECENT AMERICANS ON ONE SIDE AND THE WARMONGERS ON THE OTHER.  



The Fist Amendment  protects my right to be divisive, should I choose, whether on not some creature who calls himself Mr.Utley likes it or not.

If Mr. Utley finds what I post to be divisive, that's HIS issue.

CAPON:

I submit your attitude is part of the problem. Of course you are FREE to be divisive and demonstrative in your speech as the FIRST amendment warrants. Have at it. With every post your messages become that much more meaningless.

If you think that 35 years ago, America was a great place to live with "DECENT AMERICANS ON ONE SIDE AND THE WARMONGERS ON THE OTHER", you are as guilty of oversimplifying the complexities of that reality as when you accuse the Bushies of being when it came to presenting a case for war.

I submit further that no one questioned your love of your country, but since you brought it up...when you state specifically that your goal is to be divisive, then that love easily gets called into question. As a life-long Democrat, I remain hopeful that you might one day come to see that your love of your country is more important than your loathing for George W. Bush.

Further, I care not that you agree with me, but I was hoping to see that you could post something absent of vitriole and substansive in reason, which, disappointingly, you have not done.

 Oh, and unless you have moved to Canada or France or Mexico or someplace else and obtained citizenship there, Bush is your President, too, much as it may pain you to admit it.



 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:43:17 PM
Garrick,
 divisive hate mongering.

Damn right I will!

I love my country enough to hate what your President has done to it.

It's time toi divide this country once and for all, just as we almost did 35 years ago, into the DECENT AMERICANS ON ONE SIDE AND THE WARMONGERS ON THE OTHER.  



The Fist Amendment  protects my right to be divisive, should I choose, whether on not some creature who calls himself Mr.Utley likes it or not.

If Mr. Utley finds what I post to be divisive, that's HIS issue.

CAPON:

I submit your attitude is part of the problem. Of course you are FREE to be divisive and demonstrative in your speech as the FIRST amendment warrants. Have at it. With every post your messages become that much more meaningless.

If you think that 35 years ago, America was a great place to live with "DECENT AMERICANS ON ONE SIDE AND THE WARMONGERS ON THE OTHER", you are as guilty of oversimplifying the complexities of that reality as when you accuse the Bushies of being when it came to presenting a case for war.

I submit further that no one questioned your love of your country, but since you brought it up...when you state specifically that your goal is to be divisive, then that love easily gets called into question. As a life-long Democrat, I remain hopeful that you might one day come to see that your love of your country is more important than your loathing for George W. Bush.

Further, I care not that you agree with me, but I was hoping to see that you could post something absent of vitriole and substansive in reason, which, disappointingly, you have not done.

 Oh, and unless you have moved to Canada or France or Mexico or someplace else and obtained citizenship there, Bush is your President, too, much as it may pain you to admit it.



 

This post gets my vote for "Post of the week award". Excellent.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:43:51 PM
Seems like Utley wants to be the forum nanny.  Go for it, mister.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:46:48 PM
Sending the nation to war on cooked intelligence is another reason for impeachment.

Then you need to also impeach every member in congress that voted to go to war as they saw the exact same intel. Impeachment for not enforcing immigration law IS more viable. THAT has my support!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:51:19 PM
Sending the nation to war on cooked intelligence is another reason for impeachment.

Then you need to also impeach every member in congress that voted to go to war as they saw the exact same intel. Impeachment for not enforcing immigration law IS more viable. THAT has my support!

Go for it.  Who's stopping you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: sgrobin on May 09, 2007, 01:58:43 PM
Sending the nation to war on cooked intelligence is another reason for impeachment.

I was against the war for a bunch of reasons. That said, a couple of points. First, there were reams of intelligence of various quality and thoroughness that were presented on both sides. I'm sure this Administration could pull out plenty of instances of solid intelligence that supported the supposition that Hussein was making WMD.

Second, a president should have wide latitude for foreign policy decision-making. If you impeach Bush on allegedly cooked intelligence, then future presidents may be reluctant to use military force in the future because of the precedent set from this hypothetical impeachment. We might not like that he disregarded some intelligence in favor of others, but he has the right to do that.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 09, 2007, 02:07:52 PM
Garrick,

 With every post your messages become that much more meaningless.

If you truly believed this, you would resist your compulsion to respond.

Be that as it may, it is warmongers like yourself who are tearing the republic apart by your blind insistence on pursuing a failed policy.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 02:09:30 PM
Sending the nation to war on cooked intelligence is another reason for impeachment.

I was against the war for a bunch of reasons. That said, a couple of points. First, there were reams of intelligence of various quality and thoroughness that were presented on both sides. I'm sure this Administration could pull out plenty of instances of solid intelligence that supported the supposition that Hussein was making WMD.

Second, a president should have wide latitude for foreign policy decision-making. If you impeach Bush on allegedly cooked intelligence, then future presidents may be reluctant to use military force in the future because of the precedent set from this hypothetical impeachment. We might not like that he disregarded some intelligence in favor of others, but he has the right to do that.


I agree. This IS quite correct.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 02:23:54 PM
Garrick,

 With every post your messages become that much more meaningless.

If you truly believed this, you would resist your compulsion to respond.

Be that as it may, it is warmongers like yourself who are tearing the republic apart by your blind insistence on pursuing a failed policy.

now, you are proving you can't read, either.

I am not a war monger, and have never advocated for it. As a progressive Democrat I find it ridiculous that so many in the Democratic Party can only do what you do, which is to scream about the war while offering little in the way of making our way to a better place than the one we have been put in by mutual consent.

Your posts, and your nostalgic longing to return to the 1960's is why I would label you a Regressive Democrat---if I were to label you.

Offer something of substance, PLEASE.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 02:37:12 PM
Failing to enforce immigration laws is not an impeachable offense. The president has the right to choose which laws he will enforce while in office.

Of greater concern are the chips away at civil liberties and the rights to privacy. Requiring a warrent before spying on someone/s is not an onerous requirement, but one that separates those spied on from those who have probably done nothing wrong from those who may have done something wrong. It takes some effort to tap phone lines and survey emails. It is a small matter to state what you are looking for in advance of doing so. It is the American way.

I have no problem with impeaching all who voted to give Bush the authority to make war at the time and place of his choosing. It was irresponsible of them to give away their authority to be the sole determinants of whether or not we go to war.

If intelligence is so unreliable that so many were duped by it, then why are we continuing to pay tax money for it? Close it down!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 02:43:33 PM
Failing to enforce immigration laws is not an impeachable offense.

I didn't say that it was---I said it would have my support, as immigration laws are not being enforced. And I thought that, as chief law enforcement offical in this country, he should be upholding and enforcing ALL laws. Not upholding or enforcing existing law IS not a misdemeanor at the least? Or IS this something that IS relegated to the states?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 09, 2007, 03:03:28 PM
I agree. I used to occasionally vote for a Republican or two, but that was before the ultra-right wing religious fanatics took over. They are more concerned about taking away women's right to choose, or preventing "gay marriage" than they are about protecting constitutional freedoms. The only Republican that I'd come anywhere near voting for now is Giuliani, but he has little chance of being the nominee: not fanatic enough. 

President Pelosi doesn't scare me as much as the rightwing christers' dream of American Theocracy.  Learn more:  http://www.theocracywatch.org/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:35:56 PM
I agree. I used to occasionally vote for a Republican or two, but that was before the ultra-right wing religious fanatics took over. They are more concerned about taking away women's right to choose, or preventing "gay marriage" than they are about protecting constitutional freedoms. The only Republican that I'd come anywhere near voting for now is Giuliani, but he has little chance of being the nominee: not fanatic enough. 

President Pelosi doesn't scare me as much as the rightwing christers' dream of American Theocracy.  Learn more:  http://www.theocracywatch.org/

These people are totally insane and totally brainwashed and they will follow theiir leaders right off the cliff.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 04:03:25 PM
than they are about protecting constitutional freedoms....

Lets see---wanting to ban smoking in outside public areas---wanting to ban ownership of a weapon---wanting to silence talk radio (If it ISn't air america or Imus)---are these not constitutional freedoms that the 'left' IS trying to do away with? IS it necessary to list more?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 04:23:08 PM
than they are about protecting constitutional freedoms....

Lets see---wanting to ban smoking in outside public areas---wanting to ban ownership of a weapon---wanting to silence talk radio (If it ISn't air america or Imus)---are these not constitutional freedoms that the 'left' IS trying to do away with? IS it necessary to list more?

what are you whining about now?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 04:35:21 PM
Quote
are these not constitutional freedoms that the 'left' IS trying to do away with

Since when has smoking in public areas been recognized as a constitutional freedom?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 05:09:47 PM
Quote
are these not constitutional freedoms that the 'left' IS trying to do away with

Since when has smoking in public areas been recognized as a constitutional freedom?

I admit that smoking, per se, ISn't mentioned in the constitution. So I guess you got me on this one.

But owning/possessing a weapon (The right to keep and bear arms)? Talk radio (Freedom of speech)? Are these not specifically mentioned? I notice you didn't mention these two.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 05:31:14 PM
Sorry.  I haven't read or heard anywhere that Democrats are trying to take away the right of an American like myself to own a weapon.

To own a weapon that can kill 40 in a minute?  Yeah, maybe.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 06:13:57 PM
Sorry.  I haven't read or heard anywhere that Democrats are trying to take away the right of an American like myself to own a weapon.

To own a weapon that can kill 40 in a minute?  Yeah, maybe.

Why?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 06:42:45 PM
You're a fuckin moron

Get out of the house - take a walk or something


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 06:46:32 PM
You're a fuckin moron

Get out of the house - take a walk or something

Why would an idiot like you need a gun that could shot 40 people in minutes?  Tell us that, asshole.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 07:03:11 PM
Read my post again, s*it for brains.

Pathetic


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 07:40:44 PM
OH...you don't own a gun that could kill 40 people in minutes.  Ok.  But others can and you think that is ok?  Or should something be done to make that illegal? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 09:11:02 PM
Seems like Utley wants to be the forum nanny.  Go for it, mister.

Seems like you want to continue avoiding anyone questioning what you throw up on the board and just complain and bitch and moan without offering anything else but pithy whining.

Missy.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 09:21:42 PM
Sorry.  I haven't read or heard anywhere that Democrats are trying to take away the right of an American like myself to own a weapon.

To own a weapon that can kill 40 in a minute?  Yeah, maybe.

If you think that ISn't the agenda of the left in this country, you are blind.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 09:22:48 PM
Seems like Utley wants to be the forum nanny.  Go for it, mister.

Seems like you want to continue avoiding anyone questioning what you throw up on the board and just complain and bitch and moan without offering anything else but pithy whining.

Missy.



No kidding. It IS boring.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 10:51:46 PM
OH...you don't own a gun that could kill 40 people in minutes.  Ok.  But others can and you think that is ok?  Or should something be done to make that illegal? 

Still a fuckin moron


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 11:16:55 PM
NGC,

How can it be a "leftist agenda" to want to eliminate the right to own guns, if those that you keep insisting are "leftists" know nothing about it. As far as I know, the only thing on the table is the "right" to individually own WMDs otherwise known as assault and automatic weapons. Hunting is far too popular an activity in rural areas for there to ever be any consensus to overturn the right to own guns for legitimate purposes. In order to overturn the 2nd amendment, there has to be a majority agreement in a majority of the states. I really do not think either liberals or conservative on their own, have that much of a following.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:26:07 PM
How can it be a "leftist agenda" to want to eliminate the right to own guns...

If you don't believe that this IS on the minds of many in this country, I don't know how to explain it to you. And just a hint---it ain't coming from those on the right.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:28:54 PM
kidcarter8---why do you feel the need to go profane? It just shows a weak mind. And vulgarity just isn't necessary. Don't be like some of the other mentally arrested dullards that do so. Take the higher road! Fight with substance! Don't lower yourself to the dullards levels.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 05:17:45 AM
kidcarter8---why do you feel the need to go profane? It just shows a weak mind. And vulgarity just isn't necessary. Don't be like some of the other mentally arrested dullards that do so. Take the higher road! Fight with substance! Don't lower yourself to the dullards levels.

Who are the "dullards" you refer to?  This jerk wouldn't know a high road if you led him to it by hand.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 05:52:07 AM
So the Iraqi Parliament and thus the government will be taking a two month vacation, while American soldiers die in the cross fire of the Iraqi civil war.  That makes a lot of sense.  I'm sure the war mongers in thiis forum approve of this.  We made a mess of the country and they go on vacation.  Right.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 06:10:34 AM
Quote
are these not constitutional freedoms that the 'left' IS trying to do away with

Since when has smoking in public areas been recognized as a constitutional freedom?

I admit that smoking, per se, ISn't mentioned in the constitution. So I guess you got me on this one.

But owning/possessing a weapon (The right to keep and bear arms)? Talk radio (Freedom of speech)? Are these not specifically mentioned? I notice you didn't mention these two.

Saying anything you want on federal airwaves is not a constitional right either.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 06:15:24 AM
Is the internet a federal airwave?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 06:24:52 AM
Good article on the real reason we are in Iraq.  http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51572/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 06:31:34 AM
Is the internet a federal airwave?

No. The FCC has no jurisdiction over what content is broadcast over the Internet as long as it legal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 06:34:27 AM
Blair is set to announce his resignation today.  I wonder how this will impact the UK's involvement in Iraq


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 09:05:11 AM
http://www.casadice.com/signs/index.htm

For our rightwing friends....you'll enjoy this link.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 09:30:10 AM
I wonder how this will impact the UK's involvement in Iraq...

I wonder how Sarkozy's election will as far as France goes?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 09:34:47 AM
For the record, Samiinh, Kid was actually AGREEING WITH YOU on the gun thing.  Maybe you ought to re-read what he said.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 09:35:36 AM
President faces massive defections within GOP ranks

In a blunt face-to-face meeting in the residential area of the White House this week, moderate House Republicans told President George W. Bush he no longer has the trust of them or the American people.

The "come to Jesus meeting" with Bush reminded veteran political observers in Washington of 1974 when then-Senator Barry Goldwater met with President Richard M. Nixon to tell him he no longer had enough support on Capitol Hill to survive as President.

While no one at the meeting called on the President to resign, the Republicans told Bush his administration lacked any credibility when it came to statements about "progress" in the Iraq war and said the American public did not believe the President on the war and other issues.

Unless the war shows "significant progress" by September 1, they warned, Bush faces "massive defections" within GOP ranks from support for his war.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 09:43:14 AM
For the record, Samiinh, Kid was actually AGREEING WITH YOU on the gun thing.  Maybe you ought to re-read what he said.

Actually, he was responding to a post by Ngc, not mine.  I missed read his retort and was told that I was a f__king moron.  So, I reread his post, and realized he was questioning whether or not guns that can kill many people in a short period of time should be challenged by democrats, with a question mark.  So, I responded and was again informed I was a f__king moron.  As far as I'm concerned, the kid can go to hell.  End of story.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 09:46:04 AM
kidcarter8---why do you feel the need to go profane? It just shows a weak mind. And vulgarity just isn't necessary. Don't be like some of the other mentally arrested dullards that do so. Take the higher road! Fight with substance! Don't lower yourself to the dullards levels.

Relax, puppy

The idiot needed to be slapped.

Now as you were.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 09:46:11 AM
Yeah, well he's not the most diplomatic guy in the world.  I'll agree with you on that one.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 09:49:42 AM
Once more with feeling:

Idiot:

I was DEFENDING the democrats in my post. You can read it 200 times, but until you put away your wrath, you will always think that what I post is attacking you, rather than at times being on your side.

I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:01:49 AM

To own a weapon that can kill 40 in a minute?  Yeah, maybe

Here is the asshole's original post.  As anyone can see, there is a question in his remark, expressed with a ? as well as, "yeah, maybe".

I believe he has shown his real colors in this thread.  He is a first class asshole.  A first class f__king asshole, IMHO.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:04:12 AM
Read the entire passage, Mow-ron.  Use some comprehension.

Maybe have someone with higher than an 80 IQ sitting aside you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:05:16 AM
I do not own a gun, by the way.  But I do admit to some kitchen knives.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:08:05 AM
The once or twice a year I eat steak, I steal some of those plastic knives they have at the Safeway salad bar to cut it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: bankshot1 on May 10, 2007, 10:11:56 AM
when my wife and I decided to get married we registered for nice cutlery. we didn't see the need to register for firearms. I've since changed my mind. I'm not sure if my wife has.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:18:03 AM
The once or twice a year I eat steak, I steal some of those plastic knives they have at the Safeway salad bar to cut it.

Don't try to take those on a plane, though.  You'll get arrested.  They are as dangerous as missle defense.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 10:33:10 AM
It is amusing to see how many on here eschew weapons. NGC will soon be calling all of you "liberals" for your refusal to arm yourself, even with a steak knife.

It does appear that the Bush presidency is dead in the water and will continue only in a lame duck capacity. He can spend the rest of his time in the white house visiting school children with his wife, and become the high moment in the life of a few youngsters.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:38:58 AM
It is amusing to see how many on here eschew weapons. NGC will soon be calling all of you "liberals" for your refusal to arm yourself, even with a steak knife.

It does appear that the Bush presidency is dead in the water and will continue only in a lame duck capacity. He can spend the rest of his time in the white house visiting school children with his wife, and become the high moment in the life of a few youngsters.


He is even loosing the support of those in Congress like Boner and the twitt from Mississippi.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:39:14 AM
NGC will soon be calling all of you "liberals" for your refusal to arm yourself, even with a steak knife.

There you go again---projecting what YOU think IS. Hey---you wish to be a sheep instead of a bull? That IS your choice.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:40:53 AM
kidcarter8---why do you feel the need to go profane? It just shows a weak mind. And vulgarity just isn't necessary. Don't be like some of the other mentally arrested dullards that do so. Take the higher road! Fight with substance! Don't lower yourself to the dullards levels.

Relax, puppy

The idiot needed to be slapped.

Now as you were.

You wish to lower yourself to that level, it IS your choice. It IS a weak mind that you exhibit.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:43:12 AM
I think it's possible to demonstrate a weak mind without resorting to vulgarity.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 10, 2007, 10:45:37 AM
Anne,

It does appear that the Bush presidency is dead in the water and will continue only in a lame duck capacity.

What with Gonzalez, Wolfowitz, and the mad oil war in the desert, it seems that the Son-of-a-Bush is planning to take the nation down in flames.  He's apparently willing to stage his very own Twilight of the Gods to feed his demented ego.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:49:20 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:50:18 AM
I think George will blow something up before he's out.

Just has to.






















































oy


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:51:21 AM
I think it's possible to demonstrate a weak mind without resorting to vulgarity.

An opposing viewpoint IS not necessarily a weak mind just because one disagrees with it. Vulgarity, however, shows it right away. And there are those from both sides of the fence here that show how weak they are.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:53:04 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.

Why are we then trying to stop the moving of drugs into the country?  The drug is just the vehicle.  Cocaine has no brain, by your thinking.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:57:35 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.

Why are we then trying to stop the moving of drugs into the country?  The drug is just the vehicle.  Cocaine has no brain, by your thinking.

Apples and oranges. A weapon in someones hands cannot physically alter the mind like a drug IS capable of doing. Cocaine may or may not have this capacity, depending on the individual. Your comparison IS not valid here.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:59:25 AM
Disagree

So, what type gun control do you favor?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 11:07:01 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.

So you are saying that the current process for obtaining a gun is flawed and that greater precaution should be taken to determine who should be allowed to bear arms?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:15:14 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.

So you are saying that the current process for obtaining a gun is flawed and that greater precaution should be taken to determine who should be allowed to bear arms?

In part. The idea, for example, of a 'waiting' period to purchase a weapon IS ridiculous. If someone, like the Va Tech shooter, that I heard had some sort of psych evaluation that wasn't healthy, should be given a bit more scrutiny than was. Registrations? I don't want anyone knowing what weapons I have or do not have. I am iffy as to if only law enforcement agencies would possess that kind of info--but sooner or later, the 'need to know publicize info' crowd could get that info diseminated, and I couldn't agree with that. If you are convicted of a felony, it seems rational that some form of restriction be applied for, maybe, a certain amount of time for example. But barring criminal past, or mental limitations, yes, some of the current processes are flawed. IMHO.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 11:16:43 AM
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  Therefore we should keep the guns out of those people's hands that are more likely to kill.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:18:30 AM
I think the dems (at least that lobby) want assault rifles banned, not all guns.  Comprehension is not your strong suit, wrath in the path of your understanding, so we'll end it there.

If you think that banning all weapons IS not the end game of these types, we are of different opinions then. All these restrictions they wish to impose--trigger locks (Really ridiculous), cabinets to lock weapons in, larger clips, assault weapons, pistols with 15 round clips they call 'high powered' because of their ammunition capacity (rrriiiggghhhttt...), wanting to stop private sales bewteen citizens of weapons, etc, etc---this absolutely shows a pattern of non-acceptance of weapons, and would not end there. They just cannot bring themselves to realize that a weapon has no brain---it cannot function without a finger behind the trigger. And trying to blame the weapon for the action of a human IS just plain silly.

I don't think ngc knows what he thinks.
So you are saying that the current process for obtaining a gun is flawed and that greater precaution should be taken to determine who should be allowed to bear arms?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 11:26:05 AM
Dude just simply doesn't wish to answer what type gun control he favors.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:29:35 AM
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  Therefore we should keep the guns out of those people's hands that are more likely to kill.

And who determines that?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:30:18 AM
  A weapon in someones hands cannot physically alter the mind like a drug IS capable of doing.  

It can when it goes off and splatters his brains into ceiling because he was ten-years old and didn't know it was loaded.

The drug is the safer choice probably.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:39:21 AM
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  Therefore we should keep the guns out of those people's hands that are more likely to kill.

Sounds rational to me.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 11:46:17 AM
I think that owning gun should be regulated like driving a car.  I have no problem with someone owning a gun just like I have no problem with someone driving a car.  However, I do think that there should be some minimum federal requirements in place.  A prospective gun owner should have to take a safety class as well as pass a gun safety exam.  Any guns purchased should be registered. Applicants should be screened for a criminal record on the state and federal level as well as mental illness.     


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:46:30 AM
A weapon in someones hands cannot physically alter the mind like a drug IS capable of doing.  

It can when it goes off and splatters his brains into ceiling because he was ten-years old and didn't know it was loaded.

The drug is the safer choice probably.

Thank you. You have just proved one of my points. The kid may not have known it was loaded, but it didn't go off by itself---it required manipulation BY someone. IE, to wit---a finger behind the trigger. A 10 year old can also stab himself to death while holding a knife and he falls on it the right way. The 10 year old can also kill himself or others while sitting in a parked car on a hill and he disengages the parking mechanism, and car rolls down the hill and whatever happens---I can bring up hypothetics as well, you know. If it gets into the hands of someone that doesn't know what he/she IS doing, in case the 10 year old, the owner IS the responsible party and should bear the weight of accountability---just like leaving a 10 year old in a parked car on a hill. The mere fact of the weapon being in someone hands does NOT alter the mind---period. And you cannot snort or inject a weapon like you can cocaine.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:51:02 AM
A weapon in someones hands cannot physically alter the mind like a drug IS capable of doing.  

It can when it goes off and splatters his brains into ceiling because he was ten-years old and didn't know it was loaded.

The drug is the safer choice probably.

Thank you. You have just proved one of my points. The kid may not have known it was loaded, but it didn't go off by itself---it required manipulation BY someone. IE, to wit---a finger behind the trigger. A 10 year old can also stab himself to death while holding a knife and he falls on it the right way. The 10 year old can also kill himself or others while sitting in a parked car on a hill and he disengages the parking mechanism, and car rolls down the hill and whatever happens---I can bring up hypothetics as well, you know. If it gets into the hands of someone that doesn't know what he/she IS doing, in case the 10 year old, the owner IS the responsible party and should bear the weight of accountability---just like leaving a 10 year old in a parked car on a hill. The mere fact of the weapon being in someone hands does NOT alter the mind---period. And you cannot snort or inject a weapon like you can cocaine.



The problem is, as you continue to oversimplfy it, that you already posted that you were against any limits on access to guns.

So, by your reasoning the death of innocent children, and the situation in Va-Tech, and all the other deaths directly attributed to access to guns are "acceptable"---or to borrow a term from another conversation---"collateral damage".

I don't share your enthusiasm for such an environment.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:56:42 AM
Well, if the students at VA TECH carried concealed weapons then the tradegy would never have happened, according to some rightwing folk.  Talk about a mad, mad world.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:56:47 AM
I think that owning gun should be regulated like driving a car.  I have no problem with someone owning a gun just like I have no problem with someone driving a car.  However, I do think that there should be some minimum federal requirements in place.  A prospective gun owner should have to take a safety class as well as pass a gun safety exam.  Any guns purchased should be registered. Applicants should be screened for a criminal record on the state and federal level as well as mental illness.     

I'll go ahead and agree with everything. If that would be the end of the process. You have left out one aspect---right now, a permit IS required to buy a handgun---are you suggesting that registration would take the place of the permit (And a waiting period that varies from state to state), as federal and state checks are pretty much instantaneous right now, effectively negating the necessity of a permit, for me anyway.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:59:58 AM
The problem is, as you continue to oversimplfy it, that you already posted that you were against any limits on access to guns.

Geeze---I absolutely did NOT say that. Why do people insist on projecting this way???



So, by your reasoning the death of innocent children, and the situation in Va-Tech, and all the other deaths directly attributed to access to guns are "acceptable"---

Absolute projection!!!! Not a bit of validity!!! I said NONE of this, nor implied ANY of this.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:07:02 PM
I think that owning gun should be regulated like driving a car.  I have no problem with someone owning a gun just like I have no problem with someone driving a car.  However, I do think that there should be some minimum federal requirements in place.  A prospective gun owner should have to take a safety class as well as pass a gun safety exam.  Any guns purchased should be registered. Applicants should be screened for a criminal record on the state and federal level as well as mental illness.     

I'll go ahead and agree with everything. If that would be the end of the process. You have left out one aspect---right now, a permit IS required to buy a handgun---are you suggesting that registration would take the place of the permit (And a waiting period that varies from state to state), as federal and state checks are pretty much instantaneous right now, effectively negating the necessity of a permit, for me anyway.

I believe that those instantaneous checks are also deleted within 24 hours now.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:49:21 PM
Iraqi Bill on Troop Pullout Discussed

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 10, 2007; 11:23 AM

BAGHDAD -- A majority of Iraqi lawmakers endorsed a draft bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday.

The legislation was being discussed even as U.S. lawmakers were locked in a dispute with the White House over their call to start reducing the size of the U.S. force in the coming months.

The proposed Iraqi legislation, drafted by the parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, said Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.

The Sadrist bloc, which holds 30 parliamentary seats and sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 01:36:22 PM
Thanks for the byline this time.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 02:13:41 PM
 
Four takes on the same story:

Here, Bush appears strong: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271153,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271153,00.html)

Here, Bush appears stubborn, but showing signs of being worn down and maybe ready for compromise:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18588526/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18588526/)

Here, Bush is conciliatory:
http://www.cnn.com/ (http://www.cnn.com/)

Here, the story seems played down the middle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6640581.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6640581.stm)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 02:28:07 PM
Four takes on the same story:

Here, Bush appears strong: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271153,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271153,00.html)

Here, Bush appears stubborn, but showing signs of being worn down and maybe ready for compromise:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18588526/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18588526/)

Here, Bush is conciliatory:
http://www.cnn.com/ (http://www.cnn.com/)

Here, the story seems played down the middle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6640581.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6640581.stm)

Very interesting.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 10, 2007, 02:50:38 PM
Let's hope so. At least he seems to have spent his "political capital", so with any luck he won't be able to do as good a job as he wants to do of gutting all social welfare programs and turning the environment over to the big corporations to do with as they please.


It does appear that the Bush presidency is dead in the water and will continue only in a lame duck capacity. He can spend the rest of his time in the white house visiting school children with his wife, and become the high moment in the life of a few youngsters.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 10, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
This NY Times story started out on the front page this morning and got rather abruptly relegated to the "World" section without even a link from the front page. In it, Vladimir Putin likens some of Bush's policies to those of the Third Reich:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10russia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 10:22:49 PM
Hey, maybe we should lure the Russian here, and elect him as president. At least he seems to have a good grasp on history.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 08:58:57 AM
turning the environment over to the big corporations to do with as they please.


Well, the Rs are not incontrol of the congress right now---let us see what the congress does on this. You can only blame bush if he vetoes something ---right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 09:05:01 AM
Hey, maybe we should lure the Russian here, and elect him as president. At least he seems to have a good grasp on history.
I hope you are joking.  Putin would make Bush look like a civil libritarian.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:16:01 AM
Hey, maybe we should lure the Russian here, and elect him as president.


And you are just joking here, right? Because if you are not, my calling you a liberal IS right on the mark. If not, it IS a rather profound display of tortured logic and reasoning once more from you. But, to be expected. Actually, even to suggest this, demonstrates your totally encompassing and absorbing hatred of bush.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 09:34:04 AM
Yes, silly guys, it was a joke!

And, No, NGC, if it wasn't a joke, it wouldn't prove my hate for Bush, but if I had been serious, it could have express a dissatisfaction with the current brand of politicians. He could make you happy, NGC --- he'd probably be willing to nationalize our natural resources! (grin)




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 10:03:12 AM
And, No, NGC, if it wasn't a joke, it wouldn't prove my hate for Bush,...

But it does go a long way in doing so, if crossing the 'absolute proof' threshold.

Your natural resources comment IS wrong---I have repeatedly said NON-renewable natural resources.

I already clarified my non-renewable natural resources suggestion. You must have missed it. It would certainly go a long way to curbing the usurious profits that oil companies are soaking the populace for---if you read it---right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 11, 2007, 10:57:05 AM
usurious profits that oil companies are soaking the populace for

Probably the most liberal thing ever written on this Board.  Unfettered capitalism, my friend.  Everything else is liberal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 11:51:39 AM
usurious profits that oil companies are soaking the populace for

Probably the most liberal thing ever written on this Board.


rrriiiggghhhttt...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 11:58:48 AM
usurious profits that oil companies are soaking the populace for

Probably the most liberal thing ever written on this Board.


rrriiiggghhhttt...

Right.  Create a shortage, jack the price, and make incredible profits.  That's the capitalist way.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 12:09:24 PM
usurious profits that oil companies are soaking the populace for

Probably the most liberal thing ever written on this Board.  Unfettered capitalism, my friend.  Everything else is liberal.
Every so often, Comrade NGC lets his true colors shine through.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 12:15:02 PM
Vice President Dick Cheney used the setting of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf to deliver a stern message to Iran today, warning that the United States would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons or gain the upper hand in the Middle East.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Gerald Herbert/Associated Press

Vice President Dick Cheney on board the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf today.

“With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said, in a speech on board the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, according to a pool report provided by journalists traveling with Mr. Cheney.

“We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region,” he said.

Sabre rattling again!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 01:24:54 PM
NGC,

I am as dismayed with the gasoline prices as you are, but my response is to consider buying stock in the oil companies to hedge my bet. Perhaps that is not an option for you.

In any even, I fail to see how you will determine which natural resources are "non-renewable". Are minerals in the earth non-renewable - you betcha - government take-over of the small Amelia Mine which allows people to poke around and harvest semiprecious gems for the small price of $5 a day. It's delightful to spend a hot summer day sitting under the awning by a flow of cool spring water, washing your prize for the day.

Why not do what Nixon did, and impose a price restriction, or collect more tax on the gasoline sold and use it to compensate the poor for the purchase price? Remember when there was a "windfall tax" on gasoline? Remember price restraints? Remember gas lines?

Your takeover of natural resources, even if you try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying you mean ONLY "non-renewable" resources, is far too extreme to fit within our constitution. Nix on that.

It is ingenous of you to define my feelings toward Bush which are more towards pity for the small light in his brain, and determine that what it really is is "hate". I don't think you know the meaning of the word, and you certainly don't understand the essential right of people to define and control their own feelings. "Hate" is a feeling. And, you don't know me well enough to define my feelings unless I TELL you how I feel. And, I don't hate anything or anyone. Not even you, although you do give me cause. I tend to feel the same pity for you that I have for our light-brained presidents, and for the same reasons.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 01:34:26 PM
NGC,

I am as dismayed with the gasoline prices as you are, but my response is to consider buying stock in the oil companies to hedge my bet. Perhaps that is not an option for you.

In any even, I fail to see how you will determine which natural resources are "non-renewable". Are minerals in the earth non-renewable - you betcha - government take-over of the small Amelia Mine which allows people to poke around and harvest semiprecious gems for the small price of $5 a day. It's delightful to spend a hot summer day sitting under the awning by a flow of cool spring water, washing your prize for the day.

Why not do what Nixon did, and impose a price restriction, or collect more tax on the gasoline sold and use it to compensate the poor for the purchase price? Remember when there was a "windfall tax" on gasoline? Remember price restraints? Remember gas lines?

Your takeover of natural resources, even if you try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying you mean ONLY "non-renewable" resources, is far too extreme to fit within our constitution. Nix on that.

It is ingenous of you to define my feelings toward Bush which are more towards pity for the small light in his brain, and determine that what it really is is "hate". I don't think you know the meaning of the word, and you certainly don't understand the essential right of people to define and control their own feelings. "Hate" is a feeling. And, you don't know me well enough to define my feelings unless I TELL you how I feel. And, I don't hate anything or anyone. Not even you, although you do give me cause. I tend to feel the same pity for you that I have for our light-brained presidents, and for the same reasons.


Bush was certainly out of his element with the Queen, the other day.  He looked like a little kid.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 02:10:09 PM
 I don't think you know the meaning of the word,...


You can 'think' whatever you want---or should I say 'project'?


Your takeover of natural resources, even if you try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying you mean ONLY "non-renewable" resources, is far too extreme to fit within our constitution.

See? Here you are projecting---AGAIN!! Your arguement seems to say that you AGREE with an individual or group of individuals owning non-renewable natural resources. I just made the suggestion---you can agree with it or not---your choice. But it WOULD bring down gas prices and help us all out. True?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 02:12:19 PM
Just for Ngc

 "Liberal wealthy super-elites" = Jews? Gee, ya think?
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/11/2007 12:31:00 PM ET


The Republican party hasn't lost its ability to hate just about everybody. I had thought with all their attention of late to Muslim-bashing and gay-bashing, they'd forgotten about the Jews. But alas, no suck luck. The GOP propaganda organ, and cult-run newspaper, Washington Times has joined the recent surge of George-Soros-Jew bashing that's been on the uptick of late in the Republican party and among their surrogates (is it just a coincidence that GOP surrogate and CNN host Glenn Beck last night noted that America just can't afford a Jew as president?)

In this latest broadside in the Moonie paper, we learn that the "amoral" and "wealthy super-elite" George Soros has a "hatred of Christianity" and "control" over a vast conspiracy to take over the world.

What, no comment about his nose?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 03:49:59 PM
Vice President Dick Cheney used the setting of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf to deliver a stern message to Iran today, warning that the United States would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons or gain the upper hand in the Middle East.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Gerald Herbert/Associated Press

Vice President Dick Cheney on board the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf today.

“With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said, in a speech on board the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, according to a pool report provided by journalists traveling with Mr. Cheney.

“We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region,” he said.

Sabre rattling again!

No attribution to the source---AGAIN!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 03:52:35 PM
Just for Ngc

 "Liberal wealthy super-elites" = Jews? Gee, ya think?
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/11/2007 12:31:00 PM ET


The Republican party hasn't lost its ability to hate just about everybody. I had thought with all their attention of late to Muslim-bashing and gay-bashing, they'd forgotten about the Jews. But alas, no suck luck. The GOP propaganda organ, and cult-run newspaper, Washington Times has joined the recent surge of George-Soros-Jew bashing that's been on the uptick of late in the Republican party and among their surrogates (is it just a coincidence that GOP surrogate and CNN host Glenn Beck last night noted that America just can't afford a Jew as president?)

In this latest broadside in the Moonie paper, we learn that the "amoral" and "wealthy super-elite" George Soros has a "hatred of Christianity" and "control" over a vast conspiracy to take over the world.

What, no comment about his nose?

IS IT AGAINST YOUR RELIGION to post the link to these excerpts you throw up on the board? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 03:55:01 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/11/africa/09cheney.php

Little snippy today, eh?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 04:05:23 PM
Nope. Just trying to hold some folks to a standard. If you want to rank on somebody on either side of the aisle, have at it---it's just a more complete package when throw the links up on the board.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 04:06:03 PM
Just for Ngc

 "Liberal wealthy super-elites" = Jews? Gee, ya think?
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/11/2007 12:31:00 PM ET


The Republican party hasn't lost its ability to hate just about everybody. I had thought with all their attention of late to Muslim-bashing and gay-bashing, they'd forgotten about the Jews. But alas, no suck luck. The GOP propaganda organ, and cult-run newspaper, Washington Times has joined the recent surge of George-Soros-Jew bashing that's been on the uptick of late in the Republican party and among their surrogates (is it just a coincidence that GOP surrogate and CNN host Glenn Beck last night noted that America just can't afford a Jew as president?)

In this latest broadside in the Moonie paper, we learn that the "amoral" and "wealthy super-elite" George Soros has a "hatred of Christianity" and "control" over a vast conspiracy to take over the world.

What, no comment about his nose?

IS IT AGAINST YOUR RELIGION to post the link to these excerpts you throw up on the board? 

Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 05:26:27 PM
He's that 'SWINGERS' guy, right?

Nice turn in 'Friends'.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 06:06:21 PM
 Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:02:57 PM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 09:41:38 AM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


I have a problem with people who posts opinion as fact---such as you, for example. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 11:04:46 AM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


I have a problem with people who posts opinion as fact---such as you, for example. 

I have a problem with people who think they're somehow superior to others.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 01:18:55 PM
BAGHDAD, May 11 — A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday.

The withdrawal would depend on the growth and maturity of the Iraqi security forces, to ensure that the departure would not create a security vacuum and accelerate the sectarian conflict, the petition’s sponsors said.

“The troop withdrawal would move in parallel with the buildup of Iraqi troops, but their stay should not be for a long time,” said Saleh al-Igili, a member of the parliamentary bloc allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, which sponsored the petition.

Officials with Mr. Sadr’s bloc said 144 of Parliament’s 275 members — including Sunnis, Shiites and at least one Kurd — had signed. The document is being developed into a draft bill by Parliament’s legal and foreign relations committees, said Bahaa al-Araji, a member of the Sadr bloc and head of the legal committee.

The petition formalizes a widely held sentiment among many legislators — and among Iraqis in general — that American troops should withdraw as soon as possible, though not before Iraqi forces are prepared to assume control of the country’s security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I thought this had been the program from the days after the fall of Baghad five years ago?  How long will it take?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:32:21 PM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


I have a problem with people who posts opinion as fact---such as you, for example. 

I have a problem with people who think they're somehow superior to others.

You have a problem with anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you.

Period.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 01:41:21 PM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


I have a problem with people who posts opinion as fact---such as you, for example. 

I have a problem with people who think they're somehow superior to others.

You have a problem with anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you.

Period.
 

I have a bigger problem with rightwing fascists and christofascists.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:54:40 PM
Well, Mutley if you don't know who John Aravosis, you could goole the name and find the source.


Well, [sans-link,/b]I'll take a guess. He's gay and he's on the left.

Close?

 

 

Yep.  You have a problem with that?  His blog is "Amerblog.com".  He's on the talking news shows from time to time.


I have a problem with people who posts opinion as fact---such as you, for example. 

I have a problem with people who think they're somehow superior to others.

You have a problem with anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you.

Period.
 

I have a bigger problem with rightwing fascists and christofascists.

If you're implying that's who I am, you are really lost.

Perhaps instead of engaging in knee-jerk responses the same way ngc goes about labeling every contrary opinion to his as "liberal", you might open your mind to the possibility that you are as done in by your own biases as these "fascists"  for whom you express so much loathing.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 02:17:53 PM


I have no idea who you are, and from your posts I have no desire to know who you are. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 03:41:00 PM
Your limitations are quite apparent, believe me.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 04:40:08 PM
Your limitations are quite apparent, believe me.

Yawn.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 10:15:51 PM
Wake Up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6641843.stm


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 12, 2007, 10:59:51 PM
Your limitations are quite apparent, believe me.

Yawn.

Heheheh

The know nothing hack appears.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 06:45:47 AM
Your limitations are quite apparent, believe me.

Yawn.

Heheheh

The know nothing hack appears.

Talking about yourself again, eh.  What a waste of time you are.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 07:24:35 AM
ZERKOH, Afghanistan, May 9 — Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Will we see more terrorism from this?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 13, 2007, 07:46:38 AM
These bombing raids simply go to show the unbelievable lack of imagination on the part of the Bushies.

Don't they see the 1000-year old resistance of the Afghani people to any foreign invader?  After all, they have been doing it since the days of Jenghis Khan.

All the bombing in Vietnam (more than in WWII, and with supposedly greater accuracy) could not delay the inevitable.

We use bombing at the French attempted to use the Maginot Line, and with the same results.

Once again, Santayana was right!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 09:57:59 AM
ERAU professor seeks balance in global warming debate

By MARK HARPER
Education Writer

DAYTONA BEACH -- Nick Shipley, an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University freshman, had just spent a week of classes watching two films with polar-opposite conclusions about global warming.

"After watching 'An Inconvenient Truth,' I was relatively convinced," Shipley said one day last month in class. "(Al Gore) did a good job in presenting his points very methodically one after the other. They all build up to essentially prove his point.

"After watching 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' my thinking completely changed," he said. "I kind of did a complete flip-flop."

A Democratic Congress, an Academy Award for "An Inconvenient Truth" and continuing United Nations' proclamations have all contributed to the drumbeat for reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a strategy for fighting global warming.

Some scientists are concerned the forces that are shaping debate and making policy decisions are not based on truths -- convenient or not.

James Wanliss, a space physicist who teaches at Embry-Riddle, showed students the two films in an honors course titled "The Politics and Science of Fear" because he said more and more the public is being sold one side of an issue with many dimensions.

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 10:19:21 AM
One more reason that bush sux...


THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty
Critics say it would put 70% of Earth under control of global bureaucracy

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
 
WASHINGTON – In a move that has already angered some of his most ardent supporters, President Bush has asked the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate to revive a proposal for ratification of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty, an international agreement defeated two years ago by Republican leadership in the upper house.

Critics say ratification would compromise U.S. sovereignty and place 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the control of the U.N. – even providing for a "tax" that would be paid directly to the international body by companies mining in the world's oceans.


****I'll just bet that NONE of you liberals will criticize this Worldnetdaily article because it IS about something that flaming liberals will want to see happen...had this been an article that was anti-liberal in some fashion, it would be coming from a source that shouldn't be believed---right, liberals?****

How shallow liberals are.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 11:13:32 AM
One more reason that bush sux...


THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty
Critics say it would put 70% of Earth under control of global bureaucracy

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
 
WASHINGTON – In a move that has already angered some of his most ardent supporters, President Bush has asked the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate to revive a proposal for ratification of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty, an international agreement defeated two years ago by Republican leadership in the upper house.

Critics say ratification would compromise U.S. sovereignty and place 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the control of the U.N. – even providing for a "tax" that would be paid directly to the international body by companies mining in the world's oceans.


****I'll just bet that NONE of you liberals will criticize this Worldnetdaily article because it IS about something that flaming liberals will want to see happen...had this been an article that was anti-liberal in some fashion, it would be coming from a source that shouldn't be believed---right, liberals?****

How shallow liberals are.


Reagan opposed the treaty; why does Bush support it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:01:24 AM
For GW Bush...


If 20 Million ILLEGAL ALIENS do not have to follow our USA Constitutional Laws, why do American Citizens have to?
Close all the courts, open all the jails and throw away the keys is WHAT YOUR BEHAVIOR is illustrating. I WILL be so glad when you are GONE!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:12:45 AM
For GW Bush...


Why are we fighting a politically correct war? We should send in enough troops to pacifiy the Sunni Triangle. In
World War II, it took 400,000 German troops to keep 4,000,000 Norwegians under control. If you aren't going to do what it takes, well, why are we there?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 10:13:43 AM
For GW Bush...


If 20 Million ILLEGAL ALIENS do not have to follow our USA Constitutional Laws, why do American Citizens have to?
Close all the courts, open all the jails and throw away the keys is WHAT YOUR BEHAVIOR is illustrating. I WILL be so glad when you are GONE!!!


Bush doesn't believe in the Constitution (it's just a g.d. piece of paper, he said), so why should he worry about illegal immigrants.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:17:44 AM
For GW Bush...


"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."



Does our regard of them as a "hostile regime" carry any consequences, or is it merely a label? Your administration likes to pin labels on Syria, Iran, etc., but what consequences have they suffered? Please don't even mention sanctions--we've fought two wars in Iraq because sanctions worked so well!




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:25:26 AM
For GW Bush...


How much longer are we going to continue to appease the Muslims in this country? This is the United States, not a Muslim country. Why are they not conforming to our country? Instead we are conforming to their religion. Islam is a very invasive religion. It is overflowing onto the rights of all of us! Why was the elected official in Minnesota allowed to take his oath on the Quran? Why do you keep calling it a peaceful religion? Read the Quran!!!!! Anyone who follows the Quran is asked by Allah to destroy the infidels. That would be the two of us and the rest of the non-Muslims in our country. Why do you say we worship the same God? See what Australia says about appeasing the Muslims. They say they are not going to change for them and if the Muslims don't like it, they can go to a different country.

Now we are installing FOOT WASHING basins so they can prepare for their Muslims prayer, but we can't even have the ten commandments anywhere in public. Is this not endorsing a religion?

Anytime a Muslim performs a terrorist act, we are told by the mainstream newsmedia that it was an 'isolated' ocurrance. Heaven forbid that they mention the word Muslim.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:32:41 AM
For GW Bush...


THIS GOVERMENT IS GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR NOT ENFORCING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS.

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years.

The topic of illegal immigration is not about race, religion, creed, gender, sexual peference, or the poverty level of other countries - it is about breaking the law. When a foreign national crosses our borders or overstays a visa, it is against the law, and the lawbreaker is in fact an illegal alien. It does not matter whether the illegal alien is green, blue, or purple; the issue is one of law enforcement, not race.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 10:36:50 AM
One more reason that bush sux...


THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty
Critics say it would put 70% of Earth under control of global bureaucracy

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
 
WASHINGTON – In a move that has already angered some of his most ardent supporters, President Bush has asked the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate to revive a proposal for ratification of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty, an international agreement defeated two years ago by Republican leadership in the upper house.

Critics say ratification would compromise U.S. sovereignty and place 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the control of the U.N. – even providing for a "tax" that would be paid directly to the international body by companies mining in the world's oceans.


****I'll just bet that NONE of you liberals will criticize this Worldnetdaily article because it IS about something that flaming liberals will want to see happen...had this been an article that was anti-liberal in some fashion, it would be coming from a source that shouldn't be believed---right, liberals?****

How shallow liberals are.


Reagan opposed the treaty; why does Bush support it?

Oil.

The United States is not eligible to elect a scientist to the Commission on the Continental Shelf.  As a result, it cannot identify the limits of its continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles. Because of this, the United States can't establish jurisdiction in areas where deep sea oil exploration is becoming more technologically feasible.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 10:41:48 AM
From an international security standpoint, adoption of the treaty makes sense as well as it establishes greater policing


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 11:00:36 AM
For GW Bush...


How much longer are we going to continue to appease the Muslims in this country? This is the United States, not a Muslim country. Why are they not conforming to our country? Instead we are conforming to their religion. Islam is a very invasive religion. It is overflowing onto the rights of all of us! Why was the elected official in Minnesota allowed to take his oath on the Quran? Why do you keep calling it a peaceful religion? Read the Quran!!!!! Anyone who follows the Quran is asked by Allah to destroy the infidels. That would be the two of us and the rest of the non-Muslims in our country. Why do you say we worship the same God? See what Australia says about appeasing the Muslims. They say they are not going to change for them and if the Muslims don't like it, they can go to a different country.

Now we are installing FOOT WASHING basins so they can prepare for their Muslims prayer, but we can't even have the ten commandments anywhere in public. Is this not endorsing a religion?

Anytime a Muslim performs a terrorist act, we are told by the mainstream newsmedia that it was an 'isolated' ocurrance. Heaven forbid that they mention the word Muslim.


Where are foot washing basins being installed?  At the White House?  At your local court house?  What is this all about? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 11:06:06 AM
The United States is not eligible to elect a scientist to the Commission on the Continental Shelf.  As a result, it cannot identify the limits of its continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles. Because of this, the United States can't establish jurisdiction in areas where deep sea oil exploration is becoming more technologically feasible.

So we should place ourselves at the mercy of the UN? I hope that IS not what you are implying here.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 11:08:05 AM
Hey NGC:

I don't know why I'm asking this a person of your clear scholarship, but have you ever heard of the American Party of the mid-1850's?  It seems like these observations of "yours" demonstrates a true kinship with them.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 11:10:57 AM
It happened at the Kansas City International Airport.  I think the official line was that it was for safety concerns because Muslims were washing their feet in sinks in the bathrooms which in turn was resulting in accidents from slipperly floors.  But I do agree that it was very much an inappropriate spending of public funds.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 11:13:18 AM
The United States is not eligible to elect a scientist to the Commission on the Continental Shelf.  As a result, it cannot identify the limits of its continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles. Because of this, the United States can't establish jurisdiction in areas where deep sea oil exploration is becoming more technologically feasible.

So we should place ourselves at the mercy of the UN? I hope that IS not what you are implying here.

A poster asked why the Bush administration supported the treaty, I wasn't expressing my own opinion on the matter.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 11:14:03 AM
The United States is not eligible to elect a scientist to the Commission on the Continental Shelf.  As a result, it cannot identify the limits of its continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles. Because of this, the United States can't establish jurisdiction in areas where deep sea oil exploration is becoming more technologically feasible.

So we should place ourselves at the mercy of the UN? I hope that IS not what you are implying here.

A poster asked why the Bush administration supported the treaty, I wasn't expressing my own opinion on the matter.

Gotcha.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 11:19:33 AM
Hey NGC:

I don't know why I'm asking this a person of your clear scholarship, but have you ever heard of the American Party of the mid-1850's?  It seems like these observations of "yours" demonstrates a true kinship with them.

My scholarship?

Como me gustaria que muestras para todo mundo aqui lo que tines que en tanto al nivel arriba de lo mio.


Or if this has blown over you, then...


Como eu gostaria que voce mostra o que tem a sua mente que fica muita pra cima do meu.

Scholarship, you say? I wonder what you have under the surface? Rhetorics and jargons? Nothing substantial?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 12:24:05 PM
you have yet to explain why Reagan opposed this treaty and Bush favors it.  Can you do that without going nuts?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 12:28:32 PM
jargons

The word jargon itself reflects a plural concept because it refers to a language or dialect which by definition is more than one.  No "s" is necessary.  Just a typo, though.  I'm certain. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 12:34:23 PM
For GW Bush...


How much longer are we going to continue to appease the Muslims in this country? This is the United States, not a Muslim country. Why are they not conforming to our country? Instead we are conforming to their religion. Islam is a very invasive religion. It is overflowing onto the rights of all of us! Why was the elected official in Minnesota allowed to take his oath on the Quran? Why do you keep calling it a peaceful religion? Read the Quran!!!!! Anyone who follows the Quran is asked by Allah to destroy the infidels. That would be the two of us and the rest of the non-Muslims in our country. Why do you say we worship the same God? See what Australia says about appeasing the Muslims. They say they are not going to change for them and if the Muslims don't like it, they can go to a different country.

Now we are installing FOOT WASHING basins so they can prepare for their Muslims prayer, but we can't even have the ten commandments anywhere in public. Is this not endorsing a religion?

Anytime a Muslim performs a terrorist act, we are told by the mainstream newsmedia that it was an 'isolated' ocurrance. Heaven forbid that they mention the word Muslim.


NGC, Awhile back I accused you of harboring ill-feelings towards those who choose to follow Islam, and you denied it saying you were only opposed to the terrorist Muslims.

You may recall that many wars have been initiated by Christians to overthrow the "infidels" towards the Christian religion, and, on this continent, to subdue and destroy the Natives who were not "believers". The Bible is just as war-like towards those who are not "believers" as the Koran.

As to the polician who was sworn in with his hand on the Koran, that makes the very best good sense. Of what value would his oath be if he swore on a book that was not the guiding light of his understanding? What is the value of the oath of an atheist who swears on a Bible that he does not consider to be any more sacred than a good novel? Think about what you are saying before putting your foot in your mouth


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 12:59:52 PM
The Koran used in the swearing in ceremony was that of Thomas Jefferson's.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 01:10:39 PM
Quote
Why do you keep calling it a peaceful religion? Read the Quran!!!!! Anyone who follows the Quran is asked by Allah to destroy the infidels.

Its apparent that you have not read the Qur'an.  The Qur'an gives Muslims permission to defend themselves until they stop the aggression when their community is attacked without reason, oppressed, or prevented from practicing their faith. It does not ask its followers 'to destroy the infidels'.  Perhaps you are confusing that with the Crusades when the Church asked that of its followers in the name of Christ.







Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 01:15:40 PM
Or, perhaps, the genocide ordered by God in Joshua.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 01:17:06 PM
The problem is that many followers of Islam are poor, uneducated and/or illiterate.  Much like when the Catholic Church used to conduct services entirely in Latin, many of its followers have not actually read the Qur'an themselves.  Instead they rely on others to provide their own interpretations of the passages.   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:19:26 PM
There is still a sizable "Latin Mass" only contingent within the Catholic Church.  Adherents to this viewpoint, I think, could properly be referred to as more Catholic than the Pope.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 01:22:37 PM
Even for literate followers, the Qur'an is supposed to be read only in Arabic.  Much of the reason for this being for the very problem that we have with the Bible - it has been transcribed in many different languages many times over many centuries.  Its like a two thousand year old game of telephone.  Five thousand years when the Old Testament is thrown in.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:13:17 PM
It does not ask its followers 'to destroy the infidels'. 

I think there are many that solidly disagree with you. Interpretations?



Perhaps you are confusing that with the Crusades when the Church asked that of its followers in the name of Christ.

This DID happen, but the church asked this, NOT the Bible.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:17:04 PM
The Qur'an gives Muslims permission to defend themselves until they stop the aggression when their community is attacked without reason, oppressed, or prevented from practicing their faith.

This sounds like it IS ok for moslems to conduct mayhem if there are no foot-washing basins at airports. Does it not? It also sounds like, if the Israelis have stopped firing into Lebanon, that they should stop as well---right? What about the Iranians that have been directing fire into Israel from Lebanon? IS that not covered as well?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:19:16 PM
The Qur'an gives Muslims permission to defend themselves until they stop the aggression when their community is attacked without reason, oppressed, or prevented from practicing their faith.

This sounds like it IS ok for moslems to conduct mayhem if there are no foot-washing basins at airports. Does it not? It also sounds like, if the Israelis have stopped firing into Lebanon, that they should stop as well---right? What about the Iranians that have been directing fire into Israel from Lebanon? IS that not covered as well?
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:22:52 PM
Perhaps because religion isn't really the issue?  Does anyone really follow all the precepts set forth by their religion?  They use that which can be applied to justify their actions and discard those that do not.  We have religious groups in this country that hate gays and believe they should be killed -- and they use the Bible to justify such rationale.  Does not this go against the heart of Jesus' message? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:27:16 PM
Perhaps because religion isn't really the issue?  Does anyone really follow all the precepts set forth by their religion?  They use that which can be applied to justify their actions and discard those that do not.  We have religious groups in this country that hate gays and believe they should be killed -- and they use the Bible to justify such rationale.  Does not this go against the heart of Jesus' message? 

Yep, it sure does. Extremism exists all over the place. Trying to promote acceptance of homosexuality in public schoold IS extremist to me. Ya got two guys that wanna do each other? Stay home---the rest of the world doesn't need to know about an abomination. That IS one part of the Bible that gets regularly trashed---doesn't it say somewhere than man shall not lie with man? Or words to the effect? Maybe getting back to interpretations again.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:28:58 PM
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?

Wow---You think Americans are strapping bombs onto women, children, or their men and walking or driving into markets before detonation?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:31:49 PM
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?

Wow---You think Americans are strapping bombs onto women, children, or their men and walking or driving into markets before detonation?
Did I say that?  Or ARE YOU PROJECTING AGAIN?  OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST ABOUT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT?  Or, perhacne, both.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:34:00 PM
The Bible is loaded with verses that aren't preached from the pulpit.

For example:

"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

-- Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV

"Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also."

--Genesis 38:8-10 NASB

"Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, “You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."

-- Exodus 4:24-25 NASB


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?

Wow---You think Americans are strapping bombs onto women, children, or their men and walking or driving into markets before detonation?
Did I say that?  Or ARE YOU PROJECTING AGAIN?  OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST ABOUT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT?  Or, perhacne, both.

I was using this only as an example. In fact, moslems ARE doing exactly that in the name of their religion, are they not? My rhetorical question back was sarcasm looking for your explanation.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:42:59 PM
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?

Wow---You think Americans are strapping bombs onto women, children, or their men and walking or driving into markets before detonation?
Did I say that?  Or ARE YOU PROJECTING AGAIN?  OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST ABOUT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT?  Or, perhacne, both.

I was using this only as an example. In fact, moslems ARE doing exactly that in the name of their religion, are they not? My rhetorical question back was sarcasm looking for your explanation.
So what you are looking for is something along, say, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia by so called Christian groups?  I'll try to think of something and get back to you.

If you are limiting yourself to a particular choice of weapons, yes the Orthodox Serbians prefered to use machine guns to human bombs.  Score one for our side.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 02:57:58 PM
Well, if the idea is that followers of a religion and leaders of nations do not always respect the precepts they have been taught, Islam is hardly alone in that, now is it?

Wow---You think Americans are strapping bombs onto women, children, or their men and walking or driving into markets before detonation?
Did I say that?  Or ARE YOU PROJECTING AGAIN?  OR ARE YOU ONCE AGAIN BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST ABOUT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT?  Or, perhacne, both.

I was using this only as an example. In fact, moslems ARE doing exactly that in the name of their religion, are they not? My rhetorical question back was sarcasm looking for your explanation.

I don't know about the other languages you speak, but in English, a moslem is a building. The people are called Muslims.

And, indeed, Americans have driven bomb loaded trucks up to federal building and set them off, while the individuals ran to safety. As to women and children, you can pick up a paper at least once a week and find out that some man has murdered his wife/girlfriend and her children. Sometimes it's the woman who does everyone in. Occassionally it's an outsider robbing the home. But, they are all Americans. Has an American ever strapped a bomb to his wife and chldren, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it has happened, although I don't remember any such in my lifetime. I really do not think Muslims are more murderous than Christians, as examples of two religions. In a given time and place, each have been murderous.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:02:02 PM
Perhaps because religion isn't really the issue?  Does anyone really follow all the precepts set forth by their religion?  They use that which can be applied to justify their actions and discard those that do not.  We have religious groups in this country that hate gays and believe they should be killed -- and they use the Bible to justify such rationale.  Does not this go against the heart of Jesus' message? 

Yep, it sure does. Extremism exists all over the place. Trying to promote acceptance of homosexuality in public schoold IS extremist to me. Ya got two guys that wanna do each other? Stay home---the rest of the world doesn't need to know about an abomination. That IS one part of the Bible that gets regularly trashed---doesn't it say somewhere than man shall not lie with man? Or words to the effect? Maybe getting back to interpretations again.

You have a problem with gay people?  Are you a homophobic bigot?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
Quote
That IS one part of the Bible that gets regularly trashed---doesn't it say somewhere than man shall not lie with man? Or words to the effect?
It is called an abomination.  But then, so is eating shellfish.  Takest thou thy All You Can Eat Crab Legs home withst thou, so that the righteous not view the abomination!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:09:27 PM
And another abomination is wearing clothing made from cotton and polyester.  Yikes.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:29:49 PM
ENVIRONMENT -- U.S. ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN G8 CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENTS: Negotiators from the United States are trying to weaken the language of a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month's G-8 summit. Germany has made global warming a top priority for the summit. The Washington Post reports, "A draft proposal dated April 2007 that is being debated in Bonn, Germany...by senior officials of the Group of Eight includes a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The United States is seeking to strike that section, the documents show." The BBC adds that a clause saying "climate change is speeding up and will seriously damage our common natural environment and severely weaken (the) global economy... resolute action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions" has been struck out. So have a statement that "we are deeply concerned about the latest findings confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)", and a commitment to send a "clear message" on international efforts to combat global warming at the next round of UN climate talks in December. U.S. negotiators also want to remove from the draft firm targets for improving energy efficiency in buildings and transport, and a call for the establishment of a global carbon market. The White House has a long record of doctoring the findings of scientific experts on climate change. A report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project earlier this year revealed that half of government scientists have felt pressured to downplay global warming.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 03:36:13 PM
Gee, no wonder NGC finds a "concensus" so unconvincing. His buddy in the white house has been whitewashing the evidence all along. Never fail, an oil man to the rescue!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:50:12 PM
Gee, no wonder NGC finds a "concensus" so unconvincing. His buddy in the white house has been whitewashing the evidence all along. Never fail, an oil man to the rescue!


Didn't you know that was part of being a president?


Title: On strategic options
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 04:06:29 PM
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17218752.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 04:16:05 PM
Never fail, an oil man to the rescue!

A-la algore and his global crossing stocks? He is an oil-buddy, too! But the criticism only goes to one side of the political fence---right?

A-la Halliburton---I haven't heard the left side of the fence criticizing Soros! He has Halliburton stock! Tra-la-la-la-laaaaaa....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:17:16 PM
Never fail, an oil man to the rescue!

A-la algore and his global crossing stocks? He is an oil-buddy, too! But the criticism only goes to one side of the political fence---right?

A-la Halliburton---I haven't heard the left side of the fence criticizing Soros! He has Halliburton stock! Tra-la-la-la-laaaaaa....

How much Halliburton stock do you have, grasshopper?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 04:24:12 PM
I don't know about the other languages you speak, but in English, a moslem is a building. The people are called Muslims.



And MOSLEM "IS" in English, per the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, page 1177, and I QUOTE---

Moslem---A believer in or adherent of Islam. (Usage note: MOSLEM "IS" the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. MUSLIM "IS" preferred by scholars and English-speaking adherents of Islam).

Care to check it out? Or "IS" your way right and mine wrong? I am going with the dictionary.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:26:39 PM
Isn't the word you mean Mausoleum?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 06:28:55 PM
raqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law
Foreign investment and Shiite control are the primary concerns. A White House deadline for passage is in doubt.
By Tina Susman, Times Staff Writer
May 13, 2007


BAGHDAD — It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.

The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.
.
Winning in Iraq to the Bushies means getting legal control of the OIL.  Doesn't look like it's going their way.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 07:20:13 PM
McNulty, Number 2 at Justice, resigns:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/05/14/662930.html

College tuition is so darn expensive is the new "I'm going to rehab".


Title: Re: On strategic options
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 07:22:47 PM
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17218752.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

From that article, (nice post, kid):

"Another option, supported by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and others, is to partition Iraq into zones for Sunni Muslims, Shiites and Kurds. The proposal hasn't won wide backing."

Guess it makes too much sense for Washington to embrace, at this juncture/



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 08:03:14 PM
I don't know about the other languages you speak, but in English, a moslem is a building. The people are called Muslims.



And MOSLEM "IS" in English, per the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, page 1177, and I QUOTE---

Moslem---A believer in or adherent of Islam. (Usage note: MOSLEM "IS" the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. MUSLIM "IS" preferred by scholars and English-speaking adherents of Islam).

Care to check it out? Or "IS" your way right and mine wrong? I am going with the dictionary.

Obviously, you prefer your dictionary to mine. Mine refers "moslim" to "muslim", and under the definition of "muslim" states: USAGE:  Moslem, once the more widely used form, still has currency, but has declined in favor of "muslim".
Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990.

Get up with the times, boy!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:15:43 PM
Moslem:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moslem

Speaking of keeping up with the times...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 10:55:27 PM
Utley and all,

I stand updated. The word comes from the arab: muslim, which then is the base word, moslem is a variant. I was mistaken in saying that Moslem is the building. They both mean the people.

Incidently, I am reading a book entitled "What Would Jefferson Do?" by Thom Hartman and seeing some origins for NGC's contentions. On a page I bookmarked a bit ago, it explains that under a "liberal democracy" all people are considered "good", and have rights. In a tyranny, the people are considered evil, must be controlled, and have privileges rather than rights. Liberal is not a bad word, but the description of the people with rights in a democracy, which is, supposed to be ALL the PEOPLE.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 05:38:31 AM
Utley and all,

I stand updated. The word comes from the arab: muslim, which then is the base word, moslem is a variant. I was mistaken in saying that Moslem is the building. They both mean the people.

Incidently, I am reading a book entitled "What Would Jefferson Do?" by Thom Hartman and seeing some origins for NGC's contentions. On a page I bookmarked a bit ago, it explains that under a "liberal democracy" all people are considered "good", and have rights. In a tyranny, the people are considered evil, must be controlled, and have privileges rather than rights. Liberal is not a bad word, but the description of the people with rights in a democracy, which is, supposed to be ALL the PEOPLE.

Jefferson was pretty much a liberal and lived a double standard life.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 06:34:08 AM
Utley and all,

I stand updated. The word comes from the arab: muslim, which then is the base word, moslem is a variant. I was mistaken in saying that Moslem is the building. They both mean the people.

Incidently, I am reading a book entitled "What Would Jefferson Do?" by Thom Hartman and seeing some origins for NGC's contentions. On a page I bookmarked a bit ago, it explains that under a "liberal democracy" all people are considered "good", and have rights. In a tyranny, the people are considered evil, must be controlled, and have privileges rather than rights. Liberal is not a bad word, but the description of the people with rights in a democracy, which is, supposed to be ALL the PEOPLE.

Jefferson was pretty much a liberal and lived a double standard life.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 08:27:07 AM
Jefferson was pretty much a liberal and lived a double standard life.

This was for comrade Ngc's benefit.  Jefferson was an aristocrat who had a long term relationship with one of his slaves.  Of course, Sally Hemming was a half sister of Jefferson's wife Martha.  Even so, his children with Hemmings were considered black and lived as slaves on his plantation.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 09:04:04 AM
 I was mistaken in saying that Moslem is the building.


Did you mean mosque?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 15, 2007, 10:22:27 AM
Article in today's Truthout says that Bush is now officially a lame duck (so what else is new?)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507P.shtml#


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 11:39:55 AM
Article in today's Truthout says that Bush is now officially a lame duck (so what else is new?)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507P.shtml#

"Count the number of times Republican candidates mention Bush in speeches......"

Unlike the countless times we hear Bill Clinton mentioned by the Dem candidates, right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 11:41:59 AM
Quote
Unlike the countless times we hear Bill Clinton mentioned by the Dem candidates, right?

??? Clinton hasn't been President for how many years now?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:50:45 AM
Article in today's Truthout says that Bush is now officially a lame duck...


Well, have you seen TODAY'S Gallup poll that shows bush approval at 33%----and congress approval at 29%? Will you spin this?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:54:32 AM
Quote
Unlike the countless times we hear Bill Clinton mentioned by the Dem candidates, right?

??? Clinton hasn't been President for how many years now?

Since klynton has begun to campaign openly for his 'wife', all of his tawdry past once more becomes fair game. For hillary, it "IS" called baggage. The Ds need to realize that if they have any hope of winning the presidency in 2008, it will not be with hillary, as she will galvanize the Rs to a motivational status to vote against her that we have never seen before from either party in opposition to a candidate. Liberals may deny this, but they live so much of their lives in denial anyway that one more denial won't hurt.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 12:04:49 PM
Frankly, if the Bush administration continues its current downtrend, its possible that American voters in the center will pine for the Camelot years of the Clinton administration when the biggest stories were the Monica Lewinsky fiasco rather than the quagmire that is Iraq. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 01:14:01 PM
I think that as usual the voters will vote the ISSUES, only one of which is Iraq.

Dems should know that this unpopular war alone will not win them the White House.

Independents and moderates who do not always vote along party lines will judge the respective winners of the primaries on a spectrum, not on when they will pull the troops out.

Heck - I bet the Democratic nominee DEFLECTS as much talk of a pinpointed exit date as possible.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:29:44 PM
Frankly, if the Bush administration continues its current downtrend, its possible that American voters in the center will pine for the Camelot years of the Clinton administration when the biggest stories were the Monica Lewinsky fiasco rather than the quagmire that is Iraq. 

How quickly you forget Waco, Somalia, Kosovo, aspirin factories, the Indian Casinos, the low sulphur coal, Loral and Hughes, Johnnie Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Nora Lum, Ng Lapseng, Mark Gimenez, Irene Kanchanalak, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen-Ward, Kathleen Willey, Kathy Ferguson, the Black Panthers, Larry Flynt, the FBI Files, Web Hubbell, Jim McDougal, Jesse Jackson (Puke) as a 'Spiritual Advisor', the initiators of the politics of personal destruction...and the list goes on and on---if you see anything meritorious or desirable about klynton, either of them, you are possibly snowed beyond saving.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:30:52 PM
I would wager that most Americans haven't even heard of 3/4 of those things let alone remember them.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 01:34:06 PM
liq -

Amazing how little of the idiotic spaghetti Faux News and the rest of the Right Wing Media threw at the wall of Clinton actually stuck in the minds of those not twisted by hatred, isn't it?  There are only so many times you can, say, allege that the Clintons had Ron Brown shot and then wrecked his plane (an absurd duplication of effort) before people just stop listening to anything you say.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 01:36:11 PM
Vince Foster shot Ron Brown....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:38:30 PM
I would wage that most Americans haven't even heard of 3/4 of those things let alone remember them.


Well, so much for those that revere the klyntons as gods, and ***being informed*** about the abominations that they have committed to, right? Do you know about all those things I listed? Do you realize just what abominations the klyntons are?

Would you be suggesting that IF so many are unaware of these things that they should NOT be made aware of them?

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:42:37 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 01:43:20 PM
That's because the liberal media would skew the poll.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:44:52 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 


Hey---NOTHING surprises me anymore. We all have an equal opportunity to express a lack of being informed.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:45:24 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 




Hey---NOTHING surprises me anymore. We all have an equal opportunity to express a lack of being informed.

Hence Bush's second term....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:45:26 PM
That's because the liberal media would skew the poll.


Now there's a shocker!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:45:58 PM
That's because the liberal media would skew the poll.

That or the Jews


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:46:53 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 

You evaded my question...Do you know about all those things I listed?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 01:47:55 PM
That or the Jews

I prefer to use the term "International Banking Conspiracy".  It's more genteel.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 02:07:42 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 

You evaded my question...Do you know about all those things I listed?

Do I remember every attempt by the rightwing media to discredit the Clinton administration -- no, I certainly do not.  Of those that you mentioned, the only ones that I can state that I think bear any weight were Waco, Somalia, and Kosovo. And Somalia, Clinton inherited from the previous Bush administration. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:30:10 PM
Jerry Falwell Dead at 72.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 02:37:13 PM
Sam,

CNN Breaking News said 73. It really doesn't matter. I had a student who was a nephew of his. Jerry sent him a whole $50 when Jimmy graduated from high school after a tough struggle with dyslexia. Jimmy told me that Jerry had swindled his father and other siblings our of the family home. Well, at least the western part of Virginia is free of one stranglehold from the religious right. I wonder if Liberty University will go on.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 02:48:58 PM
I don't know about revered as gods goes, but I wouldn't be that surprised if a poll of Americans was conducted  it would reveal that most Americans preferred the Clinton administration to the current one. 

You evaded my question...Do you know about all those things I listed?

Do I remember every attempt by the rightwing media to discredit the Clinton administration -- no, I certainly do not.  Of those that you mentioned, the only ones that I can state that I think bear any weight were Waco, Somalia, and Kosovo. And Somalia, Clinton inherited from the previous Bush administration. 

Klynton telegraphed his move there in Somalia with the media, as he had them standing on the shores when the military showed up! How stupid can you get? That was NOTHING to do with the previous admin, and you know it---or maybe, from the sound of your leanings, you don't. I am NOT surprised.

Well, try doing a little independent research on the names of Chung, Huang, Trie, Kanchanalak, Gimenez, Lum, Lapseng---look up his dealings with Loral and Hughes. His mess with the Indian Casinos and low sulphur coal/Indonesia. These are NOT rightwing media (You can't be seriously saying that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and PBS are right-wing?)attempts to smear, but genuine abominations---if you care, that IS, to take off the klynton loving blinders and SEE what kind of animal he IS/was. Check out the names of Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Kathy Ferguson, Elizabeth Gracen-Ward. But after reading your last comments, I suspect that you will choose to voluntarily pull the wool over your own eyes. That will be your own 'enlightened/educated' choice, I suppose.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:51:24 PM
How many times to you have to be told that Clinton is not the president and that his legacy is not on trial any more?  You are so obcessed with Clinton one wonders what kind of pervert you really are. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:51:58 PM
Wonder if BUSH will go to Falwell's funeral? Or at least feel pressure to do so?

Or any of the other candidates??


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:52:51 PM
How many times to you have to be told that Clinton is not the president and that his legacy is not on trial any more?  You are so obcessed with Clinton one wonders what kind of pervert you really are. 

Whic reminds me. Did REagan "cut and run" from Lebanon, back in the 80's???


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 02:54:40 PM
Quote
Klynton telegraphed his move there in Somalia with the media, as he had them standing on the shores when the military showed up!
Really?  That is a demonstrable lie.  GHW Bush sent in the troops two weeks before Clinton took office.  If the rest of your information is as demonstrably false as this, why bother checking it out.

Sorry - not two weeks, a month and a half.  Bush sent 25,000 troops into Somalia on December 4, 1992.  Clinton never sent any troops in; he decreased US presence in favor of UN Peacekeepers.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:57:01 PM
Wonder if BUSH will go to Falwell's funeral? Or at least feel pressure to do so?

Or any of the other candidates??

It will be interesting to see who does attend.  The repukes like John McCann and Mitt Romney had been sucking up to Mr. Falwell.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 02:59:44 PM
Bush 'promised' that the troops would be home by Clinton's inauguration.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:01:05 PM
Bush 'promised' that the troops would be home by Clinton's inauguration.

Is that George W. and Hillary R.?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:22:40 PM
Quote
Klynton telegraphed his move there in Somalia with the media, as he had them standing on the shores when the military showed up!
Really?  That is a demonstrable lie.  GHW Bush sent in the troops two weeks before Clinton took office.  If the rest of your information is as demonstrably false as this, why bother checking it out.

Sorry - not two weeks, a month and a half.  Bush sent 25,000 troops into Somalia on December 4, 1992.  Clinton never sent any troops in; he decreased US presence in favor of UN Peacekeepers.

Never sent any, huh?

Friday, October 8, 1993
Clinton Orders 5,300 Troops to Somalia; Vows End in 6 Months
By John M. Broder
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON

President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31.




October 5, 1993


Clinton Sending Reinforcements After Heavy Losses in Somalia
By R. W. APPLE JR.,
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton ordered several hundred fresh United States troops to Somalia today, plus heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters and gunships, in the aftermath of heavy American losses in a United Nations military operation in Mogadishu on Sunday.




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:32:36 PM
Americans United Issues Statement On The Death Of Jerry Falwell
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Moral Majority Founder Was 'Face And Voice Of The Religious Right,' Says AU's Lynn

Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority and one of the key architects of the rise of the Religious Right, died today at age 73.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, released the following statement:

“Jerry Falwell politicized religion and failed to understand the genius of our Constitution, but there is no denying his impact on American political life. He will long be remembered as the face and voice of the Religious Right.

“Falwell manipulated a powerful pulpit in exchange for access to political power and promotion of a narrow range of moral concerns. I appeared with him on news programs dozens of times over the years and, while I disagreed with just about everything Falwell stood for, he was a determined advocate for what he believed.

“Falwell reached his apex of power in the 1980s. Since then, leadership of the Religious Right has passed to James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and others. However, Falwell remained influential in politics, with Republican presidential candidates seeking his support this year.

“Americans United extends its condolences to members of Dr. Falwell’s family, the congregants of Thomas Road Baptist Church and the students and staff of Liberty University.”


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 03:33:49 PM
Bush sent 25,000 troops as part of "Operation Restore Hope" on December 4th, promising that the troops would be out by Clinton's inauguration.  On May 4th, Clinton hands over command to the UN and orders the reduction of troops to be replaced by the UN.  By June, only 1,200 US combat soldiers remained in Somalia, with 3,000 support troops.

In October, Clinton reinforces the remaining combat troops for the short-term while simultaneously setting a full withdrawal date of March 31.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 03:38:22 PM
NGC,

Do you not understand the difference between sending troops in as US combatants and as UN combatants? If the UN makes a call for troops it is a different matter than the US going in unilaterally.

in any event, which is the worse abomination - supplying troops for a UN peace-keeping action, or attacking a sovereign country against the advice of the UN and most of the rest of the world? Note also, that Clinton set a return date .... Bush is still arguing that it would "aid our enemies" if he did the same. Did Somalia send terrorists to the US after we pulled out? How about Bosnia? Is there any real threat that if we pull out there will be consequences on our shore? Any precedent in history that suggest it?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:39:48 PM
Do you not understand the difference between sending troops in as US combatants and as UN combatants? If the UN makes a call for troops it is a different matter than the US going in unilaterally.


PARSE, PARSE, PARSE! Klynton sent in US TROOPS---DEAL WITH IT!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:47:47 PM
Do you not understand the difference between sending troops in as US combatants and as UN combatants? If the UN makes a call for troops it is a different matter than the US going in unilaterally.


PARSE, PARSE, PARSE! Klynton sent in US TROOPS---DEAL WITH IT!

Get out your dictionary twit and look up the word, "unilateral."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 03:59:02 PM
Do you not understand the difference between sending troops in as US combatants and as UN combatants? If the UN makes a call for troops it is a different matter than the US going in unilaterally.


PARSE, PARSE, PARSE! Klynton sent in US TROOPS---DEAL WITH IT!

Parse, Parse, Parse! Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 03:59:59 PM
Thanks for the correction - Clinton sent in reinforcements to the UN contingent in October of 1993.  Your comment about Clinton was still a lie, since you were clearly not talking about sending in reinforcements.

Here was your lie:

Quote
Klynton telegraphed his move there in Somalia with the media, as he had them standing on the shores when the military showed up! How stupid can you get? That was NOTHING to do with the previous admin, and you know it
It was in fact Bush who sent in the troops, in December of 1992, with the media watching.  It was Bush who announced the insertion of troops in response to a UN request four days before they went in, not Clinton.  It was Bush who put 25,000 troops in, not Clinton.  The "previous" administration.  Sukks to get caught in a lie, doesn't it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 05:24:05 PM
So Clinton sent in short term replacement on Daddy Bush's commitment. This is an abomination?

I guess all the others in the litany of Clinton abominations are just as "abominable".



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 05:28:23 PM
So Clinton sent in short term replacement on Daddy Bush's commitment. This is an abomination?

I guess all the others in the litany of Clinton abominations are just as "abominable".



I notice that you did not care to respond to the ones I listed. You still don't know whom Ng Lapseng IS, do you?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
Yep, I erred. I mexed up some info about the press in Somalia with stuff I have on klynton. It IS recognized.

Your statement that klynton never sent in any troops was equally 'a lie', was it not? You did say thanks for the correction, and I say the same. It was not my thought to intentionally enter incorrect info to the discussion.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 05:51:50 PM
NGC,

Your accusations go nowhere. There are legitimate explanations for most of your "abominations" so that by the time each and every one is examined, there will be no "abominations" left.

But, as others have reminded you, the Clinton administration is history, and we are dealing with a true "abomination" in the white house. One who is insidiously trying to move our nation away from its constitutional form of government to something that resembles an unamed european nation and it's horrid leader in the early 20th century. 

Stop worrying about what Clinton did with his cigars, and focus on the rights YOU have lost under Bush. The right to be shown a warrent detailing what is being sought and why, before someone invades and searches your home and possessions. The right to be told the charges and consult with an attorney when you are put in jail. The right to be presumed innocent when you are accused of breaking a law. And, the right to know who your accuser is and counter them with your reasoning. If you don't care about losing those rights, then I suggest that YOU are the person in this forum who should be winging his way to the white beaches of Cuba.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 06:28:40 PM
I think it is a bit odd that someone would be so obcessed with the Clinton Presidency while our nation is dragged down by the current group of crooks.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 06:32:12 PM
I think it is a bit odd that someone would be so obcessed with the Clinton Presidency while our nation is dragged down by the current group of crooks.

I think we can learn something from each set of crooks who occupies the WH, quite frankly.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 07:17:51 PM
Just read something interesting in the Hartman book. During conservative regimes, the number of suicides goes up. This is said to be due to the fact that when conservatives are in power, wages tend to go down and job stability wobbles. Thus statistics on accidental and violent deaths of 40-60 yr olds due to suicide, tend to go up when the conservatives are in power. This was given in direct contradiction to both Limbaugh and Falwell as asserting it is the rise of feminism that has resulted in fewer jobs for breadwinners. Reference was made to a Limbaugh sick joke about Hillary being a ball-crusher thereby causing men to be paid less than they need to support their families. The author points out that the conservative spin, laying the blame on women (and illegal immigrants) is just a ploy to dodge the true responsibility, the administration that gives rights to corporations, encourages monopolies, and allows the wealthy to establish "dynasties" to the detriment of "the people" who should be in control of "the government".



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 07:22:23 PM
When a friend of mine learned the Jerry Falwell died, his comment was, "There really is a god."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:07:39 PM
Your accusations go nowhere. There are legitimate explanations for most of your "abominations" so that by the time each and every one is examined, there will be no "abominations" left.


You are definitely a liberal klynton apologist. Whatta shame that you care not to do a bit of research into a genuine criminal. But, when a liberal's blinders get in the way, the double standards start to take over. I should have known.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 10:28:10 PM
NGC,

If I were a lawyer either prosecuting or defending him, I would have reason to look into whether his behavior was really "criminal" or just not to your tastes. I am not on a jury judging him, and I am not planning to write a biography on him. He is not running for office. So, there is no reason for me to find out, once again, how stupidly you parse facts. That one about Somalia was evidence enough, thank you.

And, just go on calling me a liberal. It means I am an advocate of a truly democratic form of government, one that treats all people equally, and does not favor greed over laziness.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2007, 02:34:47 AM
Sam,

When a friend of mine learned the Jerry Falwell died, his comment was, "There really is a god."


Furthermore, She is truly just.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 05:57:14 AM
Your accusations go nowhere. There are legitimate explanations for most of your "abominations" so that by the time each and every one is examined, there will be no "abominations" left.


You are definitely a liberal klynton apologist. Whatta shame that you care not to do a bit of research into a genuine criminal. But, when a liberal's blinders get in the way, the double standards start to take over. I should have known.

The US Governement spent some 60 million prosecuting this "criminal" and all they found was he lied about an extra marital affair.  That is not particularly admirable behavior, but it isn't criminal.  So I guess you are wrong again, grasshopper.  Get a life.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 07:38:14 AM
Yep, I erred. I mexed up some info about the press in Somalia with stuff I have on klynton. It IS recognized.

Your statement that klynton never sent in any troops was equally 'a lie', was it not? You did say thanks for the correction, and I say the same. It was not my thought to intentionally enter incorrect info to the discussion.
Works for me.  Now... Kosovo?  In which if I recall correctly we managed to halt a humanitarian crisis in the form of a Christian genocide against Muslims and aid in bringing down a murderous regime without a single American life being lost in combat.  Your problem with this is...?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 08:00:47 AM
Yep, I erred. I mexed up some info about the press in Somalia with stuff I have on klynton. It IS recognized.

Your statement that klynton never sent in any troops was equally 'a lie', was it not? You did say thanks for the correction, and I say the same. It was not my thought to intentionally enter incorrect info to the discussion.
Works for me.  Now... Kosovo?  In which if I recall correctly we managed to halt a humanitarian crisis in the form of a Christian genocide against Muslims and aid in bringing down a murderous regime without a single American life being lost in combat.  Your problem with this is...?

It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem. People are able to rationalize helping the 'Yugoslav on Yugoslav' horror, but not 'Iraqi on Iraqi' horror. How can that be? Seems to be a bit of a double standard there. Or IS it because klynton was a D pres and Bush IS an R pres where the difference IS made? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The people that were being murdered by saddam, imho, was also a humanitarian crisis (What IS the total---somewhere in the 300-400,000 range? It may never be known)---human life IS human life, regardless of the religious particulars of each side, right? The American lives that are being lost now, for the most part, are due to influences by terrorists that are bent on installing their brand of logic on whatever sits in front of them---and if anyone can possibly think that this ISn't so, I can only say to look at history. I hope we aren't destined to repeat some of it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:06:17 AM
Yep, I erred. I mexed up some info about the press in Somalia with stuff I have on klynton. It IS recognized.

Your statement that klynton never sent in any troops was equally 'a lie', was it not? You did say thanks for the correction, and I say the same. It was not my thought to intentionally enter incorrect info to the discussion.
Works for me.  Now... Kosovo?  In which if I recall correctly we managed to halt a humanitarian crisis in the form of a Christian genocide against Muslims and aid in bringing down a murderous regime without a single American life being lost in combat.  Your problem with this is...?

It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem. People are able to rationalize helping the 'Yugoslav on Yugoslav' horror, but not 'Iraqi on Iraqi' horror. How can that be? Seems to be a bit of a double standard there. Or IS it because klynton was a D pres and Bush IS an R pres where the difference IS made? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The people that were being murdered by saddam, imho, was also a humanitarian crisis (What IS the total---somewhere in the 300-400,000 range? It may never be known)---human life IS human life, regardless of the religious particulars of each side, right? The American lives that are being lost now, for the most part, are due to influences by terrorists that are bent on installing their brand of logic on whatever sits in front of them---and if anyone can possibly think that this ISn't so, I can only say to look at history. I hope we aren't destined to repeat some of it.

Interestingly enough is that conservative pundits came down on Clinton on Kosovo for many of the same reasons they are supporting Bush in Iraq.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 09:19:43 AM
NGC,

Why do you insist on comparing a military action that resulted in stopped criminal behavior without a single loss of American lives, to a military action that has taken a huge toll in human lives both of Iraqis and Americans? A military action in which peace is restored is preferable to a military action in which the violence escalates and the human toll becomes excessive as a result of the intervention.

Why do you persist in trying to persecute Bill Clinton for actions of which he has already been found not guilty? You seem to have a "hate" venue going on. Yet you persist in denouncing those you insist "hate" Bush when the point out his indiscretions and illegal actions.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 09:43:12 AM
Quote
It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem.
Let me be clear on this: they are not somewhat different cases, they are incredibly diffferent,  I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does.  It is not the removal of Hussein, it is everything else.  Had it taken the type of military effort to oust the Serbian butchers and protect Kosovars that it was going to take from the outset to subdue Iraq, I would have favored alternate means to that end - and we would never have done it.  Kosovo was a situation where we were able to affect change with minimal involvement and risk, using NATO in its sphere of operations, and not by launching a full scale invasion, occupation, and subjugation of a country.  Plus, although to the victims this is not a particularly relevant point, Iraq was not at that point a human rights crisis to the extent Kosovo was.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 09:49:28 AM
Could the difference be in the planning and stradegy of the two administrations?  One that looked at the reality of the situation, and another that lives in a fantasy world where their god will make it all right?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 10:15:26 AM
Well, I was looking at the situations themselves.  Obviously each administration approaches the problems in different ways - and at different times; the Clinton response to Kosovo might have been different if it had occurred right after Somalia, for instance.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 10:54:35 AM
Yep, I erred. I mexed up some info about the press in Somalia with stuff I have on klynton. It IS recognized.

Your statement that klynton never sent in any troops was equally 'a lie', was it not? You did say thanks for the correction, and I say the same. It was not my thought to intentionally enter incorrect info to the discussion.
Works for me.  Now... Kosovo?  In which if I recall correctly we managed to halt a humanitarian crisis in the form of a Christian genocide against Muslims and aid in bringing down a murderous regime without a single American life being lost in combat.  Your problem with this is...?

It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem. People are able to rationalize helping the 'Yugoslav on Yugoslav' horror, but not 'Iraqi on Iraqi' horror. How can that be? Seems to be a bit of a double standard there. Or IS it because klynton was a D pres and Bush IS an R pres where the difference IS made? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The people that were being murdered by saddam, imho, was also a humanitarian crisis (What IS the total---somewhere in the 300-400,000 range? It may never be known)---human life IS human life, regardless of the religious particulars of each side, right? The American lives that are being lost now, for the most part, are due to influences by terrorists that are bent on installing their brand of logic on whatever sits in front of them---and if anyone can possibly think that this ISn't so, I can only say to look at history. I hope we aren't destined to repeat some of it.

Interestingly enough is that conservative pundits came down on Clinton on Kosovo for many of the same reasons they are supporting Bush in Iraq.


This IS true. Yet what was going on Iraq was solidly more a threat to the US than Kosovo could ever have been considered to be.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 11:00:25 AM
Quote
It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem.
Let me be clear on this: they are not somewhat different cases, they are incredibly diffferent,  I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does.  It is not the removal of Hussein, it is everything else.  Had it taken the type of military effort to oust the Serbian butchers and protect Kosovars that it was going to take from the outset to subdue Iraq, I would have favored alternate means to that end - and we would never have done it.  Kosovo was a situation where we were able to affect change with minimal involvement and risk, using NATO in its sphere of operations, and not by launching a full scale invasion, occupation, and subjugation of a country.  Plus, although to the victims this is not a particularly relevant point, Iraq was not at that point a human rights crisis to the extent Kosovo was.

I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does. 

You don't know of any that do? Well, for starters, how about the ones that continue to say we never should have gone to Iraq based on a Bush lie? How about the ones that say Iraq was no threat? How about the ones that say we shouldn't have entered Iraq for OIL reasons? There are plenty that say we shouldn't have gone there for ANY reason. There are those that also say that saddam should be still in charge over there....and some of THESE are right here in this forum. Removal of saddam was one of the main reasons, aside from WMDs, for going there---yet there are plenty that sya 'nay' to that for one reason or another. True?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 11:32:08 AM
Quote
It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem.
Let me be clear on this: they are not somewhat different cases, they are incredibly diffferent,  I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does.  It is not the removal of Hussein, it is everything else.  Had it taken the type of military effort to oust the Serbian butchers and protect Kosovars that it was going to take from the outset to subdue Iraq, I would have favored alternate means to that end - and we would never have done it.  Kosovo was a situation where we were able to affect change with minimal involvement and risk, using NATO in its sphere of operations, and not by launching a full scale invasion, occupation, and subjugation of a country.  Plus, although to the victims this is not a particularly relevant point, Iraq was not at that point a human rights crisis to the extent Kosovo was.

I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does. 

You don't know of any that do? Well, for starters, how about the ones that continue to say we never should have gone to Iraq based on a Bush lie? How about the ones that say Iraq was no threat? How about the ones that say we shouldn't have entered Iraq for OIL reasons? There are plenty that say we shouldn't have gone there for ANY reason. There are those that also say that saddam should be still in charge over there....and some of THESE are right here in this forum. Removal of saddam was one of the main reasons, aside from WMDs, for going there---yet there are plenty that sya 'nay' to that for one reason or another. True?
What part of "in theory" did you miss?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 11:45:54 AM
Quote
It ISn't that I have so much of a problem with it, I was using more actually for comparison to Iraq---they are somewhat different cases, because Iraq IS moslem on moslem.
Let me be clear on this: they are not somewhat different cases, they are incredibly diffferent,  I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does.  It is not the removal of Hussein, it is everything else.  Had it taken the type of military effort to oust the Serbian butchers and protect Kosovars that it was going to take from the outset to subdue Iraq, I would have favored alternate means to that end - and we would never have done it.  Kosovo was a situation where we were able to affect change with minimal involvement and risk, using NATO in its sphere of operations, and not by launching a full scale invasion, occupation, and subjugation of a country.  Plus, although to the victims this is not a particularly relevant point, Iraq was not at that point a human rights crisis to the extent Kosovo was.

I have no problem in theory with the removal of Hussein.  I don't know of any who does. 

You don't know of any that do? Well, for starters, how about the ones that continue to say we never should have gone to Iraq based on a Bush lie? How about the ones that say Iraq was no threat? How about the ones that say we shouldn't have entered Iraq for OIL reasons? There are plenty that say we shouldn't have gone there for ANY reason. There are those that also say that saddam should be still in charge over there....and some of THESE are right here in this forum. Removal of saddam was one of the main reasons, aside from WMDs, for going there---yet there are plenty that sya 'nay' to that for one reason or another. True?
What part of "in theory" did you miss?

Well, it certainly appeared that you were sanctioning the removal of saddam.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 11:52:07 AM
By ANNE FLAHERTY
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other liberals who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the war's unpopularity among voters.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."


The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 41 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.


I guess the liberal moveon.org faction of the senate goes back to the drawing board. 41 votes short of advancement? I wonder if a bit of logic IS starting to set in with the majority of the Ds? Are they starting to realize that the liberals in their party are gonna drag them down? Did they not SEE the latest poll on congressional approval? Quite a slap in the face. However---the sooner we can get rid of bush AND liberals in DC, the better off we'll be (probably like trying to get bears to use toilets tho). We'll still end up with Ds and Rs, so we're gonna be losers no matter what.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 11:56:55 AM
I think Wisk's point is that in theory he'd love to depose every dictatorship that oppresses its people but in reality its just not feasible nor necessarily in the best interests of the country


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 12:02:17 PM
I think Wisk's point is that in theory he'd love to depose every dictatorship that oppresses its people but in reality its just not feasible nor necessarily in the best interests of the country

Well, it probably wouldn't be too awfully difficult (Very feasible, that IS) to get rid of castro. Just think of the numbers of cubans in south florida that just might want to return to an island paradise that won't try to tell them what to do, or what to think.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 12:09:43 PM
I don't think it will be much longer before Castro keels on his own


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 12:12:40 PM
I don't think it will be much longer before Castro keels on his own

Many will rejoice when that day comes.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:26:10 PM
I don't think it will be much longer before Castro keels on his own

Many will rejoice when that day comes.

Are you Cuban?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 12:42:25 PM
Your accusations go nowhere. There are legitimate explanations for most of your "abominations" so that by the time each and every one is examined, there will be no "abominations" left.


You are definitely a liberal klynton apologist. Whatta shame that you care not to do a bit of research into a genuine criminal. But, when a liberal's blinders get in the way, the double standards start to take over. I should have known.

The US Governement spent some 60 million prosecuting this "criminal" and all they found was he lied about an extra marital affair.  That is not particularly admirable behavior, but it isn't criminal.  So I guess you are wrong again, grasshopper.  Get a life.

BJ in the Oval wasn't discovery?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 12:47:44 PM
Quote
BJ in the Oval wasn't discovery?
What, did you run this back through Babelfish from the Korean or something?  What were you trying to say?  Getting a hummer in the Oval office from a woman not your wife is immoral and distasteful (uh...) but not illegal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 16, 2007, 12:49:01 PM
Quote
"Well, it probably wouldn't be too awfully difficult (Very feasible, that IS) to get rid of castro. Just think of the numbers of cubans in south florida that just might want to return to an island paradise that won't try to tell them what to do, or what to think"

Been there, done that, oh mighty cold warrior. I believe they called it The Bay of Pigs.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 01:13:54 PM
Quote
BJ in the Oval wasn't discovery?
What, did you run this back through Babelfish from the Korean or something?  What were you trying to say?  Getting a hummer in the Oval office from a woman not your wife is immoral and distasteful (uh...) but not illegal.

Attempts to discredit the witness QUITE succesful, yes.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 01:14:48 PM
Whatever happened to Monica?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 02:41:56 PM
Liberals will eternally continue to be apologists for the worst thing to ever happen to the credibility of the presidency, the White House, and the US Govt---and that "IS" sick-willie klynton.

They will never ask for a reckoning for all the foreign and communist monies to enter his coffers---

nor will they care about giving all the women that have complaints of varying degrees about him the time of day---

nor will they question the Loral and Hughes matter---

nor the Indian Casinos matter---

nor the low sulphur coal matter---

nor will they question the 900 FBI files that found their way into the White House (Possibly why neither bush nor the Rs will do anything)---

nor the mysterious appearance of the Rose Law Firm papers---

nor will they question the death of Jim McDougal---

nor the refusal of Web Hubbel to talk about ANYTHING.

There IS more, but why take the time? Liberals LOVE their abomination named klynton...and will defend and apologize for him thru thick or thin until the end of their days.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 02:43:35 PM
Of course, all of the money spent investigating many of those matters over eight years, all of the Congressional Hearings, all of the Independent Prosecutors, revealed... er... that he got a hummer in the White House and lied about it in a deposition.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 02:44:48 PM
From the "Oh, Well, That Settles It, Thanks!"  Department:

Quote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oil companies are not overcharging motorists for gasoline, an industry group told Congress on Wednesday.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 02:50:14 PM
From the "Oh, Well, That Settles It, Thanks!"  Department:

Quote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oil companies are not overcharging motorists for gasoline, an industry group told Congress on Wednesday.

I wonder what the suggestion I made about only non-renewable natural resources IS starting to sound like? Would the suggestion need just a tiny bit of 'refining' in some spots?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 02:52:04 PM
Of course, all of the money spent investigating many of those matters over eight years, all of the Congressional Hearings, all of the Independent Prosecutors, revealed... er... that he got a hummer in the White House and lied about it in a deposition.

I wonder if the same results would have been attained had Janet Reno NOT been in charge of the justice dept? We'll probably never know.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 03:14:40 PM
Uh - just how much do you know about the Independent Prosecutor law?  Because ever since Robert Bork whored himself and fired Archibald Cox, the Independent Prosecutors have operated independently of the Justice Department.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 03:23:46 PM
NGC,

What is your problem with Indian Casinos? Are you still trying to oppress the first and original Americans?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 03:30:00 PM
NGC,

What is your problem with Indian Casinos? Are you still trying to oppress the first and original Americans?

There was a proposed Indian Casino in, I think, Wisconsin that was turned down.  Some competing tribes with casinos in the area gave money to the Democrats.  I think this was one where there wasn't even an independent prosecutor appointed by Justice, though my memory may be off.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 03:36:03 PM
I'm fairly sure Indian casinos have been giving handouts to Republican pockets pretty heavily. I believe Abramoff was in the center of many of such payoffs.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 03:42:52 PM
the worst thing to ever happen to the credibility of the presidency, the White House, and the US Govt---and that "IS" sick-willie klynton.

No, that IS Tricky Dicky Nixon, and his pal Spiro Agnew.

You may not remember them since you were busy becoming a Viet Nam Era Vet at the time, and probably, like Dick Cheney--"had other priorities".


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 03:46:03 PM
I'm fairly sure Indian casinos have been giving handouts to Republican pockets pretty heavily. I believe Abramoff was in the center of many of such payoffs.

You are indeed correct.  The religious right's own was also involved in this little scandal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 03:49:19 PM
I'm fairly sure Indian casinos have been giving handouts to Republican pockets pretty heavily. I believe Abramoff was in the center of many of such payoffs.

You are indeed correct.  The religious right's own was also involved in this little scandal.
Well, no, that was a different scandal.  But there was never anything showing a quid pro quo, and there were no charges ever brought.  However, since I think this one never got out of the DOJ, feel sure that comrade ngc will argue there was a cover up.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
Quote
I wonder what the suggestion I made about only non-renewable natural resources IS starting to sound like?
Marxism, pure and simple, comrade.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 03:56:33 PM
the worst thing to ever happen to the credibility of the presidency, the White House, and the US Govt---and that "IS" sick-willie klynton.

No, that IS Tricky Dicky Nixon, and his pal Spiro Agnew.

You may not remember them since you were busy becoming a Viet Nam Era Vet at the time, and probably, like Dick Cheney--"had other priorities".

Thanks for the reminder...

and don't forget uncle John Mitchell.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 04:17:23 PM
And don't forget George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Alberto Torture Gonzales, and Rumsfield.  The worst in history.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 07:24:21 PM
So what's the big deal about Indians lobbying Congress to support their casinos? What is new about a business lobbying to keep the competititon from rising up in their neighborhood? Why is that an "abomination" levied against Clinton, when Bush has done as much.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 07:45:32 PM
I'm fairly sure Indian casinos have been giving handouts to Republican pockets pretty heavily. I believe Abramoff was in the center of many of such payoffs.

You are indeed correct.  The religious right's own was also involved in this little scandal.
Well, no, that was a different scandal.  But there was never anything showing a quid pro quo, and there were no charges ever brought.  However, since I think this one never got out of the DOJ, feel sure that comrade ngc will argue there was a cover up.

I was referring to Ralph Reed who was involved with Abramoff and the Indian casino scandals.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 07:48:15 PM
And don't forget George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Alberto Torture Gonzales, and Rumsfield.  The worst in history.

I don't think any of them were with Nixon, were they?

Maybe Rumsfeld. And George H. W. Bush, was...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 07:53:38 PM
And don't forget George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Alberto Torture Gonzales, and Rumsfield.  The worst in history.

I don't think any of them were with Nixon, were they?

Maybe Rumsfeld. And George H. W. Bush, was...

Cheney and Rummy, and George HW were around with Nixon.  Gonzales was in diappers.  Nobodyknew where George W. was, though he was supposed to be in Alabama.  And who knows where Condi was.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 09:09:47 PM
And don't forget George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Alberto Torture Gonzales, and Rumsfield.  The worst in history.

I don't think any of them were with Nixon, were they?

Maybe Rumsfeld. And George H. W. Bush, was...

Cheney and Rummy, and George HW were around with Nixon.  Gonzales was in diappers.  Nobodyknew where George W. was, though he was supposed to be in Alabama.  And who knows where Condi was.

Well, my overall point is that what Johnson began as far as eroding credible White HOuses go, NIXON took to a level that remains the low-water mark in American Presidential Politics.

I'm still pissed that he wasn't buried in Upper Saddle River, NJ, so I could periodically go up there and piss on his grave.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 05:36:16 AM
And don't forget George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condie Rice, Alberto Torture Gonzales, and Rumsfield.  The worst in history.

I don't think any of them were with Nixon, were they?

Maybe Rumsfeld. And George H. W. Bush, was...

Cheney and Rummy, and George HW were around with Nixon.  Gonzales was in diappers.  Nobodyknew where George W. was, though he was supposed to be in Alabama.  And who knows where Condi was.

Well, my overall point is that what Johnson began as far as eroding credible White HOuses go, NIXON took to a level that remains the low-water mark in American Presidential Politics.

I'm still pissed that he wasn't buried in Upper Saddle River, NJ, so I could periodically go up there and piss on his grave.

I can understand that feeling.  I'd do the same to Jerry Falwell if I lived closer to where ever that bastard will be buried.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 06:00:05 AM
Quote
I was referring to Ralph Reed who was involved with Abramoff and the Indian casino scandals.
I understood that.  I was pointing out that the Abramoff scandal was an entirely different scandal, albeit also involving Indian Casinos.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 06:16:46 AM
There are eight Native American tribes still in existence in Virginia. Historically only two have been recognized. The other six have petitioned for recognition, but they are being held to a promise that they will not open casinos. The existing two do not have casinos, so I'm not sure why the Virginia Legislature considers it a concern. Never underestimate the power of American lawmakers to make a treaty with the Indians that limits their rights!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 06:49:02 AM
Quote
I can understand that feeling.  I'd do the same to Jerry Falwell if I lived closer to where ever that bastard will be buried.
No man is an island, entire of himself.  Every man is part of the continent, a piece of the main.  If clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, just as if a promintory were, or the manor of thy friend's or thine own.  Every man's death diminishes me in that I am involved in mankind.  And therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls.  It tolls for thee.

That's Donne.

("Well I certainly hope so." - Sam Malone)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 02:26:31 PM
How big a severence package should Paul Wolfowitz be getting as he resigns his post as president of the world bank?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 03:23:17 PM
Fig z smakem.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:28:55 PM
Gonzales in deeper doo-doo:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p03s03-uspo.html


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
Gonzales in deeper doo-doo:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p03s03-uspo.html
And this is an article from people who are not only Christians, but scientists!
 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:53:42 PM
Gonzales in deeper doo-doo:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p03s03-uspo.html
And this is an article from people who are not only Christians, but scientists!
 

I was trying for a moderate approach.  ;)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:15:30 PM
Gonzales should be tarred and feathered.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 08:11:52 PM
According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released on April 26, 2007, some 78% of Americans believe their country to be headed in the wrong direction. Only 22% think the Bush administration's policies make sense, the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when George H. W. Bush was running for a second term -- and lost. What people don't agree on are the reasons for their doubts and, above all, what the remedy -- or remedies -- ought to be.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 08:47:05 PM
   

Bush met with Dobson and conservative Christian leaders to rally support for Iran policy
Max Blumenthal
Published: Monday May 14, 2007    
   


President George W. Bush met privately with Focus on the Family Founder and Chairman James Dobson and approximately a dozen Christian right leaders last week to rally support for his policies on Iraq, Iran and the so-called "war on terror."

“I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family movement," Dobson disclosed on his radio program Monday. “And the topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. And we were together for 90 minutes and it was very enlightening and in some ways disturbing too."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 18, 2007, 10:40:40 AM
Quote
"How big a severance package should Paul Wolfowitz be getting as he resigns his post as president of the world bank?"

Well, they've always told me that it's not the size of the package that counts, so in Woolfie's case let's go with a small one.....better yet a teenie, tiny one.....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 04:40:34 PM
Quote
"How big a severance package should Paul Wolfowitz be getting as he resigns his post as president of the world bank?"

Well, they've always told me that it's not the size of the package that counts, so in Woolfie's case let's go with a small one.....better yet a teenie, tiny one.....

This sounds like it should be on the gay forum.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 19, 2007, 04:41:34 AM
Here's a cheering thought...well, somewhat, anyway...only 600something days to go until Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051807T.shtml


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:28:29 AM
Here's a cheering thought...well, somewhat, anyway...only 600something days to go until Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051807T.shtml

I sure hope we can survive these 600 days.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 02:02:41 PM
Here's a cheering thought...well, somewhat, anyway...only 600something days to go until Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051807T.shtml

I sure hope we can survive these 600 days.

612, to be exact.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 05:14:17 PM
According to Native American wisdom, if you find you are riding a dead horse, the best thing to do is to dismount.

Let's look at a list of the things politicians do when they find they are riding a dead horse. The policians' advanced strategies include:

Buying a stronger whip.
Changing riders.
Appointing a committee to study the horse.
Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
"Lowering the standards" so that dead horses can be included.
Reclassifying the dead horse as "living-impaired".
Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.
Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

And of course everyone's favourite... . ..... Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position**

Let's just dismount the dead horse called the Iraq War, and walk to peace.





Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 05:23:02 PM
Here's a cheering thought...well, somewhat, anyway...only 600something days to go until Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051807T.shtml

I sure hope we can survive these 600 days.

612, to be exact.

 

A great day.  The nation will be celebrating like a 4th of July


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on May 19, 2007, 06:54:26 PM
Kudos, weezo, for the dead horse piece - right on the money, kiddo.  However, one point you failed to raise - how about denying there is any such thing as a dead horse, and that those who perceive same are traitorous bastards who love Bin Laden and hate America?  Your list is impressive but far too cerebral to cover Barney's Dad and his ongoing cruise up de Nial.

Somehow the picture of Al Gonzalez racing thru Washington to the ICU to push a pen in the hand of his boss...it's totally foul, massively weird, and beyond all definitions of evil.  The fact that the Resident is still backing this moral dwarf is all we'd ever need to learn about why impeachment--in every direction possible--should be on everyone's table.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 06:58:13 PM
I know, I know, but it was a funny that came in my email and I thought it well described what is going on in Washington. Of course, the dead horse is a live terrorists waiting for us to bury it to rise again and trash us, doncha know!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 19, 2007, 10:22:43 PM
Here's a cheering thought...well, somewhat, anyway...only 600something days to go until Jan. 20, 2009.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051807T.shtml

I sure hope we can survive these 600 days.

Are you ill?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 20, 2007, 03:33:45 AM
kidc,

Are you ill?

No, but the country is sick - sick of the Son-of-a-Bush and his cabal.

601!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 08:00:40 AM
611 days left.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:23:36 AM
611 days left.

Oh happy day.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 20, 2007, 10:51:27 PM
kidc,

Are you ill?

No, but the country is sick - sick of the Son-of-a-Bush and his cabal.

601!

I wasn't addressing you, assface.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 04:22:53 AM
kidc,

I wasn't addressing you, assface.

Just for the record, J.O., this is not 4th grade.  I do not have to raise my hand and wait for you to call on me before I comment.

Perhaps you need to review what a public forum really is before you attempt to make YOUR rules IT'S rules.

Be that as it may, this is a sick country, sick to death of the Son-of-a-Bush and his cabal.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 06:41:46 AM
Garrick,

And you learn what a "uniter" and a "divider" are, and how to tell the difference, even when the "divider" is telling you that he is a "uniter" .

Just for the record, I take pride in the fact that I am a divider.
  I take pride in the fact that I want to divide decent Americans form those who continue, in the face of reality, a failed ME policy.
I take pride in dividing decent Americans from those in the current Administration which, for the past 8 years have practiced Robin Hood in reverse.
I take pride in declaring that I am a divider in favor of a massive redistribution of wealth downward through a genuinely progressive income tax.
I take pride in being a divider who favors universal, single-payer health care, thus dividing decent Americans from those who bellow "Socialized Medicine".  Bring it on!
I take pride in being a divider who seeks to divide my country from its (SEE!) current corrupt leadership.
In fact, I can think of no higher calling for an American than to be a divider.
As such, I stand in the tradition of Washington who divided the United States from Britain and Lincoln who divided the country from slavery.

Bottom line, Garrick, thanks for the compliment.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 06:53:49 AM
In fourth grade, you learn that IT'S means IT IS. You also learn that IT'S is the possessive form of IT.

Actually, Utley ITS, without the apostrophe, is the possessive form of it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 07:18:53 AM
In fourth grade, you learn that IT'S means IT IS. You also learn that IT'S is the possessive form of IT.

Actually, Utley ITS, without the apostrophe, is the possessive form of it.


LMAO.  Always fun to see a fool make a fool of himself.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on May 21, 2007, 10:33:59 AM
Nice to encounter Madupont over in Meander...hope she jumps into this topic also!  As to the its/it's thingie, let's [let us] not forget the other pairs that SpelChek fails to identify:  flare-flair, flout-flaunt.  I read most print publications with a red pencil near at hand...and Some Little People's [possessive] productions look like they've been chigger-bit.

Liked the divider piece above, BTW...and down at the feed & seed or at the diner, we're basically more united as citizens than we have been for a longggggg time.  Even the staunchest Red State Philosophes are beginning to bail.  How many more ways of saying "lying bastids" can there be? 

The best that Bush's spokespuppet could come up with in regard to Jimmah's comments was "irrelevant".  Wow, talk about pleading guilty to a soft impeachment!  Notice, please, spokescreep did not say "wrong", "inaccurate", "untruthful"...just 'irrelevant', like we'll think about it in the morning.  The efforts made to pooh-pooh Jimmah into oblivion have been going on for a long time.  As more and more old-line GOPsters back away from the Fine Mess, we may see a few more divided uniters at the podium.  As the people speak, thru internet, phone-calls and snail-mail--the pols may develop enuf enlightened self-interest to overcome the Ni Jerque tribal effusions and save their own bacon at the polls.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 10:44:27 AM
Garrick,

And you learn what a "uniter" and a "divider" are, and how to tell the difference, even when the "divider" is telling you that he is a "uniter" .

Just for the record, I take pride in the fact that I am a divider.
  I take pride in the fact that I want to divide decent Americans form those who continue, in the face of reality, a failed ME policy.
I take pride in dividing decent Americans from those in the current Administration which, for the past 8 years have practiced Robin Hood in reverse.
I take pride in declaring that I am a divider in favor of a massive redistribution of wealth downward through a genuinely progressive income tax.
I take pride in being a divider who favors universal, single-payer health care, thus dividing decent Americans from those who bellow "Socialized Medicine".  Bring it on!
I take pride in being a divider who seeks to divide my country from its (SEE!) current corrupt leadership.
In fact, I can think of no higher calling for an American than to be a divider.
As such, I stand in the tradition of Washington who divided the United States from Britain and Lincoln who divided the country from slavery.

Bottom line, Garrick, thanks for the compliment.

If you weren''t such a fucking ego-maniac, you would have seen I wasn't talking about YOU, but, your hated Bush. Capon.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 12:12:10 PM
Garrick,

If you weren''t such a fucking ego-maniac, you would have seen I wasn't talking about YOU, but, your hated Bush. Capon.

You seem to have divided yourself from your thought processes

Take your meds; they'll work wonders!

They might even cure your adhomism.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 12:18:07 PM
Garrick,

If you weren''t such a fucking ego-maniac, you would have seen I wasn't talking about YOU, but, your hated Bush. Capon.

You seem to have divided yourself from your thought processes

Take your meds; they'll work wonders!

They might even cure your adhomism.

And with each of your posts it becomes clearer that you have no thought process. Unless you count negative attention seeking as a process.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:22:18 PM
Oh, dear, sounds like Utley's drunk again.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 21, 2007, 02:57:44 PM
Time to change the subject to something light and and amusing!!!

The Nation -- How touchy is the Bush administration about criticism?

Very touchy, indeed, especially if the source of that criticism is a certain former president.

When Jimmy Carter, whose approval ratings dwarf those of George Bush these days, gets to talking about what's wrong with the current president the White House spin machine goes into overdrive.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070520/cm_thenation/1197253

Have an OH SO nice day!!!



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 10:28:55 PM
Thanks for changing the subject.

But you don't want to go there.  Bush people correctly smacked Carter down.  Dude's done a lot for this world since becoming President.  But this was not one of Jimmy's finer moments.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on May 21, 2007, 10:48:09 PM
Yo, srnich...the quote you gave above comes from a John Nichols piece - and here's another chunk from it:

"It seems that, if Carter really was as “irrelevant” as the Bush White House would have us believe, the president’s aides would not be attacking the former president in such immediate and aggressive terms.

The truth is that Carter is relevant, perhaps more so now than ever. Even as Bush’s fortunes decline, the need of dissenting voices is great. And Carter’s dissents go to the very heart of the darkness that this administration has brought down upon the United States. For a body politic sorely in need of the tonic of truth, Jimmy Carter’s comments are not just relevant, they are an essential to the renewal of a country and a planet badly battered by the madness of a 21st-century King George."


It is also pointed out by Nichols that the hasty response came from Crawford, TX...as in, it couldn't wait to be put forward until Mister Vacationing Dude got back to DC.  Gee, maybe Carter's interview with the Dem-Gazette in gawdelpus Little Rock might rise to the urgency of the Terry Schiavo case?  That one brought Dubya ka-boingggg back to the WH in a Miami minute, right...Jimmah, we hardly knew ye!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 10:56:25 PM
Prairie,

Jimmy was tossed aside when the republicans convinced us the national debt was too high, but the only president since who has lowered it was Bill Clinton. Do tell!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 07:19:47 AM
Carter will rank far above Bush 2 in the annals of history, that's for damn sure.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 08:48:26 AM
Quote
Carter will rank far above Bush 2 in the annals of history, that's for damn sure.

Is there a President who won't?
The Iran hostage affair was something that permanently scarred Jimmy Carters legacy, and is something that he will have to take responsibility for, but I always felt that time would be more generous to him as the years go by.
For one, I would have to say that he is miles closer to being a 'real' Christian than this pack around Bush will ever be. And secondly I think that at heart he truly is a pretty decent human being, whereas George Bush is, let's just say, challenged' in that area.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 09:01:03 AM
Couldn't you make an argument that it was the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary that laid the groundwork for our current situation in Iraq?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 09:22:55 AM
Quote
Couldn't you make an argument that it was the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary that laid the groundwork for our current situation in Iraq?

Possibly, but only tangentially I should think. Iran was so long ago now. I would think it would depend on how much you think that the neocons from PNAC who engineered the Iraq war were influenced by the hostage situation and quite possibly the Iran-Contra affair.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:31:26 AM
If I remember correctly, it was the evil Shah of Iran who was overthrown that led to the return of the Ayatollah Homanei.  His return then led to the Islamic Revolution and a student demonstration that captured the US Embassey.  IOW, it was the US policy of support for a dictator that led to the debacle with hostages.  Carter cannot be held responsible for the failures of earlier administrations and their support for evil dictators.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:32:00 AM
Who would have guessed that a Big Oil team in the White House would occur at the same time as record profits and record prices at the pump?

    Gasoline prices have soared to levels never seen before as even the inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of unleaded topped the 1981 record spike in price that had stood for 26 years.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 22, 2007, 09:39:57 AM
...and demand is at an all-time high as well. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:45:58 AM
...and demand is at an all-time high as well. 

And production is at a low due to refinery issues that so convenient happen at the same time. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 22, 2007, 09:49:39 AM
All the more reason to lessen demand.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 09:57:09 AM
Quote
Carter will rank far above Bush 2 in the annals of history, that's for damn sure.

Is there a President who won't?
The Iran hostage affair was something that permanently scarred Jimmy Carters legacy, and is something that he will have to take responsibility for, but I always felt that time would be more generous to him as the years go by.
For one, I would have to say that he is miles closer to being a 'real' Christian than this pack around Bush will ever be. And secondly I think that at heart he truly is a pretty decent human being, whereas George Bush is, let's just say, challenged' in that area.

Carter a better Christian than G-dub?

Gotta admit folks look like wonderful Christians whenever they say a soldier dying bothers them.

But there is a bigger picture.  There's reality.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 09:57:56 AM
There are still too many questions, too many of the same players...

The diciest part of the October Surprise saga remains the allegations of secret Paris meetings between Republicans and Iranians in fall 1980. According to some of those alleging that the GOP sabotaged President Carter's pre-election hostage negotiations, the Paris meetings followed earlier contacts between William Casey and Iranians in Madrid; in effect, the Paris talks cemented the deal.

But what has made the Paris allegations so controversial is the claim by some that George Bush, the Republican vice presidential candidate and former CIA director, slipped away on the weekend of Oct. 18-19, 1980, and flew to Paris to assure the Iranians of high-level authorization.

The most adamant witness who has claimed to see Bush in Paris is former Israeli intelligence official Ari Ben-Menashe. An Iraqi Jew born in Iran, Ben-Menashe speaks fluent Farsi and served as an Israeli military intelligence operative for at least 10 years, from 1977-87. In sworn testimony before Congress in 1991-92, Ben-Menashe declared that he saw Bush and Casey at a downtown Paris hotel as they headed into a meeting with radical Iranian cleric Mehdi Karrubi.


http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/denied/octsurprise.htm

And why is Iraq and Iran always involved......?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:06:46 AM
Even with greater refinement capacity -- infrastructure that takes years to build -- the demand for oil by India and China is going to grow exponentially.  More refineries might buy some lower fuel bills in the short-term but in the long run, its demand that is at the heart of the issue.

Since WWII, the United States has had a policy tying the stability of the Middle East to our own energy interests. 

Lessening the demand kills two birds with one stone -- it lessens our dependency on a highly volatile region of the world and makes us less vulnerable to inevitable supply shortages.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 10:17:14 AM
Quote
Carter a better Christian than G-dub?

Without a doubt, if you believe that living by the tenets of Jesus and using them as a basis for your own life are what constitute a real Christian. If you believe that talking a good game full of sticky slogans (compassionate conservative) will pass as Christian then of course the Bushman is right up there with the best.

Quote
Gotta admit folks look like wonderful Christians whenever they say a soldier dying bothers them.

George can't even do that with any conviction. Does that make him less of a Christian? Not necessarily. But if concern for the humblest among us and things like that are still considered to be Christian fundamentals then George isn't even playing in the same league as Carter.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:19:08 AM
Maybe its the Jew in me but I think debating who is more Christian - Bush or Carter - a tad unChristian.....


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 22, 2007, 10:21:25 AM
New article from Truthout: in case of emergency, Bush plans to take over the entire government  (as if he isn't trying to do that anyway).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052107T.shtml


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 22, 2007, 10:22:30 AM
Carter's was a failed presidency and while he's done some nice work afterwards, he frequently comes off as a self-righteous fool, not to mention an anti-Semite.  I'm rooting for injuries, on both sides, in his battle with the current administration


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:28:45 AM
While I think Carter was unfairly blamed by Reagan on at least one occasion, I agree that Carter's presidency was lackluster at best.  And while he's done some amazing things since, he really should have stayed the ex-president line.  Whether Bush is the worst President ever or not, that's something for history to decide not Carter. It serves no positive purpose to make such a statement. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 10:33:29 AM
Quote
Carter a better Christian than G-dub?

Without a doubt, if you believe that living by the tenets of Jesus and using them as a basis for your own life are what constitute a real Christian. If you believe that talking a good game full of sticky slogans (compassionate conservative) will pass as Christian then of course the Bushman is right up there with the best.

Quote
Gotta admit folks look like wonderful Christians whenever they say a soldier dying bothers them.

George can't even do that with any conviction. Does that make him less of a Christian? Not necessarily. But if concern for the humblest among us and things like that are still considered to be Christian fundamentals then George isn't even playing in the same league as Carter.

"GEORGE CAN'T EVEN DO THAT WITH ANY CONVICTION"

Stop peeing on the board. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 10:37:46 AM
New article from Truthout: in case of emergency, Bush plans to take over the entire government  (as if he isn't trying to do that anyway).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052107T.shtml

More of the imperial government of King George.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 10:47:20 AM
Quote
Stop peeing on the board.

So I guess this means that you are out of anything valid to say? Well, thanks for your brief foray into relevance.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:11:59 PM
Maybe its the Jew in me but I think debating who is more Christian - Bush or Carter - a tad unChristian.....

Well, that is the basis of most Christian movements---disagreement with the other sects--each claiming to know what Jesus's teachings are and what they mean.

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 12:16:08 PM
Maybe its the Jew in me but I think debating who is more Christian - Bush or Carter - a tad unChristian.....

Well, that is the basis of most Christian movements---disagreement with the other sects--each claiming to know what Jesus's teachings are and what they mean.

 

You have to laugh at times at how many sects seem to know the TRUE mind of God.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:08:32 PM
Carter and the election of '76 illustrates how desperate the country was to get away from republican executives.

Anyone but another repub.

Kinda like 2008.

And we can probably look forward to another "malaise" in '09 and '10 before the country can get back on track.




Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 07:34:51 PM
Carter and the election of '76 illustrates how desperate the country was to get away from republican executives.

Anyone but another repub.

Kinda like 2008.

And we can probably look forward to another "malaise" in '09 and '10 before the country can get back on track.




Yeah - if Dems win the White House, it could be a slow start, with NOT ending the war and all........

TALK to get elected.  Worry about the rest later.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:28:02 PM
If a repuke got elected in '08, we'd have perpetual war for however long he is in power.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 09:23:37 AM
 Death toll in Iraq keeps escalating: Nine U.S. soldiers killed in past two days
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/23/2007 08:04:00 AM ET


Bush just keeps sending more U.S. soldiers to die. Apparently, Congress can't find the will to stop his disastrous war:

    The U.S. military said nine soldiers and Marines were killed in five separate roadside bomb and shooting attacks across Iraq on Monday and Tuesday.

    Eighty soldiers have now been killed since the beginning of the month and 3,431 since the U.S. invasion.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:04:37 PM
Quote
Carter will rank far above Bush 2 in the annals of history, that's for damn sure.

Is there a President who won't?
The Iran hostage affair was something that permanently scarred Jimmy Carters legacy, and is something that he will have to take responsibility for, but I always felt that time would be more generous to him as the years go by.
For one, I would have to say that he is miles closer to being a 'real' Christian than this pack around Bush will ever be. And secondly I think that at heart he truly is a pretty decent human being, whereas George Bush is, let's just say, challenged' in that area.

It was the head of the CIA under Reagan who screwed up Iran hostage affair, and purposively in order to help get Reagan elected...he met with Iranian officials and negotiated their release for after Reagan was to be sworn in. We'll never know all of this since he conveniently died in 1987 and took a lot of the answers to the grave with him...including everything related to the IRan-Contra hearings that he instructed his staff to lie to Congress about.

Sure enough the hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn in.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 23, 2007, 12:10:54 PM
It was the head of the CIA under Carter who screwed up Iran hostage affair, and some say purposively in order to help get Reagan elected...We'll never know since he conveniently died and took a lot of the answers to the grave with him...

No.  The Director of the CIA under Carter was Stansfield Turner, who's still alive.  He was a career military man, and was and probably still remains a man of great integrity. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:16:59 PM
It was the head of the CIA under Carter who screwed up Iran hostage affair, and some say purposively in order to help get Reagan elected...We'll never know since he conveniently died and took a lot of the answers to the grave with him...

No.  The Director of the CIA under Carter was Stansfield Turner, who's still alive.  He was a career military man, and was and probably still remains a man of great integrity. 

With further research, I amended my own recall. as the previous post now reads...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 23, 2007, 12:19:21 PM
Aaaah.  That was William Casey who knew where every body was buried.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 01:04:26 PM
Aaaah.  That was William Casey who knew where every body was buried.

Casey had all the integrity of Louis Renault, right, yank?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on May 23, 2007, 01:15:51 PM
Much less.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 01:50:44 PM
Wasn't Casey a buddy of Cheney's?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 03:15:57 PM
Much less.
;D


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 03:17:31 PM
Wasn't Casey a buddy of Cheney's?

A buddy of George H.W.Bush from the NIxon CIA days, I believe.

See how all of the really true evil in the White House traces its way back to Nixon?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 23, 2007, 05:39:50 PM
Poor, pathetic George at the USCG Academy graduation today.

His speech was pure pathos.

I guess the head of the school never told him what happens when you whizz off the windward rail of the ship.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 07:07:28 PM
And do tell, what happens?  It flies back in your face?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 23, 2007, 09:10:57 PM
We have had it drilled in our heads the the Repubs are opposed to same sex marriage and families with two of the same gender parents. The Dems are EVIL because they would allow such things. Yet, today, was I hearing things? Cheney's daughter who lives in a same sex relationship, gave her father a grandchild????? Let's say it together: "Do as I say, not as I do."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 06:38:55 AM
Speaking of the American royal family, I haven't seen much lately about the charming Bush twins.  They must be keeping their noses clean. ;D


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 10:12:18 AM
"Security's so bad for the Bush twins, the U.S. Embassy has asked them to leave Argentina, and they said no. Like father, like daughter, they have no exit strategy." --Jay Leno

(Rim shot) :D

"First Daughter Barbara Bush had her purse stolen. Somebody snatches her purse. What was in that purse, her father's plan for Iraq. Now we have to start all over again. A lot of people wondering if President Bush will be mad at his daughter for losing her purse. Hey, he lost the House and Senate." --Jay Leno

(Rim shot) ;D


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 11:27:57 AM
We have had it drilled in our heads the the Repubs are opposed to same sex marriage and families with two of the same gender parents. The Dems are EVIL because they would allow such things. Yet, today, was I hearing things? Cheney's daughter who lives in a same sex relationship, gave her father a grandchild????? Let's say it together: "Do as I say, not as I do."

I don't think Dick's daughter is a conservative.  Correct me if I am wrong.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on May 24, 2007, 11:30:53 AM
She was the chief campaign manager for him during the election


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 11:32:05 AM
We have had it drilled in our heads the the Repubs are opposed to same sex marriage and families with two of the same gender parents. The Dems are EVIL because they would allow such things. Yet, today, was I hearing things? Cheney's daughter who lives in a same sex relationship, gave her father a grandchild????? Let's say it together: "Do as I say, not as I do."

I don't think Dick's daughter is a conservative.  Correct me if I am wrong.
She's worked for his campaigns, and was his liaison with the Gay community during the 2004 campaign - making his mock outrage over Edwards mentioning her in the debats positively sickening.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:32:31 AM
 ???I think it's weird that those who proclaim liberal status would be upset with Cheney or his daughter.

He hasn't rejected his daughter. He hasn't rejected his "grandchild".

And if you support such neo-family structures, why would you take glee in making fun of Cheney.

Personally, I don't like the guy, but I can't see why you want to attack his relationship with his daughter, especially, if he is living the way you say everyone should.


I mean he's not the one who did the "basting", is he?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 12:41:35 PM
Quote
He hasn't rejected his daughter. He hasn't rejected his "grandchild".

Yes, and judging from his reaction to the 'happy event' he's right on the verge of renouncing his belief in the positions stated by his own political party opposing every other gay persons' desires to have the same type of home situation for themselves. Or maybe not. Apparently, father and daughter both are quite elastic in their comprehension of the term 'hypocrite'.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 12:48:24 PM
Quote
???I think it's weird that those who proclaim liberal status would be upset with Cheney or his daughter.
I don't think that's the point of anyone's comment, Chase.   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 12:49:22 PM
She was the chief campaign manager for him during the election

Was she?  I know she was a personal aide in 2000.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 12:56:58 PM
Bush campaign was the first on the Republican side to have an openly gay speaker at the convention.

This on top of Chaney hiring his daughter.

Dems' position that Repubs do not recognize the group is off base.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 02:14:59 PM
Quote
Bush campaign was the first on the Republican side to have an openly gay speaker at the convention.

This on top of Chaney hiring his daughter.

Dems' position that Repubs do not recognize the group is off base

Yeh, right.....!!!! The Republican Party--Home of the Openly Gay Homosexual. Right past laughable and rocketing towards delusional, Kiddo.  ::)


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 02:16:50 PM
You shouldnt make it sound like they belong in zoos

Really, pal.  Sheesh.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 02:38:41 PM
Quote
You shouldnt make it sound like they belong in zoos

Really, pal.  Sheesh

I don't see how you reached that kind of a conclusion.....but....whatever.....
You can characterize it in any way that you see fit. You really DON"T need to have any connection to reality to post your opinions, but you are probably going to need to be a little quicker on the uptake to make sense of what other people are trying to say. But you keep working at it. It could happen......


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 02:46:39 PM
Quote
He hasn't rejected his daughter. He hasn't rejected his "grandchild".

Yes, and judging from his reaction to the 'happy event' he's right on the verge of renouncing his belief in the positions stated by his own political party opposing every other gay persons' desires to have the same type of home situation for themselves. Or maybe not. Apparently, father and daughter both are quite elastic in their comprehension of the term 'hypocrite'.

Well, let me ask you something. Do you believe or act out the beliefs of all the tenets of the party with whom you align yourself? Do you think others should have to do the same?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 02:48:23 PM
The Republican Party--Home of the Openly Gay Homosexual.

Well...there's Karl Rove, for starters.

Bottom line--you seem to have as many hang-ups as the people you wish to taunt for having hang-ups.

Talk about slow on the uptake! :o


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:59:04 PM
Hey get it right, its spelled Chainy!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 02:59:30 PM
I thought Karl Rove was a happily married rightwing christer.  No?  Of course, nobody really knows what Jeff Gannon was doing after hours in the White House; but we call know his second job was "Male Escort."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 03:09:02 PM
Quote
Well, let me ask you something. Do you believe or act out the beliefs of all the tenets of the party with whom you align yourself? Do you think others should have to do the same?

Well, who are we talking about here, you or me? Gaging by what you say, you seem to have no sense of ethics at all. You seem to think that it is perfectly OK that Mary Cheney is allowed to engage in behavior that her father has no compunction about condemning when it comes to the rest of the American population. What part of hypocrite are you having a problem with?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 03:22:36 PM
Quote
Well...there's Karl Rove, for starters

I see. Any proof of the above, or is gossip a part and parcel of the way you operate? If you want to defend that foolishness from kidcarter be my guest, but you already know that homophobia is practically a plank in the Republican Party platform, and that is so clear to see that I can't even believe that you would argue that it was not true.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 03:40:33 PM
Quote
You shouldnt make it sound like they belong in zoos

Really, pal.  Sheesh

I don't see how you reached that kind of a conclusion.....but....whatever.....
You can characterize it in any way that you see fit. You really DON"T need to have any connection to reality to post your opinions, but you are probably going to need to be a little quicker on the uptake to make sense of what other people are trying to say. But you keep working at it. It could happen......

I see you conveniently left out the quote I was responding to

A little self-reflection might be needed - just a recommendation.  Noone here knows you from a bag of shells.  So your words define you.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 03:47:50 PM
Quote
He hasn't rejected his daughter. He hasn't rejected his "grandchild".

Yes, and judging from his reaction to the 'happy event' he's right on the verge of renouncing his belief in the positions stated by his own political party opposing every other gay persons' desires to have the same type of home situation for themselves. Or maybe not. Apparently, father and daughter both are quite elastic in their comprehension of the term 'hypocrite'.

IDIOT -

Quite a few republicans say leave civil unions up to the states.  And even in states where it is denied, a gay woman could bear/adopt a child and live with his/her partner, raising said child.

A civil gay union or cohabitation prevents the parents from raising children (having the "same type of home situation) how, exactly?  The stamp of marriage effects this child how?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 04:01:44 PM
Quote
Quite a few republicans say leave civil unions up to the states. 


Why, of course they do. It's a real priority with them. And it's legal in how many states? And President Bush says.....what? about it? (oh well, let's not go there) And Vice-President Cheney says...what?....about it. (Whoops, let's not go there, either). Wouldn't want to lose all those fundamentalist votes from the 'base' now would we?
Care to argue some other fantasy, kid?
Please try to get in touch with the real world.....soon.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 04:07:59 PM
 Dude -as yoiu were just reminded - they're NOT running.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 04:40:11 PM
Quote
Well, let me ask you something. Do you believe or act out the beliefs of all the tenets of the party with whom you align yourself? Do you think others should have to do the same?

Well, who are we talking about here, you or me? Gaging by what you say, you seem to have no sense of ethics at all. You seem to think that it is perfectly OK that Mary Cheney is allowed to engage in behavior that her father has no compunction about condemning when it comes to the rest of the American population. What part of hypocrite are you having a problem with?

Maybe you should rename yourself, "Drive-by", since you like to make comments without backing them up.

I guess you don't either want to answer a direct question, or you believe you shouldn't have to do so.

Stop telling others what they think, when it's plain that you don't know what it is that you think yourself. 

Plain and simple, Cheney's being a politician...that's all he's being. The rest that you assign to him comes from your loathing for his politics, and your own shortcomings.

All you're doing is engaging in tribalism.

Very short-sighted of you, intellectually speaking.



   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 04:54:00 PM
Poll Shows Opposition to Iraq War at All Time High
By DALIA SUSSMAN 1:49 PM ET

Six in 10 Americans say the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq and more than three in four say things are going badly there.

From the NY Times.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 06:43:53 PM
Quote
Plain and simple, Cheney's being a politician...that's all he's being

And this is your explanation for him (and by inference) you being hypocrites? Weak stuff, Stansfield. And as that seems to be the ONLY thing of yours you have backed up, nobody will object if you want to use that "Drive-by" handle for yourself.

Quote
All you're doing is engaging in tribalism.
Very short-sighted of you, intellectually speaking

You don't refute the things I say and you can't defend your own statements. The only thing that you always do is to personally attack anyone who points out your consistently weak logic. I'm not sure if that makes you part of some tribe (Eastern ad hominems?), but it sure does make you a great deal worse than intellectually short-sighted. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:21:15 PM
I totally missed the bizarre exchange Bush had with ABC's Martha Raddatz at his press conference this morning. First, Bush told the reporters, twice, that if we leave Iraq before "victory," Al Qaeda will come to America and kill our children. He then said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave today, we'd leave. He repeated that answer, twice.

So, in other words, if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, Bush would sacrifice your children and he'd even be willing to let the terrorists commit another September 11 here in America - remember, those were his words, that's what HE and the Republicans have repeatedly been saying would happen if we leave Iraq before "victory" - because what the Iraqi government wants is more important to Bush than the blood of "your children."

He is in so far over his head it isn't even funny.

americablog.com


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 09:09:56 PM
Quote
Plain and simple, Cheney's being a politician...that's all he's being

And this is your explanation for him (and by inference) you being hypocrites? Weak stuff, Stansfield. And as that seems to be the ONLY thing of yours you have backed up, nobody will object if you want to use that "Drive-by" handle for yourself.

Quote
All you're doing is engaging in tribalism.
Very short-sighted of you, intellectually speaking

You don't refute the things I say and you can't defend your own statements. The only thing that you always do is to personally attack anyone who points out your consistently weak logic. I'm not sure if that makes you part of some tribe (Eastern ad hominems?), but it sure does make you a great deal worse than intellectually short-sighted. 

No one can refute something that wasn't said. You haven't made a case, so there's nothing to refute. You keep lumping me in with your hatred for others. You wouldn't recognize a fact, if it bit you in your fat ass.

 

 Keep driving by, drive-by.  ;D


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 09:52:42 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/24/iraq.funding/index.html

Some good news.

Let's see what the Senate (and certain particular Senators running for Prez) says about the funding bill.  No exit timetable included.

Kudos to Beiden (see article).  No bend in Kucinich and Dodd.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 01:16:46 AM
Quote
 Keep driving by, drive-by.

Driving right past you, Putz. You've got nothing...nothing but a foul mouth and a little mind, so there's really no use in wasting any of my time on you. Did you really use to be an educator at one time? Hard to believe!!! Almost unbelievable. Amazing that someone didn't Columbine you. But you're making up for it now, aren't you? Getting all that respect for your fabulous mind that all your former students must of forgotten' to give you....

Quote
Are you drunk too, or is nasty your middle name?

Now that's respect! And you certainly earned it, Ut old boy.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 07:20:35 AM
From John Murtha:

Today, I voted for both the $22 billion supplemental funding for domestic programs and the $98 billion supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq.

The Democrats in Congress have already sent a supplemental to the president that would have set benchmarks and timelines for the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Instead of demonstrating to the American people and the Iraqi Government that our commitment is not open-ended, the president vetoed our bill and refuses to recognize that this war cannot be won militarily.

Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.

Patience has run out and I feel a change in direction happening within the chambers of Congress. While we don't have the votes right now to change the president's policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes from both Democrats and Republicans to change policy and direction. In September, General Petraeus will report back on the progress of the surge, and Congress will take up both the $460 billion base defense appropriations bill and the $141 billion Iraq supplemental. The surge is not producing the results that were promised. And, based on my discussions with Iraqi Government officials, I don't believe they have the motivation to bring about the political and economic benchmarks agreed to. This is why September will be key.

We have lost 418 of our fellow Americans since the president announced his surge, and come September, with your help, we can convince my colleagues from across the aisle that enough is enough. For almost two years, I have tried diligently to redeploy our forces from Iraq, and I will not stop now.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
Nice job by Murtha recognizing progress and voting his support for our troops, unlike Hill and Barack.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on May 25, 2007, 02:19:15 PM
There is more than one way to support the troops. One way is to bring them home to their families and away from danger. I am glad that Obama voted against the bill to waste more money. I wish more in the Congress had had his backbone. Saddam is gone. The war is over. Bring our men and women back where they belong. Spend the billions on education and health care! Declare war on poverty and unemployment!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:40:06 PM
There is more than one way to support the troops. One way is to bring them home to their families and away from danger. I am glad that Obama voted against the bill to waste more money. I wish more in the Congress had had his backbone. Saddam is gone. The war is over. Bring our men and women back where they belong. Spend the billions on education and health care! Declare war on poverty and unemployment!

You nailed it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 04:07:20 PM
I agree we should bring the troops home.  They are dying for no reason.  It is immoral what is happening to our soldiers.  But when they do come home, there won't be money for education and other social programs, because all of this war is being charged to our grandchildren's credit card, which is a even greater immorality.  Their lifestyle will be lower than ours today because of this mis-adventure by the neocon republicans.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 06:47:30 PM
Quote
 Keep driving by, drive-by.

Driving right past you, Putz. You've got nothing...nothing but a foul mouth and a little mind, so there's really no use in wasting any of my time on you. Did you really use to be an educator at one time? Hard to believe!!! Almost unbelievable. Amazing that someone didn't Columbine you. But you're making up for it now, aren't you? Getting all that respect for your fabulous mind that all your former students must of forgotten' to give you....

 

LMAO.

You sure showed your emptiness in a hurry. Only 47 posts to establish that you'd like to kill another human being, merely because they were able to demonstrate your nothingness, and expose your small mind.




 



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 10:34:24 PM
Utterly-ridiculous:

Quote
and expose your small mind.

A battle of small minds? I think these make it pretty clear who has shit for brains. Why don't you send a few of these to your relatives....see what they think of you. Or do they already know how sick you are? And think of it....it took way less than 47 posts for me to get you to expose yourself as a vicious little twerp. Easy as rolling out of bed, bright-boy.....


Quote
They show all the courage of a dickhead like you

Fuck you.

Dickhead. Hope that has meaning for you


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 26, 2007, 05:40:47 AM
Does this surprise you? Bush can do a fair job of delivering what his staff have written out for him, but when he has to "wing it" and try to respond to a question that hasn't been pre-programmed into him, he sputters, stutters, wobbles (linguistically) all over the place, and finally degenerates into nonsense. I get a kick out of Letterman's "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches", where he shows FDR giving his "only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech, and JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you..." and then follows those great orators with Bush burbling and sputtering.  :D

I totally missed the bizarre exchange Bush had with ABC's Martha Raddatz at his press conference this morning. First, Bush told the reporters, twice, that if we leave Iraq before "victory," Al Qaeda will come to America and kill our children. He then said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave today, we'd leave. He repeated that answer, twice.

So, in other words, if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, Bush would sacrifice your children and he'd even be willing to let the terrorists commit another September 11 here in America - remember, those were his words, that's what HE and the Republicans have repeatedly been saying would happen if we leave Iraq before "victory" - because what the Iraqi government wants is more important to Bush than the blood of "your children."

He is in so far over his head it isn't even funny.

americablog.com


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:24:55 AM
Bush, Pentagon ignored warnings on Iraq
May 26, 2007 - 6:43am.



Soldiers on duty in IraqIntelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."

Democrats said the newly declassified documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the very challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 26, 2007, 01:49:29 PM
Hey liq, time for a new poll!

Here's one from The Nation.'s web site:

What Is Bush's Dumbest Utterance?

A."You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

B. "If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, they could proliferate

C.  "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."

D. "It is a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life."

E. "I believe that....young cows ought to be allowed to go across our border."

F. "The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 03:17:34 PM
One of my favorites is:  "Is our children learning?"


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thanatopsy on May 27, 2007, 01:10:47 AM
Recently, a bird dropped poop on Bush.  I guess it's just Nature's way of saying that he's full of sh*t.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on May 27, 2007, 10:10:52 AM
Was surprised not to see my personal fave Bushism in your list...how 'bout "...putting food on your family"?  Anyone who has ever spent quality time with the high-chair set might identify this as a rare moment of inadvertent pResidential accuracy, but...naaaah, I think he and Laura probably outsourced with a Peruvian nanny and may not have personally experienced flying veggies.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:36:48 AM
 Bush created a terrorist training ground in Iraq
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/27/2007 09:24:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (488) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

Bush's war in Iraq has become the terror training and recruiting ground he's always claiming he's going to prevent. Terrorists trained in Iraq are now starting to take their fight to other parts of the world based on a report in Monday's NY Times. This happened on Bush's watch in Bush's war:

    In an April 17 report written for the United States government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, said battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.

    “There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.

    A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”

    Militants in Iraq are turning out instructional videos and electronic newsletters on the Internet that lay out their playbook for a startling array of techniques, from encryption to booby-trapped bombs to surface-to-air missiles, and those manuals are circulating freely in cyberspace.

Heckuva job, Bush. Heckuva legacy. And, for the record, this didn't happen when Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq. This happened when George Bush controlled Iraq.

Bush and Cheney, who claim they're fighting terrorists, never caught Osama Bin Laden who did attack us. Instead, they've been the best recruiters for Bin Laden's cause.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on May 28, 2007, 08:36:32 AM
The headline quoted below appeared in one of the Canadian online news sources as a lead story [check out Yahoo.ca for full story].  In looking thru the US online equivalents [CNN, etc.] I couldn't seem to find any reference to it whatsoever, even in whatever cyberjourno version might call 'below the fold'.  Lindsay whatsit's cocaine DUI and the death of a minor character actor appear to be more important---bread, circuses, and stay the course?  Yet we're gonna hear about that rascal Chavez shutting down the opposition TV station as though it were evil beyond reason...in our own country, we have no need of that--the news disappears before it can get out there. 

Truck bombing at revered Baghdad shrine kills 20


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 10:28:09 AM
Bush created a terrorist training ground in Iraq
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/27/2007 09:24:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (488) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

Bush's war in Iraq has become the terror training and recruiting ground he's always claiming he's going to prevent. Terrorists trained in Iraq are now starting to take their fight to other parts of the world based on a report in Monday's NY Times. This happened on Bush's watch in Bush's war:

    In an April 17 report written for the United States government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, said battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.

    “There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.

    A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”

    Militants in Iraq are turning out instructional videos and electronic newsletters on the Internet that lay out their playbook for a startling array of techniques, from encryption to booby-trapped bombs to surface-to-air missiles, and those manuals are circulating freely in cyberspace.

Heckuva job, Bush. Heckuva legacy. And, for the record, this didn't happen when Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq. This happened when George Bush controlled Iraq.

Bush and Cheney, who claim they're fighting terrorists, never caught Osama Bin Laden who did attack us. Instead, they've been the best recruiters for Bin Laden's cause.

"And for the record, this didn't happen when Hussein controlled Iraq"

Right.

And al Quaeda woould have just ceased to exist if the US and allies never showed up in Iraq.  They'd have been training nowghere, planning nothing.

Idiots.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 28, 2007, 11:10:54 AM
Quote
And al Quaeda woould have just ceased to exist if the US and allies never showed up in Iraq.  They'd have been training nowghere, planning nothing.
So, then, you would agree that from the war on terror standpoint we can just get out of Iraq because al Qaeda will just train somewhere else if we manage to pull a loaves and fishes and turn Iraq into a stable democracy, right?  Troops out now!

Besides, kid, you didn't read the story right.  It isn't just training al Qaeda operatives, but training them in a specific type of operation transferable to terror attacks in large metropolitan areas.   They aren't going to get that in the al Qaeda friendly areas of Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Chechneya.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:40:36 PM
Some people continue to believe that Iraq and AlQueda and 9/1i1 are all connected.  They aren't, but some stupid people continue to think so.  Some others still think the earth is flat too.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 10:23:28 PM
Quote
And al Quaeda woould have just ceased to exist if the US and allies never showed up in Iraq.  They'd have been training nowghere, planning nothing.
So, then, you would agree that from the war on terror standpoint we can just get out of Iraq because al Qaeda will just train somewhere else if we manage to pull a loaves and fishes and turn Iraq into a stable democracy, right?  Troops out now!


No


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Donotremove on May 29, 2007, 02:54:45 AM
Okay, so I didn't read through 1000 posts to make sure I wasn't being redundant . . . but just in case, Geoffrey Pattet speaking about his book "Commander in Chief" on Cspan2 this weekend says that George the Younger spoke publicly at least four times about Saddam Hussein, that if he were elected president the first thing he'd do would be to take Saddam out.  And in fact at the first meeting of his cabinet in January of 2001 he started right off talking about Iraq. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 05:26:36 AM
Okay, so I didn't read through 1000 posts to make sure I wasn't being redundant . . . but just in case, Geoffrey Pattet speaking about his book "Commander in Chief" on Cspan2 this weekend says that George the Younger spoke publicly at least four times about Saddam Hussein, that if he were elected president the first thing he'd do would be to take Saddam out.  And in fact at the first meeting of his cabinet in January of 2001 he started right off talking about Iraq. 

Paul McNeil confirmed this in his book as well.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 03:53:17 PM
Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.

Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They're backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out — they want to give the military more support in its mission.

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course."

Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways, too. He expresses understanding for the public's dismay over the unrelenting sectarian violence and American losses that have passed 3,400, but then asserts that the public's solution matches his.

"A lot of Americans want to know, you know, when?" he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. "When are you going to win?"

Also in that session, Bush said: "I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well."

In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving — not winning — is their main goal.

In one released Friday by CBS and the New York Times, 63 percent supported a troop withdrawal timetable of sometime next year. Another earlier this month from USA Today and Gallup found 59 percent backing a withdrawal deadline that the U.S. should stick to no matter what's happening in Iraq.

Bush aides say poll questions are asked so many ways, and often so imprecisely, that it is impossible to conclude that most Americans really want to get out. Failure, Bush says, is not what the public wants — they just don't fully understand that that is just what they will get if troops are pulled out before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the country stable on its own.

Seeking to turn up the heat on this argument, Bush has relied lately on an al-Qaida mantra. Terrorists remain dangerous, and fighting them in Iraq is key to neutralizing the threat, he says. "It's hard for some Americans to see that, I fully understand it," Bush said. "I see it clearly."

Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: "I don't see what they're talking about."

"They want to know when American troops are going to leave," Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said of the public. "They certainly want to win. But their hopes have been dashed."

Kohut has found it notable that there's such a consensus in poll findings.

"When the public hasn't made up its mind or hasn't thought about things, there's a lot of variation in the polls," he said. "But there's a fair amount of agreement now."

The president didn't used to try to co-opt polling for his benefit. He just said he ignored it.

Bush has lost it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on May 31, 2007, 01:00:21 PM
This was forwarded to me last night. I think they are beginning to catch on to something I suggested to a friend in Paris a few nights ago:the way to remove Bush from office, is first to do the following--

Subject: Help Kick Off Cheney IMPEACHMENT Summer


Dear Friends and Activists,

In this alert we will propose a plan of action, which if we execute it
faithfully, WILL result in the impeachment of Vice President Cheney by
the end of the summer.  So please read on, we think this is VERY
important strategic stuff.

But first we want to let you know that thanks to your kind donations,
and following your suggestions, we were able to run blog ad action
buttons for the National Cheney Impeachment Poll (with now more than
55,000 submissions) in 8 more progressive blogs this week,
TalkingPointsMemo, FireDogLake, BartCop, TheSmirkingChimp,
CliffSchecter, onegoodmove, Pandagon and TheCarpetbaggerReport.  We want
to add CrooksAndLiars among others to the movement this coming week, and
DailyKos (which also got many mentions from you) the week after that if
you will keep the donations coming, and we know you will.

DONATIONS PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/donations.php

And especially if you have other ideas, please email to us as we are
making the ad buying decisions based on your input.

Memorial Day is the traditional kickoff to the summer season, and we are
planning a kickoff of the biggest impeachment initiative ever.  More and
more people have begun to realize that the core problem with Congress is
getting them to actually CONFRONT the Cheney administration.

That's right, we said the Cheney administration.  Whether even he knows
it or not, Bush has made no actual decisions since he was first
installed.  And if it weren't for the talking points they give him to
rehearse, he would not be able to complete a logical sentence in English
in public.  He can barely do that as it is.

At the same time we recognize, and as demonstrated by the vote on the
Iraq supplemental capitulation, that about half the Democratic members
of Congress and most of the Republicans are basically throwaways in
terms of actually standing up for we the people.  And we are even now
hearing widespread talk of primary challenges on the basis of this one
vote alone.

Indeed, if we can get them to understand that the people will no longer
buy their shuck and jive then any policy change is possible.  So primary
challenges will be the first and fastest way to let them know that their
failure to act represents real political career jeopardy for them.

Our experience in the last election cycle teaches us that nothing is
more important in winning an election campaign, whether in a primary or
a general election, than having organized boots on the ground.  With
enough warm bodies in place whatever money is needed will come.
Regardless of what else we do we need to spend the next 6 months
building a cadre of seasoned canvassers, the core of a volunteer
activist campaign oriented base.  And we have an incredible opportunity
to use the National Cheney Impeachment Poll as a vehicle to do just
that.

IMPEACHMENT POLL SIGN UP SHEET:  http://www.usalone.com/votesheet.pdf

If each one of the people who has ALREADY submitted a vote in the
National Cheney Impeachment Poll were to print out just one of the vote
sheets above, and collect just 20 votes from their friends and
neighbors, we'd be over a million votes, bam, just like that.  And at
the same time, those who do the best job organizing this canvassing
would naturally emerge as the actual candidates we need to turn the
tide.

In short, on top of everything else, we are proposing using this vote
collection drive as a way to TEST DRIVE your potential as a candidate or
volunteer in a REAL election, and to use that opportunity to get
invaluable "on street" training.  Just print out some of the vote sheets
above, grab a clip board and some pens, and you're ready to rock.

We had one volunteer in Hollywood, CA this afternoon at one of the
larger health food markets, and in just about an hour they filled up one
of these vote sheets with 20 votes.  This is going to be EASY.  All you
have to do is say to people, "Hello . . . will you vote in the Cheney
impeachment poll?", and hold up your clip board so they can see the sign
up sheet.  If the name Cheney catches 10% of their ears you will quickly
be able to engage and mobilize the people in your community who will
speak out, and before we know it, the base of the future will be built.

No matter where you go to collect votes, you are just NOT going to find
a lot of people who don't think Cheney should be impeached.  Based on
his current approval rating (if not his impeachable crimes) there is
zero chance he will ever break 10% in this poll (we're currently running
99.36% YES in favor of impeachment).  You can tell people we are not
asking if he WILL be impeached, we are asking if he should be impeached.
The most important thing to remember if you are going to participate in
this is

ENTHUSIASTICALLY ACCEPT ALL VOTES WHETHER YES OR NO

The other side knows they can only win by skewing the vote.  All we have
to do to win is ensure the vote is not skewed.

IMPEACHMENT POLL SIGN UP SHEET:  http://www.usalone.com/votesheet.pdf

Wherever you decide to do this, if it is a place of business FIRST seek
out the premises manager and ask their permission to collect signatures
for the poll.  Emphasize that this is a poll, and people can freely vote
either way, and you can also suggest you will only be doing it for an
hour or so.  Then introduce yourself to the security where you will be
standing and tell them the name of the manager who gave you permission.

We don't have to sell people on impeachment.  Anybody who is remotely
paying attention should jump at the opportunity to speak out on this.
For those who rush by, trying to keep their heads down, just let them
go, and trust that we will get them also, as they hear more and more
about the National Cheney Impeachment Poll.  We don't have to chase any
votes around the block.

You will meet people who are very gung ho.  Of the 20 people who signed
with our volunteer this afternoon, two were into it enough that they
were given blank sign up sheets to make their own copies of and collect
signatures on their own.  So carry extra sign up sheets for this
purpose.  This thing can spread like wildfire if we just get out there.

You are probably already thinking of your own creative places to collect
votes, people in your apartment building, your school, office, church,
lines at movie theaters, swap meets, anywhere that people gather.  You
should be welcome everywhere as long as you keep it straight, and act as
the impartial pollster.  If people ask your own personal position, feel
free to tell them, but emphasize that all votes are accepted and duly
entered.

There are instructions on the vote gathering sheet to tell you what to
do with the entries you collect, of which the email address is critical.
We will be using this to confirm their vote by email.  Therefore, one
more thing cannot be overemphasized

BE SURE TO READ BACK THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS TO THEM TO CONFIRM THE SPELLING

We don't want to lose any votes to scribbled or ambiguously written
email addresses.  Is it a "two" or is it the letter "Z", is it a "one"
or is it the letter "L", is it a "zero" or is it the letter "O", etc.
Make sure you yourself can read all entries so that you can accurately
enter them on the  web input form we are providing.  If necessary, make
additional small notes on the sheets to remind yourself of the correct
spellings.

And when you finish go back and thank the premises manager for their
gracious hospitality, so that our next volunteer will also be welcome.

Once we get a million votes things will start to snowball, and we can
put serious pressure on our members of Congress, and let them know that
fulfilling the duty of impeachment is the only way for them to keep
their jobs.  With that many key mobilized activists we can have impact
on every election in the next cycle, and we will find many ways of
letting them know what they are in for long before that.

Nothing in this alert should be construed as advocating for or against a
particular candidate in any particular race.  Until we actually mobilize
we will not know who will step up to the plate and who will not.  But we
need to mobilize just as hard EVERYWHERE regardless, for none can be
counted on unless we do.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to
be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at
http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

usalone59:40202



Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll
http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F
Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!








Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 31, 2007, 01:32:58 PM
go pluck yourself


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: lulu on May 31, 2007, 02:15:00 PM
I'm waiting for the American public to rise up in anger and really demand, now, to pull our troops out.  Sheehan is right: public is more interested in American Idol than our troops dying in Iraq (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis dying).

Soldiers are being redeployed several times; when are they going to say "hell no, we won't  go?"  Last demonstration I went to was really small in size, compared to Vietnam era demonstrations.  but I guess that's because there was a draft then.  And it looks as if if this war continues the draft will have to be reinstated because who in his/her right mind will join the national guard or the army?

And the Democratic Party is worse than useless.  Still has no spine.  Still won't stand up to Bush.               


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on May 31, 2007, 02:39:04 PM
Hi maddy. We're on it.

Good to see ya here.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Kam on May 31, 2007, 04:47:47 PM
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

Thats great George.  Now can you give the Iraqi citizen his hand back so the doctors can re-attach it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 07:09:22 PM
Too late. Iraqi doctors are bailing as fast as they can because the insurgents and Al Queda cretins are targeting doctors, nurses, educators, civil servants, etc. for execution. They want to be rid of the educated elite, so they can manipulate the remainder. Easier to do if they are not too educated.

It's like what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia when they took over: executed any educated people and dragged the remainder to the countryside to live in communes as agricultural slaves. They took it to the extreme that people who just wore glasses were assumed to be "educated" and were executed.

Anyone not believe that Iraq will have to split into three sections: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish in order to avoid total civil war?   

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

Thats great George.  Now can you give the Iraqi citizen his hand back so the doctors can re-attach it?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on May 31, 2007, 07:13:44 PM
chak,

Anyone not believe that Iraq will have to split into three sections: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish in order to avoid total civil war?   

Whatever happens should happen because the Iraqis themselves choose it to happen.

You have presented one of the best cases yet for our leaving yesterday.


Title: Kyoto Protocol
Post by: Dzimas on June 01, 2007, 01:57:17 PM
Six and a half years after refusing to sign off on the Kyoto Protocol, a protocol which his father had supported in principle, Bush announces his own plan to reduce global warning.  This is perhaps the single most cynical political ploy this administration has done so far, as they try to defuse tensions leading up to the G8 conference in Germany.  One can only view this statement in the same light as the great energy plan Bush unveiled back in 2001, which looked like one of Shell Oil's brochures.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 01, 2007, 02:07:19 PM
Dzimas,

Yeah, I had a good laugh over that on last night's news! Now, Bush is going to be a greenie! Well, at least for a few weeks until the heat is off again.

I guess all those who made fun of Al Gore will be eating their words for a bit now.



Title: Re: Kyoto Protocol
Post by: srnich on June 01, 2007, 02:47:58 PM
Six and a half years after refusing to sign off on the Kyoto Protocol, a protocol which his father had supported in principle, Bush announces his own plan to reduce global warning.  This is perhaps the single most cynical political ploy this administration has done so far, as they try to defuse tensions leading up to the G8 conference in Germany.  One can only view this statement in the same light as the great energy plan Bush unveiled back in 2001, which looked like one of Shell Oil's brochures.

ROTFLMAO!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 05:57:25 PM
logo
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
'I'm the President!'
Created 06/01/2007 - 7:15am

President George W. Bush's paranoid megalomania is so rampant that close friends and supporters worry about the man's sanity and fear he has lost his tenuous grip on reality.

Bush, whose arrogant stubbornness knows no bounds, is so wrapped up in his obsession with being President and "commander-in-chief" that his behavior shocks his most ardent supporters.

Writes syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer:

    Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Arnaud de Borchgrave, the rabid Bush supporter who edits the right-wing Washington Times and runs what is left of United Press International, also reports on the meeting:

    The self-described "Decider" is the antithesis of self-doubt. Like an old seadog, he relishes the idea of plowing into rough seas.

    When a recent visitor asked him what assurance he could give about his successor in 2009, President Bush replied, "we'll fix it so he'll be locked in." The visitor left perplexed and wondered whether that might mean the U.S. would be in a wider war in the region by then. In any event, it didn't sound like twilight time for Mr. Bush.

    A Texan friend of longstanding called on him recently and confided to his Washington hosts that Mr. Bush had said three times, bringing a clenched fist to his chest, "I'm the president." Reminding visiting political opponents of this would be normal, but the close friend said he was a taken aback a bit as he had never before seen Mr. Bush in this mode.

What these close friends see is a madman on the edge, a delusional paranoid whose brain is fried by too many years of hard drinking and probably too much cocaine up his nose.

Compared to Bush, Richard M. Nixon appears sane and stone cold sober. Hell, history will probably cast legendary drunk Ulysses S. Grant as a President more in control of himself.

Not only is he wrapped up in the aura of "I'm the President," but he is now determined that anyone who follows him will have to live with his legacy of lies, deceit and despair - his failed war in Iraq, his cancer on "our country's destiny."

The fate of this nation - and indeed the fate of the world - may well depend on the deranged mind of a truly insane President of the United States.
Source URL:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2618


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 01:33:43 PM
samiinh Reply #1014 

" Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."...

A Texan friend of longstanding called on him recently and confided to his Washington hosts that Mr. Bush had said three times, bringing a clenched fist to his chest, "I'm the president." Reminding visiting political opponents of this would be normal, but the close friend said he was a taken aback a bit as he had never before seen Mr. Bush in this mode."

Whether or not the above quotes are a repeat adjusted for either time or privacy, here's what I recognize. The revered Mr. Bush continues to lose more of his following of confident former party members and over-confident constituents as each day goes by; but, that is not enough. Quite frankly, those who have put him up to this, just do not care what anybody thinks or what happens to us.

What is manifested in the certainly megalomaniacal behaviour has been witnessed before in history. Right now, George junior is somewhere between Napoleon Bonaparte with his hand to his chest and slipped in between the openings of his buttons to sooth the physical symptoms of his particular ailment; because otherwise, Napoleon generally went in for the grand gesture unless I have forgotten about a tantrum or two. I simply do not recall the tantrum factor as Napoleon maintained control of how he was viewed, which of course may surely have led to his physical malady as the only outlet in which brooding anger could be expressed.

And now, you are saying between N.B and what?  Well, Adoph Hitler of course. George Bush is simply displaying the psychic inventiveness of  an insignia, a physical salute that he has made his own, an out of control gesture of self-importance which his followers will adapt to themselves out of respect(of course, it is not far off from the Roman custom either).   There is a psychological to physical conversion price paid gradually nontheless. The screaming-meamies that the populace of the Third Reich endured without letting their jaws drop open their mouths-a-gape eventually led to a peculiar little tic that Hitler displayed of adjusting the leverage of his own chin as if he was nodding in self-approval of his own agreed upon smartness; this sometimes ended with a snap(torticulosis;wryneck) where the top of the spine meets the base of the skull, in a quick reflex to adjust the endured tension. That could then be further relieved by an abrupt extension of the arm from the shoulder.

In the end by the time that Berlin was invaded the man who had aged so much in a decade (something noticeable in Bush at this time, but was really more obvious in the case of Hitler who had become a very old man), had lost control to the degree that he would preferably keep his hands behind his back. He might use one or the other to push pins around on a map of tactical fronts indicating armies of dead generals to troops that no longer were there, while disguising at least one of his hands but his associates were by that time entirely familiar with these gestures of adjustment and simply respected them for what they were.

Has anybody read the Norman Mailer book as yet, on the origins of all that Adolph wrought?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 01:48:15 PM
Chakotay re:#1009
"They want to be rid of the educated elite, so they can manipulate the remainder. Easier to do if they are not too educated.

It's like what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia when they took over: executed any educated people and dragged the remainder to the countryside to live in communes as agricultural slaves."

I am hoping that this has occurred to you that this has already been done to a great extent as far as possible without alarming the entire structure in the US.  It has been proceeding quietly to seem quite ordinary, just the ordinary way of doing things, so that the public barely notices.  Every now and then a great faux pas comes along and then they have to backtrack fast, not to let the cat out of the bag, because they let their greed show through or some other less than virtuous motif of the whole operation.  Sometimes, they don't count on unexpected results of quiet policies that result in exactly the opposite of the original intent.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on June 02, 2007, 02:19:32 PM
Quote
had lost control to the degree that he would preferably keep his hands behind his back


madupont:
It is generally felt that Hitler had Parkinson's Disease, the symptoms of which were becoming very apparent towards the end of the war. He kept his hand behind his back to hide the fact that his hand was trembling uncontrollably and he was embarrassed by this fact. This trembling can clearly be seen in his last appearance on film just outside his Berlin bunker where he was awarding young boys from the Hitler Youth medals for their defense of the city.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 02, 2007, 04:12:33 PM
Ex-Army chief seeks Iraq withdrawal
Saturday, June 2, 2007

Sir Michael Rose said the Iraq war cannot be won

A former British army commander has said there was "no way" the war in Iraq could be won and that allied forces should withdraw.

General Sir Michael Rose, a former commander of the UN peace force in Bosnia during the 1990s, said the American and British forces in Iraq were in an impossible situation.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said.

While accepting the allied forces couldn't just "cut and run", Sir Michael said announcing a date for withdrawal would quell the widespread fighting between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power," he said.

Sir Michael made the comments while speaking at the Hay Literary festival in mid Wales about his book Washington's War. In the book, Sir Michael draws parallels between the guerilla tactics used by George Washington against the British army in America in 1775 and by Sunni insurgents against Allied troops in Iraq.

To stand any chance of success, Sir Michael said the Allied Forces should have deployed more troops and not opted for a conventional war strategy. "You don't win wars by regime change but by changing attitudes," he said.

He said Iraq should have, in any case, been a low priority compared to the war in Afghanistan, various conflicts in Africa and the war against global terrorists.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=51481&in_page_id=34&in_a_source


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 03, 2007, 04:43:04 PM
VoteVets.org says 'The bulls-eye on the back of our troops just got a whole lot bigger, and the president is to blame'

NEW YORK - Public confirmation that the White House sees an American military presence in Iraq without end is the single greatest motivating and recruiting tool given to insurgents in the history of the war, and must be recanted, Iraq Veterans said today.

Jon Soltz, head of the largest political group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, VoteVets.org, said, "The president and vice-president like to say that insurgents in Iraq listen to what we say over here. If they do, there's no question that this morning, those who seek to kill our troops are buzzing with talk that America plans on occupying Iraq forever. The bulls-eye on the back of our troops just got a whole lot bigger, and the president is to blame. He has to recant these kinds of statements, so he doesn't embolden the enemy more than he already has."

Yesterday, the president's press secretary, Tony Snow, said the president envisions the length of US military involvement in Iraq to be similar to Korea. The United States has maintained a presence in Korea for more than 50 years.

"Maybe the White House hasn't been keeping track of the news, but American troops haven't faced constant fire from insurgents in Korea, and the Koreans have asked us to stay there. Poll after poll shows we are not welcome by the majority of Iraqi civilians, and saying that we're going to stay for fifty years whether they like it or not just serves to create enemies at a faster clip. We cannot overestimate how incredibly irresponsible and dangerous the president's stated position is," Soltz added.

A USA Today Poll this year showed 78% of Iraqi adults oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; only 22% support it. Only one percent of Iraqis want the US military presence to go on without end.

"Every member of Congress also has to protect our troops by strongly rebuking the president, so Iraqis know that our legislative branch will not allow the president's vision to come to fruition," he concluded.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ehkzu on June 03, 2007, 11:50:30 PM
Chakotay re:#1009
"They want to be rid of the educated elite, so they can manipulate the remainder. Easier to do if they are not too educated.

It's like what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia when they took over: executed any educated people and dragged the remainder to the countryside to live in communes as agricultural slaves."

I am hoping that this has occurred to you that this has already been done to a great extent as far as possible without alarming the entire structure in the US.  It has been proceeding quietly to seem quite ordinary, just the ordinary way of doing things, so that the public barely notices.  Every now and then a great faux pas comes along and then they have to backtrack fast, not to let the cat out of the bag, because they let their greed show through or some other less than virtuous motif of the whole operation.  Sometimes, they don't count on unexpected results of quiet policies that result in exactly the opposite of the original intent.

The best example of this is that evolution is no longer taught in a majority of public schools. See http://www.natcenscied.org/ to explore this. But the methodology fits what you've said here: they're doing it at the point of greatest vulnerability in America's school system--the individual science teacher and school principal. The educated elite don't notice 'cause it's not happening in Berrkeley and Boston. It's happening out there in Red America. Textbook publishers are complicit by ghettoizing evolution in a chapter in the back of the book. And then the teacher just skips that chapter. Otherwise he gets a bunch of kids waving bibles and demanding that their creationism be given precedence. Parents visit principals. Principles whisper in teachers' ears about "community standards" and implies that teachers shouldn't rock the boat. And most teachers aren't doughty crusaders anyway. They need the paycheck.

It all works great because it's not even getting to the level of the local school board, much less the state, much less the federal government. This is why the fundies chamption local control of schools, texbooks, curriculum--so they can do their dirty deeds on the down low.

And if you doubt what I'm saying here, look at national polls: over HALF of Americans support the fundie's young Earth creationism. This isn't just evolution denial--it's science denial.

Side note: one of the few remaining NYTimes forums is the Human Origins forum in the Science section. It was once a discussion of human origins. Now it's devoted to the endless natterings of IDiots (so-called Intelligent Design followers) with a handful of actually educated people countering their infinite regress of argumentation.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 04, 2007, 01:50:55 AM
"Side note: one of the few remaining NYTimes forums is the Human Origins forum in the Science section. It was once a discussion of human origins. Now it's devoted to the endless natterings of IDiots (so-called Intelligent Design followers) with a handful of actually educated people countering their infinite regress of argumentation.: ehkzu

Boy, are you telling me! I had a visitor from Human Origins show up in the Lounge forum about two years ago keeping me posted on some of the latest input of present day psychology and we were discussing this quite well when a third party generally in the Lounge butted in. I feel that strongly about it and said so at the time because this person is an adult of middle age to upwards screaming Intelligent Design, who otherwise passes themself off as a knowledgable human being, so that was a side-track for a while but it escalated until she was using strong language (that's the irony because should I not have presumed that I.D. stalwarts are not given to obscenities in public?) I went over to Human Origins but they were into aspects of Science way beyond my depth. So I left it at that. The person who had been discussing psychology with me occasionally visited several of us in a non-fiction forum discussing ecology and new technologies,including a few oldies, for energy conservation and production. But it was all down-hill after that for all of those forums.

Well, as a matter of fact, that is the intent of the "ID-jots", to consume the time of the educated who could be interacting with each other at far higher levels if not for what you described as the "infinite regression of their argumentation" by the ID leeches. They are not there by chance. They sought an assignment and one was given to them; for a little pin-money that one day we will find was taken out of our taxes.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: ehkzu on June 04, 2007, 03:17:41 AM
Here's an argument I use on IDiots when I run into them.

--From a religious viewpoint, Science is simply about How God Did It. If you believe in a God, you must believe God did the universe. Science isn't about inventing rules of nature--it's about discovering and validating them. Therefore if you challenge validated findings of science, you're challenging God. In fact you're setting yourself above God--pretty much the same as Satan did. If a book you feel is inspired by God disagrees with how God's universe works, odds are the book--written by men--was wrong, or, even more likely, misinterpreted. By you.

Fundamentalism claims that the Bible is true. But it really strives to invalidate the Bible--since the Bible is about meaning. It's not a mere history. And it can't be--too many internal contradictions. But those don't disprove the Bible if you treat it as a source of meaning--only if you try to reduce it to a literal interpretation. It's like treating a poem that says "My love is like a rose" as fact. Treating it as fact makes it a lie, as Shakespeare pointed out in one of his sonnets. The meaning of "My love is like a rose" is metaphorical, not literal. Treating it as literal misses the point completely. And that's what Fundies do--their love of the Bible is like the love of a helicopter mother for her kids--the kind of smother love that destroys the object of their love.

Soi--claim the Bible is a factual history directly conflicts with the intended purpose of the Bible--to convey meaning. Fundies understand neither science NOR religion. They abuse the meaning of the Bible in order to attack the study of God's universe (i.e. science). So if I were religious I'd have to say that Fundies unknowingly work for the Adversary. This is driven home especially by studying Christ's teachings. He laid out a set of priorities centered on being kind, loving, and charitable--and not sweating the minutiae of religious observances, which his religion (Judaism, remember?) had fallen into a pit of doing, obsessing about clothing and rituals to the exclusion of being actually religious. Hence the story of the Good Samaritan. And also hence how today's ultra-Orthodox Jews abuse Judaism the same way the Fundies abuse Christianity.

So I wind up asking Fundies "When did you turn your back on Christ? Was it hard to do?"

It's fun fighting them in their own waters. They find it surprising BTW. But it's better than talking science with them, since they haven't the faintest understanding of what science is, how it's conducted...they don't even know what a theory is, or a hypothesis.

And of course, to the point of this forum, the Decider is the parfait fundie, embodying all the mean-spiritedness, arrogance, incuriousity, rigidity of personality, and vengefulness more openly expressed by that Fundie congregation that trudges around the country demonstrating at soldiers' funerals and whatnot waving placards saying God Hates .....well, you know.

I do admire Bush's physical fitness. And his kids (who should be serving in Iraq) seem to genuinely love him, as does his wife. Counts for something. And he's trying to help Latinos and people with AIDS, though I disagree with how he's helping them (especially Latinos).

Lastly, on the topic of Bush, I think he combines the ambition of a Lincoln with the ability of a Harding. Harding just wanted to keep the seat warm, so he wasn't such a danger to our country. Lincoln wanted to be consequential, but he had the chops to pull it off. He was the Maria Sharapova of presidents. Bush is the Kournikova.

It's the combo of ambition and mediocrity that will make Bush's reign stand out in American history. Whatever of it is left after he's through with us...


Title: Bush and Global Warming
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 03:29:34 AM
Merkl shouldn't encourage Bush too much,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_eu/g8_summit

next thing you know he will be giving a press conference on how to resolve the issue of world peace once and for all.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 01:28:29 PM
Wasn't it Merkl who he tried to fondle at a meeting last year?


Title: Re: Bush and Global Warming
Post by: madupont on June 04, 2007, 01:36:00 PM
Merkl shouldn't encourage Bush too much,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_eu/g8_summit

next thing you know he will be giving a press conference on how to resolve the issue of world peace once and for all.

Ah! this is where I should have dropped this missive off in the first place:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/04/russia.putin.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories 

Perhaps, I should go back and modify my output of movie-input addition?  I should like to hear some discussion of this return to proliferation policy.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 01:43:24 PM
Maddie,

All I can say is we need to remove an increasingly insane man from the steering wheel in Washington. Poor dear needs to spend some time in a padded cell.


Title: Cold War, Part Deux
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM
As you well know, maddie, we went through this all before.  As I remember, JFK placed nuclear warheads in Turkey long before the USSR deployed nuclear warheads in Cuba.  However, I think the so-called missile shields are in part a response to Russia selling arms to Venezuela.  Chavez had quite a tour through Belarus and Russia, praising both Lukashenko and Putin.  But, the US has been prodding Russia for sometime, and so we stand on the edge of another cold war.  It is like two kids fighting over who will be king of the hill.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 04, 2007, 02:08:54 PM
Maddie,

All I can say is we need to remove an increasingly insane man from the steering wheel in Washington. Poor dear needs to spend some time in a padded cell.

Constitution's taking care of that


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 04, 2007, 02:09:00 PM
Quote
As I remember, JFK placed nuclear warheads in Turkey long before the USSR deployed nuclear warheads in Cuba.
Eisenhower, actually, about two years earlier, in the summer of 1960.


Title: Re: Bush Administration/Supreme Court
Post by: lulu on June 04, 2007, 02:21:50 PM
This Court is a disaster.  Now the Supremes have made it easier for prosecutors to select juror who are disposed to death penalty. 

Isn't that akin to stacking the deck?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 04, 2007, 02:42:43 PM
ehkzu  re:#1022   Very good! In so far  as relating to Fundamentalist level interpretations of science and dogma(one of which is, "if you don't read the Bible, you are good for s... " or, in so many words)

I had this wonderful experience with one who had the bejeesuz scared out of her and the fundamentalism too. She related it to me on the spot as we leaned over the counter of chicken parts at a veritable quanset hut of a supermarket dedicated to Republican grocery shopping. After looking at the prices, as this wasn't her usual store but she had stopped off on her Sunday outing to visit her daughter at a local small town community college (as I probably said previously, this is a rural phenomena, many rural parents do not want to see their kids go too far away to schools outside the limits of their own mind-set. They don't want them to get that exposure, to the very things that other parents do send their kids away to school for like expanding their mind, their horizons, and learning the limits on their own for themselves).

The next thing that I knew, she was bursting into tears and it wasn't the prices because they were nothing like they have risen now. I think possibly one thing just led to another in her thought process about what was happening to us all, and she just needed to let it all out. During this process of telling me the whole story of the decline and fall of her enthusiasm,instigated by the conundrum that she now didn't know where to go, she had skipped out on her previous back-ground, enthusiastically into evangelism(in other words a True Believer) and Evangelists don't take you back when you see the light because now you are a trouble-maker and their religious,social planning and business connected networks when they pull out the carpet from under you leave you at a loss when you didn't exercise your initiative but fell back on them.

Throughout her revelations to me, her son stood just a little distance away, not to intrude but to look out for her, in case the hysterics got worse; he was probably about a junior or senior in high school.

Like many other women who are required to become devoted to service in these sectarian churches, she had been putting in night  hours at a hospice for the dying. This is where she had the strange experience. She kept saying, that George Bush was telling everybody lies and that he in fact was in capable of saying anything other than lies because he was a hypocrite. (Well, the journalist, Ron Suskin, often says that too but not in so many words,he rather implies very cleverly.)

One night prior to the 2004 election, she was on night shift among the dying at the hospice, when they started acting up and in a very peculiar way, sitting upright in their beds, if they could make it,and screaming out ominous warnings in the middle of the night, "He's lying! He's lying. He never gave up drinking."  One after the other, restlessly began calling out that "He lied. He is still lying. Lying about everything.".  Hearing this, from her, it was to me as if they had all begun channeling something, that they had become tuned in on a channel nobody else was getting at this point, and they had to tell it because, after all, they were dying, and they couldn't just do that without telling anyone before it was too late.  Obviously, it had entirely freaked her out and she had begun spreading the word.

Her husband finally showed up; like most husbands, he was putzing around the store, eating samples, reading packages, staying out of participation in anything so esoteric as food selection on a budget. But now, he was sorry, as he stood off aways, it was not like he would intrude, nobody else in the entire store paid the least bit of attention to what we were discussing by standing in the way and taking up space because that's what you do when you shop, get in each other's way, and use "their space". 

But having come out with it, she was somewhat relieved, so we went our ways by saying goodbye and I never ran into her again. Although if you do run into anybody who looks quite a bit like Roseann Barr without the glitzy makeup, that could be her.

I guess, what I'm saying is -- don't admire the Decider too much for his physical fitness, he's been aging fast, and anybody who can scare the dying should be a lesson to you because they hardly get upset unless they think the devil is come to claim whatever. We have, according to Ron Suskin that is, no way of really telling that his daughters and wife adore him. If they don't, they had better not show it, as they are his last resort of appearing to be a normal guy and they know that (or, they don't know it). Ron says that Laura knows (because there are too many witnesses whom Ron checked with before publishing).


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 03:51:56 PM
Nancy Reagan also did a detailed dance to keep the public from realizing the dear Ronnie was slipping away. They stalled the announcement of his alzhimers until just after he was out of the White House. Alzhimers doesn't come on that fast, folks. It is around for years taking it's little pieces out of the puzzles of life one by one. Not only did we have an acting puppet during his second term, he had also lost his marbles. And, now, here it is happening again right before our eyes. What are we going to do about it this time?



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 04, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
Whine like little babies, I trust


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 06:38:13 PM
Nancy Reagan also did a detailed dance to keep the public from realizing the dear Ronnie was slipping away. They stalled the announcement of his alzhimers until just after he was out of the White House. Alzhimers doesn't come on that fast, folks. It is around for years taking it's little pieces out of the puzzles of life one by one. Not only did we have an acting puppet during his second term, he had also lost his marbles. And, now, here it is happening again right before our eyes. What are we going to do about it this time?


We the people should demand the impeachment of bush and cheney.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 04, 2007, 06:51:27 PM
A Lyndon LaRouche yahoo sets up post outside my local library, IMPEACH CHENEY posters splattered across his nice li'l lemonade stand.

I told him he's harmless to us.   Really pissed him off.  Dude sees me coming now - but has no choice but to listen to ME as he is asking my townspeople to listen to him.

Cuts both ways - lol


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 06:56:00 PM
A Lyndon LaRouche yahoo sets up post outside my local library, IMPEACH CHENEY posters splattered across his nice li'l lemonade stand.

I told him he's harmless to us.   Really pissed him off.  Dude sees me coming now - but has no choice but to listen to ME as he is asking my townspeople to listen to him.

Cuts both ways - lol

Did you have a point?  Or just proving once again what kind of a dumbf__k you really are?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 06:57:01 PM
A Lyndon LaRouche yahoo sets up post outside my local library, IMPEACH CHENEY posters splattered across his nice li'l lemonade stand.

I told him he's harmless to us.   Really pissed him off.  Dude sees me coming now - but has no choice but to listen to ME as he is asking my townspeople to listen to him.

Cuts both ways - lol


Did you have a point?  Or just proving once again what kind of a dumbf__k you really are?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 04:53:14 AM
It seems Bush will survive his term, despite the calls for impeachment.  The Democrats are too concentrated on presidential primaries to drag the country through an impeachment process that probably won't serve their ends, which is to ensure a Democratic president in 2008.  I think they need to continue to challenge him on the Iraq War and the domestic front, calling him on his global warming bluff.  Basically, they have to tighten the strings, giving Bush less room in which to operate, and more oppurtunties to stick his foot in his mouth. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 04:57:38 AM
Dzimas,

I agree. I do not see any congressional movement towards impeachment. But, sadly, I do not see any movement to rein in the powers that were once freely granted to him which he has abused. The Congress has to assert it's powers under the constitution to keep this president from taking the whole country down the dark alley of his fevered mind.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 05:20:17 AM
Yes, weezo, I've very worried as well what this moron could do in his remaining months, especially with the true Prince of Darkness, Darth Cheney, calling the shots.  These guys seem to operate in their own time and space, oblivious to the thoughts and feelings of the mainstream at home and abroad. 

It was interesting to see all the protest in the Czech Republic over the proposed missile defense system, I imagine in part stirred up by Russia, but none the less not the reception Bush was hoping for.  Putin basically called him on his bluff and now Bush has to either deliver or shut up.  Neither will stand him well politically.  What I don't like about this is that Putin gains further credibility in the world for standing up to Bush, while at the same time he clamps down on domesitc freedom in the USSR, er I mean Russia, and continues his blockade on Georgia and other former CIS countries that don't follow the Kremlin line.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 05:39:21 AM
Dzimas,

I'm not sure that Putin is doing anything more than Bush is, but admittedly that isn't good. We have boxed in Cuba for decades for not toeing to our line, and we are doing the same in Venezuela. It is not a good time for us to have a mentally impaired man in the White House. We need someone with a clear head and good diplomacy, not one to takes to bluffs and sabre rattling.


Title: Bush and Putin
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 05:52:50 AM
That's true, weezo.  It was interesting to read in American Dynasty how much Georgia figured into the Bush family chronicles.  Apparently, it was Preston who first explored the potential for oil in the region, and geopolitically, the Bushes have all been drawn to Central Asia.  Georgia really struggles these days, even moreso than Cuba, as it can't get many of its products to its largest market, Russia.  Putin's bans on Borjomi water and Georgian wines have resulted in a thriving black market for these much desired items.

Bush comes across so badly abroad.  After many of the initial worries, he is now pretty much reduced to a cartoon character, since there is so little he can do with his arms tied in Iraq.  This has allowed Putin to exercise much greater strength in the region, not less, much to the chagrin of the White House, which now seems to have resorted to taunting him with things like the missile shield.  For all her professed study of Russia (I believe she is supposed to be a scholar in this regard), Condie doesn't seem to have the first clue in how to deal with Putin, and is being outflanked by Lavrov diplomatically.  Putin upped the ante considerably by threatening to aim nuclear warheads at Europe if Bush doesn't call off his plans for the missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. This has understandably set a shockwave through the continent.  Of course, this feeds into the Bush administration's belief that they need to establish a deterent to Russia.


Title: Re: Bush and Putin
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:22:50 AM
That's true, weezo.  It was interesting to read in American Dynasty how much Georgia figured into the Bush family chronicles.  Apparently, it was Preston who first explored the potential for oil in the region, and geopolitically, the Bushes have all been drawn to Central Asia.  Georgia really struggles these days, even moreso than Cuba, as it can't get many of its products to its largest market, Russia.  Putin's bans on Borjomi water and Georgian wines have resulted in a thriving black market for these much desired items.

Bush comes across so badly abroad.  After many of the initial worries, he is now pretty much reduced to a cartoon character, since there is so little he can do with his arms tied in Iraq.  This has allowed Putin to exercise much greater strength in the region, not less, much to the chagrin of the White House, which now seems to have resorted to taunting him with things like the missile shield.  For all her professed study of Russia (I believe she is supposed to be a scholar in this regard), Condie doesn't seem to have the first clue in how to deal with Putin, and is being outflanked by Lavrov diplomatically.  Putin upped the ante considerably by threatening to aim nuclear warheads at Europe if Bush doesn't call off his plans for the missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. This has understandably set a shockwave through the continent.  Of course, this feeds into the Bush administration's belief that they need to establish a deterent to Russia.

I've been wondering, where is the congress?  How can the executive make these military decisions (a total waste IMHO...missile defense, just another republican boondoggle for the military-industrial complex) without the congress?  Doesn't the congress have the power of the purse?  I"ve also wondered how the executive can automatic rescind treaties that the congress has ratified, like Kayoto or the anti-missle treaty?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 06:52:01 AM
The problem is that it takes more than 6 months to undo what has been done for the last 6 years.  This missile defense system has been in the works for some time, long before the Democrats took control of Congress.  Given all the bad press this missile shield is getting, I'm sure it will be brought under discussion in Congress, but you know how that goes.  The Republicans line up behind their commander-in-chief like dutiful soldiers, and Bush can veto any decision the Democrats put forward.  So, the only option becomes some kind of flimsy compromise.

I would have thought more Republicans would have abandoned Bush during the primaries, especially Senators like McCain, who never saw eye to eye with Bush to begin with, but they are so worried about alienating the religious conservatives in their party that they continue to stand behind Bush.  It defies all reason, as the religious conservatives have become increasingly marginalized over the course of Bush's tenure, and there are at least three GOP candidates which will split this coalition even further.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on June 05, 2007, 09:38:25 AM
Quote
I would have thought more Republicans would have abandoned Bush during the primaries

Dz.---
I lost any respect I might have had for McCain after Bush et al pulled that smarmy trick on him in the South Carolina primary (the bit about the Black child) and then McCain went on to make innumerable  campaign appearances with Bush after the scum-bag had secured the nomination. How he could have appeared with Bush and still retained any self respect is beyond me. Some things go beyond the limits of politics.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 09:46:42 AM
You really have to question the motivation of those that continue to defend Chainy at this point.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 09:48:38 AM
Quote
I would have thought more Republicans would have abandoned Bush during the primaries

Dz.---
I lost any respect I might have had for McCain after Bush et al pulled that smarmy trick on him in the South Carolina primary (the bit about the Black child) and then McCain went on to make innumerable  campaign appearances with Bush after the scum-bag had secured the nomination. How he could have appeared with Bush and still retained any self respect is beyond me. Some things go beyond the limits of politics.

It wasn't long after that when he went from "maverick" to DUD.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 09:59:30 AM
Driver,

I, too, fail to understand the push for "party loyalty" instead of following the wishes of the electorate. Do the political parties, especially the republican party, hold that much power, that all members must toe the line or be subject to in-party smear campaigns? George Washington was leary of political parties, but in the past, they have served us well, with the coming of third parties to help define the needs from the grassroots.

This is going to be a long presidental campaign. I worry that Obama will run out of money before he can get to the finish line and let one of the silver spoon boys take it away from him.


Title: McCain
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 10:00:21 AM
McCain didn't distinguish himself on the POW issue either, caving in on the treatment prisoners were receiving in American POW camps.  Like you guys, I long ago lost any respect for the man.  He has become a pathetic, crusty old man.  I would be surprised if he survived the first primary.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:16:38 AM
Driver,

I, too, fail to understand the push for "party loyalty" instead of following the wishes of the electorate. Do the political parties, especially the republican party, hold that much power, that all members must toe the line or be subject to in-party smear campaigns? George Washington was leary of political parties, but in the past, they have served us well, with the coming of third parties to help define the needs from the grassroots.

This is going to be a long presidental campaign. I worry that Obama will run out of money before he can get to the finish line and let one of the silver spoon boys take it away from him.


It's a two-step process. First get the nomination--so you have to appeal to the party. Then get elected---.

NOt so hard to understand.

Obama is running to be Hillary's VP, and then he'll set himself up to look presidential in about 8 years.

The interesting thing will be when Al gore decides to enter the race---and kills the Clintons off in the process...


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
I hope Gore does enter the race, he's finally showed that he has more personality than a piece of driftwood.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:32:27 AM
I hope Gore does enter the race, he's finally showed that he has more personality than a piece of driftwood.

I think he's got $$$ and backing in several places, too--including the GOP!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:38:02 AM
The Scoop on Scooter

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's hopes of avoiding prison in the CIA leak case began to dim Tuesday as a federal judge ruled he could face a longer sentence because the investigation he obstructed was so serious.

 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-06-05_D8PINS3O2&show_article=1&cat=breaking

And from that article we have this:

Theodore Wells, another of Libby's defense attorneys, urged Walton to consider Libby's career of government service. Before joining the White House staff, Libby served in the State Department and Pentagon and is known as an expert on weapons of mass destruction and biological threats.
"There are a lot of lawyers, people who go to law school, who come from privileged backgrounds, who do squat for their country, who do nothing for others," Wells said.  :o

I hope he wasn’t talking about anyone we know.  


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 11:42:26 AM
My guess is that Bush pardons him on his way out the door.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 05, 2007, 11:50:49 AM
Dzimas, ( after reading through your comments, I think you've already answered much that was brought up in this article )
 
Thought you might be interested in this, my quick digest UK news source;but, my only question to you is why are all these Russian men dropping dead in their fifties? First that I've heard of this, unless the vodka consumption is taking its toll?

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=7157

The Russian eagle should look less cocky
President Putin goes to the G8 summit with his head held high. john lloyd explains why


Yet, one last thought, nonetheless. I think that I hinted to you or perhaps to the general reader that Condi never was up to this assignment; she was just the answer to an old man's prayers. Scowcroft to be exact. But, his okay was enough for the senior Bush who had served at Nat.Sec.(?)  He has always operated in that way, you go through the forms and you fake it.   I think she possibly fulfilled her career goals when Condi was the administrator of an educational institution (this is where my aunt studied Russian following  WW2 during which she had been a flight nurse).

The promotion, after messing around in this hemisphere, was to continue the standard PR, first woman in outer space if you know what I mean.  We have a very inept administration at present and if we don't shake it soon, there is a lot worse that Obama not making his quota.

Weezo, and anyone else so inspired just contact Obama For America
at: P.O. Box 401034
     Cambridge, MA 02140-0011

Sounds like Harvard to me.  For more information please contact -- www.barackobama.com


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 05, 2007, 11:58:23 AM
Driver,

I, too, fail to understand the push for "party loyalty" instead of following the wishes of the electorate. Do the political parties, especially the republican party, hold that much power, that all members must toe the line or be subject to in-party smear campaigns? George Washington was leary of political parties, but in the past, they have served us well, with the coming of third parties to help define the needs from the grassroots.

This is going to be a long presidental campaign. I worry that Obama will run out of money before he can get to the finish line and let one of the silver spoon boys take it away from him.


It's a two-step process. First get the nomination--so you have to appeal to the party. Then get elected---.

NOt so hard to understand.

Obama is running to be Hillary's VP, and then he'll set himself up to look presidential in about 8 years.

The interesting thing will be when Al gore decides to enter the race---and kills the Clintons off in the process...

I rather doubt that --Obama will run as Hillary's V.P.

Dream all you wish about Mr. Gore ,I'd even be for his knocking off the Clintons in the process since Obama doesn't apparently know how to do that after the cat-fight about his fund-raiser at Geffen's.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 05, 2007, 12:06:38 PM
"Theodore Wells, another of Libby's defense attorneys, urged Walton to consider Libby's career of government service. Before joining the White House staff, Libby served in the State Department and Pentagon and is known as an expert on weapons of mass destruction and biological threats. "

Of course, Mr. Utley, this does not convince me of the advisability of letting Scooter off the hook, considering how he can't keep a secret.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:46:09 PM
"Theodore Wells, another of Libby's defense attorneys, urged Walton to consider Libby's career of government service. Before joining the White House staff, Libby served in the State Department and Pentagon and is known as an expert on weapons of mass destruction and biological threats. "

Of course, Mr. Utley, this does not convince me of the advisability of letting Scooter off the hook, considering how he can't keep a secret.


I still think Libby was the fall guy for Cheney.  It is really Cheney who should be heading to jail, IMHO.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:02:41 PM
Libby Gets 30 Months in Prison in C.I.A. Leak Case


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 01:05:25 PM
Maddie,

Thanks for the link to Obama. I cannot do the link to his debate since I am on dial-up and coming in choppy leaves me rather cold. And I did miss the debate the other night since hubby didn't want to watch it. He thinks its just too early. I tend to agree. I want to see what they are saying a bit closer to the event.

I learned from the Obama link that the man has made some hard statement about the need to revamp our Israeli-Palistinian policy. It is long overdue. I can imagine Obama being the man who can revive the sentiment expressed by John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". That is the kind of inspiration America desperate needs at the present.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:09:31 PM
You think that someday the idea of "I've got mine, screw you," will not longer be?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 01:12:11 PM
Sam,

You can't change all of the people for all time, but you can change some people for some of the time. That is what inpired leaders do. They just change enough of the people for some of the time, and we make progress, until we have another Reagan who asks you to choose to insure your chance at wealth.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:27:18 PM
Perhaps.  We've certainly been going through a time where the rich get richer and the rest of us struggle to get by.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 02:55:34 PM
It's going to be a long campaign.  It doesn't mean anything to be the front runner at this point.  I think Gore and Clark are smart to wait this one out, assuming they do decide to run.  I don't think Kerry entered the ring until late November 2003.  I have a feeling Hillary will have burnt herself out by November.  She sounded thoroughly unconvincing on the subject of faith.  Best to steer away from that topic.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 05, 2007, 02:58:29 PM

I learned from the Obama link that the man has made some hard statement about the need to revamp our Israeli-Palistinian policy. It is long overdue. I can imagine Obama being the man who can revive the sentiment expressed by John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". That is the kind of inspiration America desperate needs at the present.

At this point, Obama certainly sounds the most presidential.  I like the timber of the voice and the fact he wasn't afraid to speak out on this issue.  It is absolute nonsense the way the leading Democrats and Republicans sidestep the issue, seemingly unable to realize that it is our unconditional support of Israel that has led to the present quagmire in the Middle East.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 03:00:57 PM

I learned from the Obama link that the man has made some hard statement about the need to revamp our Israeli-Palistinian policy. It is long overdue. I can imagine Obama being the man who can revive the sentiment expressed by John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". That is the kind of inspiration America desperate needs at the present.

At this point, Obama certainly sounds the most presidential.  I like the timber of the voice and the fact he wasn't afraid to speak out on this issue.  It is absolute nonsense the way the leading Democrats and Republicans sidestep the issue, seemingly unable to realize that it is our unconditional support of Israel that has led to the present quagmire in the Middle East.

I agree with you on this.  A Gore/Obama ticket would make sense to me.


Title: Heiligendamm
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 12:02:06 AM
I see the G8 leaders have locked themsevles away in a quaint seaside resort for the week, doing their best to keep everyone out while they discuss the fate of the world.  Bush and Merkl should have conjoined rooms.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 06, 2007, 02:47:31 AM
Oh, c'mon. This is as bad as his morning runs with Condileeza,"to keep in shape" 

The Merkl photos were revealing of nothing so much as he has an inability to understand and set borders(psychologically, of course); and that's on a par with "seemingly unable to realize that it is our unconditional support of Israel that has led to the present quagmire in the Middle East".  That's all his too, although I fail to grasp in what way he is being supportive.  Isn't it sort of a "divide and conquer" thing in his grasp of how he can get away with getting what he wants, by some sort of a magic trick,sleight of hand, "look over here, Palestinians and Arabs are,uh,complicated people", so you won't notice that what he wants is Iranian oil.

I can understand that he has committed a "quagmire" out of what was once Baghdad and vicinity; but the Israelis and Palestinians made their own quagmire. Yet neither Israelis nor Palestinians  feel great about Iran.

When in doubt, I inevitably go  back to Lawrence of Arabia and see what David Lean came up with (that was him, wasn't it, who gave all the best lines to O'Toole?) and I seem to remember he distinctly said,"Arabs do not like Persians." That's what Palestinians are, right? Arabs. The way that the British have explained everything about their visits in Persia, as calm and quietly as possible, one would suspect that Palestinians and Israelis might have a lot more in common; they know how to bug each other successfully like old marrieds. 

You know that biblically (what an outrageous word), like "in the biblical sense", Israelis have a bit of a Persian empire problem with part of the population having been sent off to Persia, and some of the Persians left around on guard duty  where they weren't wanted, because by the time of the return from Persia, these former friends and neighbours had become overly sophisticated and nearly as annoying as the original Persians who had made a base camp somewhere between Israel and Judea. This caused the stay at homes,under occupation, to develop a distinct inferiority problem when they felt that their "Persianized" neighbors upon return in the exchange program sort of looked down their noses at the stay at homes. They obviously were a lot more worldly, more sophisticated, smarter than before, and they didn't have to do the farming and sheep-herding. But it does leave the impression that they have a driving ambition not to let the Iranian Persians try that again with modern weaponry, reduce them to rubble yet again as so many others have, while reducing the population to unbearable limits and carting the strongest off into slavery so they could sell them god knows where! Russia, perhaps? China? History repeating itself.

It appears that the quagmire is entirely a Republican/Democrat split when not being honest about what they really should be resolving. That is getting Bush to get his hands off the Iraq "quagmire" before he gets the House dirty. But, they too, want the Iranian oil,so they don't have to change their life style although it will ecologically change for the worse.

Here, I was given this to think about today, at Le Monde:
Peggy Noonan underwent a fresh conversion watching the French elections. “It comes as a relief,” she wrote in The Wall Street Journal on 14 May, “to admire France again.”

Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution (Random House, New York, 1990).

She thinks that Sarkozy is the bee's knees for imitating W and bringing Enlightenment to Europe



Title: Bush and Europe
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 03:40:16 AM
Sarkozy looks like a used car salesman to me, able to take advantage of another split among the Socialists as they couldn't bring themselves to unite behind Ségolène Royal.  With a name like that she was destined to be president.  There is a shift going on in Europe, and I imagine the Bush administration is happy as can be with the changes that took place in Germany and France.  Gordon Brown won't distance himself from the US either, so it should be one big happy family, relatively speaking.  But, your comment on "closeness" is well taken, madupont, Bush doesn't understand how to keep his distance in diplomatic situations.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 06:01:05 AM
When asked what place Bush might play in a new republican administration, most of the candidates had little to say.  Tandario said he'd tell Bush not to darken his door.  Like Bush, none of them had much of a plan for health care except failed policies like health savings accounts. Most would use nuclear weapons against Iran; most think you fight terrorism with big armies.  Most carried their religion on their sleeve.

Not an impressive group of Bush wannabees.


Title: Faith and Politics
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 07:02:54 AM
I don't know why anyone of them would wannabe Bush?  His has truly been a failed presidency in virtually every sense.  I guess with at least 50 per cent of the Republican vote coming from the religious right, they have to wear their religion on their sleeves if they expect to get past the primaries.  The Republicans have really painted themselves into a dark corner, but then I watched excerpts of the Democratic debate centered around "Faith" and couldn't help but chuckle as Hillary tried to project herself as someone who prays each day.  It would be funny if all this wasn't taken so seriously by the politicos.


Title: Re: Faith and Politics
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 07:09:34 AM
I don't know why anyone of them would wannabe Bush?  His has truly been a failed presidency in virtually every sense.  I guess with at least 50 per cent of the Republican vote coming from the religious right, they have to wear their religion on their sleeves if they expect to get past the primaries.  The Republicans have really painted themselves into a dark corner, but then I watched excerpts of the Democratic debate centered around "Faith" and couldn't help but chuckle as Hillary tried to project herself as someone who prays each day.  It would be funny if all this wasn't taken so seriously by the politicos.

I agree.  I wonder if she gets on her knees, like Monica used to do.


Title: The Question of Faith
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 07:12:37 AM
Sad to say, but this presidential election is going to be dominated by religion on both the Democratic and Republican side.  It will be a battle to see who has "God" on his or her side.  Maybe we can hope for some divine intervention here.


Title: Re: The Question of Faith
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 07:16:38 AM
Sad to say, but this presidential election is going to be dominated by religion on both the Democratic and Republican side.  It will be a battle to see who has "God" on his or her side.  Maybe we can hope for some divine intervention here.

Don't count on it.  There is no "divine" to intervene.


Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 07:29:04 AM
Listening to all these candidates stumble over themselves on the subject of faith, I couldn't help be reminded of REM's "Losing my Religion."  I suppose they are all trying to find it again, now that it has become such a hot button issue.  It is really hard for Europeans to grasp the hold religion has over American politics.  Even in traditional Catholic countries like Italy, Spain and Ireland, religion is not discussed with such (feigned) passion.  Only in the backwater of Poland does one see religion beginning to dominate politics in the form of the Kaczynski brothers. Interesting statistics on church attendance,

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance

I didn't realize it was so high in Ireland, but the US ranks right up there at #11 with 44% attendance.  I noticed Lithuania (my country of residence) is quite low at 16%.  Russia surprises me, as so much these days is made of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the vast majority of Russians don't seem to care.  Of course, I have no way of knowing how accurate this survey is.
 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 07:38:22 AM
Although Bush apparently still has a certain amount of religiously coded text in his speeches, there is no mention these days of the bible-discussion groups that supposedly took place in the White House in the early days of his administration.  Hard to imagine Dick, Rummy, Condi and Powell sitting in on these discussions.  I guess they came out of the mind of the Imperial Wizard, Karl Rove, the grand master of political-religious spin, and a few interns were required to take part.


Title: The Peacemaker
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 10:25:14 AM
Nice to hear Bush reassuring Europe, "Russia's not going to attack Europe."  Of course, Russia wouldn't have even created the threat had not Bush announced the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic.  I'm curious where he thought the threat was coming from.  Belarus maybe?


Title: Re: The Question of Faith
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 01:55:30 PM
Sad to say, but this presidential election is going to be dominated by religion on both the Democratic and Republican side.  It will be a battle to see who has "God" on his or her side.  Maybe we can hope for some divine intervention here.

DEAD WRONG

But religion's part of it.  Part of all life.

Are you an American living abroad?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: lulu on June 06, 2007, 02:35:06 PM
I find it amazing that the US should criticize Putin on backsliding of democracy?  We've lost ours; our constitution is in threads and the Supreme Court is turning back the clock to the neanderthal ages.  Jefferson, et al. must be spinning in their graves and figuring why did they bother with the Bill or Rights, Constitution or separation from Mother England?


Title: God and Politics
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 02:45:43 PM
Kidcarter, When a Democratic Presidential Debate focuses on the issue of faith, I would say that religion has come to play a very strong role in politics.  After all, the Dems are supposed to be godless and gutless.  All the Republicans identify themselves strongly with their religious faiths, no less than three of them where their religions on their sleeves.  So, I really don't get where you are coming from.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 02:50:23 PM
Lulu, I would agree that Bush has no room to talk when it comes to Russia "backsliding" on democratic reforms.  Nevertheless, Russia has become an increasingly repressive state.  Both of Putin's "elections" were fixed and it seems this one will be too, as Putin will pretty much be able to name his successor, assuming he steps down from his throne.  I think what we really have is a bit of envy on the part of W that Putin was able to consolidate so much power in the executive and essentially render the Duma irrelevant.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 02:51:16 PM
Notwithstanding all the complaints about the U.S. "backsliding of democracy" and "dictatorships" and "fascism" here in the U.S., I suspect that the Republicans and the rest of the country will get a reminder about how the U.S. political process is supposed to work in 2008 and thus put an end to at least some of the hyperbole.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 03:41:41 PM
Re:   Mother England

I'm with ya.  Can't get a good bloody scone around 'ere.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 03:57:48 PM
I certainly hope so, yankguy.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 04:27:39 PM
The most pressing moral issue in America is abortion.  MiKe Huckabee.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 04:31:41 PM
I suppose if one defines abortion as a murder (a sentiment I don't agree with, but regardless of that some people passionately believe that to be the case), then one can actually believe it's a huge moral issue.

I used to believe, cynically, that deep-down everybody was pro-choice.  I've come to believe that's not the case at all, and while I don't agree with their position and many of their methods, I'm not so cynical as to believe that one can't be a committed anti-abortionist. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:19:05 PM
I suppose if one defines abortion as a murder (a sentiment I don't agree with, but regardless of that some people passionately believe that to be the case), then one can actually believe it's a huge moral issue.

I used to believe, cynically, that deep-down everybody was pro-choice.  I've come to believe that's not the case at all, and while I don't agree with their position and many of their methods, I'm not so cynical as to believe that one can't be a committed anti-abortionist. 

I think we have more pressing moral issues in this country....like preemptive war?  stealing our grandchildren's future while giving the ultra rich tax cut!  Heath care for all.  Greed.  Gluttony. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 05:23:24 PM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:35:03 PM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.

Perhaps, but I certainly think preemptive war is a moral issue.  A culture of life that uses 2000 pound bombs that kill hundreds at a time is certainly a moral issue, IMHO.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 06, 2007, 05:37:30 PM
In my personal opinion, abortion is as much murder as euthenizing unwanted pets or hunting and killing wildlife that you don't intend to eat. But, this is my take on it. One thing that abortion is NOT, is a legal issue. People should be free to make their own choices without interference from the government. Banning abortion is nothing more than an effort to keep women barefoot and pregnant in perpetuity.

Now, let me put up my umbrella against the flak that will soon be falling on my head!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 05:42:12 PM
I agree that it's not a decision I want the government involved in.   I'll go no further than that, though.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 05:45:26 PM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.

Perhaps, but I certainly think preemptive war is a moral issue.  A culture of life that uses 2000 pound bombs that kill hundreds at a time is certainly a moral issue, IMHO.

All well and good, but the decision to engage in such activity will likely be ended by pulling a lever in the election.  The abortion issue, for some, transcends electoral/policy choices and does not, apparently, have a happy resolution awaiting it at the ballot box.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:58:24 PM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.

Perhaps, but I certainly think preemptive war is a moral issue.  A culture of life that uses 2000 pound bombs that kill hundreds at a time is certainly a moral issue, IMHO.

All well and good, but the decision to engage in such activity will likely be ended by pulling a lever in the election.  The abortion issue, for some, transcends electoral/policy choices and does not, apparently, have a happy resolution awaiting it at the ballot box.

This is an issue that should be determined by the individual who wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason she might have.  It is not your business, nor my business, nor MIke Huckabee's business, not the business of the US Government, IMHO.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 06:00:44 PM
Mike Huckabee believes abortion to be murder.  That's why he feels it's both a moral issue and his business.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 06:04:17 PM
Mike Huckabee believes abortion to be murder.  That's why he feels it's both a moral issue and his business.



Well, he's wrong.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 06, 2007, 06:06:11 PM
I wish I was so certain about things.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on June 06, 2007, 08:34:38 PM
Yank,

Mike Huckabee believes abortion to be murder.

Then by all means Mike Huckabee should not have one.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 10:23:01 PM
In my personal opinion, abortion is as much murder as euthenizing unwanted pets or hunting and killing wildlife that you don't intend to eat. But, this is my take on it. One thing that abortion is NOT, is a legal issue. People should be free to make their own choices without interference from the government. Banning abortion is nothing more than an effort to keep women barefoot and pregnant in perpetuity.

Now, let me put up my umbrella against the flak that will soon be falling on my head!

So free all the psychomoms in the asylums that killed their kids


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 05:41:44 AM
What is the greatest moral threat in our country?  That was the question.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 06:22:38 AM
Is this the Mike Huckabee you all are referring to?

http://www.explorehuckabee.com/

I'm not sure how far I want to explore him.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 07, 2007, 09:07:27 AM
Yank,

Mike Huckabee believes abortion to be murder.

Then by all means Mike Huckabee should not have one.

This tends to be one of the leading cliches that's part and parcel of the abortion "debate."  FTR, I'm what's casually defined as "pro-choice" on the issue, if for no other reason than I think it's too complicated too allow the government to make the choice for you.

On the other hand, if you believe abortion to be murder, the wanton taking of human life, then "don't have one" seems to be a rather simplistic response to such a view.  I mean you wouldn't justify murdering your spouse with the response "don't murder YOUR spouse," would you?

 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2007, 09:41:40 AM
Makes sense to me, yank.

I am just wondering how people on this forum would answer the question of "What is the greatest moral threat in our country?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 07, 2007, 12:00:28 PM
Dzimas,

 Reply #1076 "there is no mention these days of the bible-discussion groups that supposedly took place in the White House in the early days of his administration.  Hard to imagine Dick, Rummy, Condi and Powell sitting in on these discussions."

You must entertain the possibility that this is what "mike" used to refer to as a 'code word', for what they discussed as usual about the plans for the invasion of Iraq, then on to Iran, which are sort of in the Middle East (when you recall that scholars when publishing used to formally speak of the Journals of the American Oriental Society) so I guess you could cover it similarly to Cheney's energy conference admission by invitation only in the early White House days.  I've got it,we'll call it our "bible-discussion group". (frankly, as an every morning prayer thing that they used to boast about, that's merely one thing because, I suspect they held "bible-discussion" a lot more often in the week than even the Mennonites whose teen-agers leave work early,and close down the store,at least one early evening per week for their bible-discussion group.)

Which leads me to your Reply #1077 "Of course, Russia wouldn't have even created the threat had not Bush announced the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic.  I'm curious where he thought the threat was coming from."

As you know, since the surveillance and use of clandestine operatives in Iran has been underway for some time( I was in fact reading late last night about what the public thinks is going on, as of eight months ago, until I became too depressed to read any further and have put that off to finish up today; this is the major concern of the voters today and the Democrats could make hay with it during campaigning, if it were not for the fact that the public also believes that Bush will use it, excuse the expression, as the "hot button" issue prior to the election so that people will say,"my god, we are at war, we better vote as the Decider wants us to do, for our own safety", acknowledging that a possibility of using martial law, the homeland security details, in time of war could be a personal disaster for those who find anything objectionable about a war of this kind, nuclear war against Iran.

Since Iran is obviously too near to Russia, which might take this as another form of "personal" assault", Bush is backing himself by the deployment of a missile defense system; placed with his new allies during his first term in office, "New Europe" instead of "Old Europe", and boy! did Rummy get off  on that Republican canard.

Or, as saminnh  Reply #1099  and mr.utley Reply #1102  asked,"What is the greatest moral threat in our country?

That's it. That's what the public thinks: nuclear war against Iran.  With the exception of many fundamentalist religious groups who put their faith in god and their salvation with do-not-pass-go but go directly,Rapture. Therefore they opt to vote against abortion because their souls depend on this stance. They see nothing wrong with killing Muslims who are a threat to them as Christians, in their opinion; which they wouldn't even have an opinion about if they had not been indoctrinated politically in return for their fund-raising abilities.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 07, 2007, 12:07:09 PM
Ps, dzimas,

I think what kidcarter 8 was asking previously, whether you happen to take an Eastern point of view or,a Western point of view?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 12:21:49 PM
I got that, maddie, but I prefer to keep him guessing.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 12:57:46 PM
Dzimas,


Or, as saminnh  Reply #1099  and mr.utley Reply #1102  asked,"What is the greatest moral threat in our country?

That's it. That's what the public thinks: nuclear war against Iran.  With the exception of many fundamentalist religious groups who put their faith in god and their salvation with do-not-pass-go but go directly,Rapture. Therefore they opt to vote against abortion because their souls depend on this stance. They see nothing wrong with killing Muslims who are a threat to them as Christians, in their opinion; which they wouldn't even have an opinion about if they had not been indoctrinated politically in return for their fund-raising abilities.

I think that Ron Paul said it correctly when he stated that preemptive, unproved war is the greatest moral threat this nation faces at this time.  The neocons have to go.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on June 07, 2007, 01:02:36 PM
I think that Ron Jeremy said it correctly when he stated that "You cannot blame porn, ... When I was young, I used to masturbate to Gilligan's Island."


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: lulu on June 07, 2007, 01:50:40 PM
I think it's funny, if not pathetic, when the US critcizes Russia on human rights, etc. when it's hell bent on destroying civil rights in this country and plays cozy with China and Pakistan and all the other right-wing fascists countries.

I wish countries would stand up to the US and say fuck you and keep your money.  I have great respect in that regards for Venezuela.  too bad europe sucks up to Bush because of financial aid.  (Except Spain pulled out of Iraq; France never went (it learned from vietnam and Algeria) and Italy will probably pull its few troops out.  Only australia, the brown noser and britain (ditto tony the brown noser) are following bush over the cliff.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: srnich on June 07, 2007, 03:02:04 PM
What is the greatest moral threat in our country?  That was the question.

People that selfishly put their own "salvation" (whatever that may be to them) ahead of all else.

That's ALL people, world wide.

They are dangerous to the rest of humanity.







Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2007, 04:30:28 PM
I think that Ron Jeremy said it correctly when he stated that "You cannot blame porn, ... When I was young, I used to masturbate to Gilligan's Island."

Ginger or Mary Ann? Or Gilligan? Or the Professor?

No, not the Captain!!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 06:31:36 PM
Paris Hilton gets out of jail free (well with an ankle bracelet).


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 07, 2007, 07:04:59 PM
I got that, maddie, but I prefer to keep him guessing.

I kind of got that; yet, so does Putin. By now you've read this:

Putin Makes His Own Proposal on Missile Defense

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/europe/07cnd-Russia.html?hp

So much for moral certainty. Stolberg did the article so she mentions Putin's preference to avoid the silent treatment. Obviously too risky when dealing with this kind of weaponry.  They'll have to dicker some more.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 08, 2007, 02:20:55 AM
What is the greatest moral threat in our country?  That was the question.

I prefer to think along ethical lines.  A little less emotionally charged.  As in, is it ethical that the Bush administration admittedly mislead the nation in regard to Iraq's nuclear capabilities, and can we trust them to make an unbiased assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities, before committing any more troops to the region?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 08, 2007, 02:22:44 AM
Ginger or Mary Ann? Or Gilligan? Or the Professor?

I had the hots for Mary Ann, but didn't express my longing in that way.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 07:52:58 AM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.
You know, as one of the few people ever to walk both sides of that particular street, the only thing as frustrating as trying to get a pro-choice advocate to truly understand the point of view of a pro-life advocate is trying to get a pro-life advocate to understand the point of view of a pro-choice advocate.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 07:58:04 AM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.
You know, as one of the few people ever to walk both sides of that particular street, the only thing as frustrating as trying to get a pro-choice advocate to truly understand the point of view of a pro-life advocate is trying to get a pro-life advocate to understand the point of view of a pro-choice advocate.

And is this the greatest moral threat to America today?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 08:08:09 AM
Again, if one believes abortion to be murder, I don't think it's far-fetched at all to believe that it's the number one moral issue facing this country.  It seems that the issues that you're discussing are less clearly "moral issues," but rather policy issues and issues that can be rectified at the ballot box.
You know, as one of the few people ever to walk both sides of that particular street, the only thing as frustrating as trying to get a pro-choice advocate to truly understand the point of view of a pro-life advocate is trying to get a pro-life advocate to understand the point of view of a pro-choice advocate.

And is this the greatest moral threat to America today?
I suppose there are going to be divergent opinions on the greatest moral threat to America, and see no use in debating the topic, particularly with someone who has evinced a disinclination to see the root of my moral views as anything but lunacy.  Moreover, despite my religious beliefs, I tend to not think of political problems in terms of moral threat.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 08:23:01 AM



And is this the greatest moral threat to America today?
[/quote]I suppose there are going to be divergent opinions on the greatest moral threat to America, and see no use in debating the topic, particularly with someone who has evinced a disinclination to see the root of my moral views as anything but lunacy.  Moreover, despite my religious beliefs, I tend to not think of political problems in terms of moral threat.
[/quote]

Ok.  It was a question from the debate Tuesday night with the republican candidates. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 08:45:52 AM
Ah.  I didn't see the debate.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 10:34:05 AM
10 Angry White Men


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 11:51:46 AM
I fail to see what the significance of the question was. It seems to me that moral dilemmas in the country are outside of the purvue of the presidency. We have no business legislating morality - that should be and remain a personal matter.

I am not impressed with a candidate based on their habits or prayer or attendence at church. What I am more interested in is their ability to justify the murder of large numbers of innocent people in order to gain "political advantages". This is the only "morality" question that is appropriate for the potential president of this country. Will we be safe in our homes and businesses? Will we be allowed to own property free from the infringements of the "government"? Can we peacefully associate and organize to press the government to address problems?

Were any of these questions asked of the candidates?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:34:12 PM
I fail to see what the significance of the question was. It seems to me that moral dilemmas in the country are outside of the purvue of the presidency. We have no business legislating morality - that should be and remain a personal matter.

I am not impressed with a candidate based on their habits or prayer or attendence at church. What I am more interested in is their ability to justify the murder of large numbers of innocent people in order to gain "political advantages". This is the only "morality" question that is appropriate for the potential president of this country. Will we be safe in our homes and businesses? Will we be allowed to own property free from the infringements of the "government"? Can we peacefully associate and organize to press the government to address problems?

Were any of these questions asked of the candidates?


I think maybe you should watch the next debate, rather than NOT watch and take potshots.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: lulu on June 08, 2007, 01:34:21 PM
I notice that Gonzales is still around.  He'll be there when Bush leaves office (when, dear God, when?).


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 02:35:47 PM
Quote
We have no business legislating morality - that should be and remain a personal matter.

This was my father's refrain, which boggles me still.  What is it we legislate if not morality, as in it's right to do this, wrong to do that?  My reply to him, however, was that regardless of morality, what we legislate is behavior.
We should outlaw behavior because it is bad for society, not because it is morally right or wrong.   


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 03:01:26 PM
Have you guys been hitting Bush's "near beers"?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 09, 2007, 12:35:58 AM
I had a chance to hear the Irish President a couple weeks ago in Vilnius.  I felt jealous that Ireland had such a well spoken president in Mary McAleese, who spoke on the growing connection between Ireland and Lithuania with so many Lithuanians going over to Ireland to work and so many Irish speculating in real estate in Lithuania. If only we had a president who didn't stick his foot in his mouth at almost every opportunity to open it.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 06:25:30 AM
I had a chance to hear the Irish President a couple weeks ago in Vilnius.  I felt jealous that Ireland had such a well spoken president in Mary McAleese, who spoke on the growing connection between Ireland and Lithuania with so many Lithuanians going over to Ireland to work and so many Irish speculating in real estate in Lithuania. If only we had a president who didn't stick his foot in his mouth at almost every opportunity to open it.

Hmmm...that sounds more like the president of the USA.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 09, 2007, 10:01:26 AM
Quote
If only we had a president who didn't stick his foot in his mouth at almost every opportunity to open it.
I didn't know Lithuania's president ws like that.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 11:11:39 AM
Will Gonzales resign after the no confidence vote next week?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2007, 03:46:31 AM
Sam,

Will Gonzales resign after the no confidence vote next week?

Better  question: Will the Son-of-a-Bush LET him resign?  After all, there will be blood on the floor of the hearing room during the confirmation hearing for any successor he might name.

Gee, George, what happened to all that political capital you were going to spend after the 2004 election?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 10, 2007, 07:27:16 AM
Sam,

Will Gonzales resign after the no confidence vote next week?

Better  question: Will the Son-of-a-Bush LET him resign?  After all, there will be blood on the floor of the hearing room during the confirmation hearing for any successor he might name.

Gee, George, what happened to all that political capital you were going to spend after the 2004 election?

I guess that's why they decided not to renominate General Pace, the bigot. for another term at Joint Chief.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 10, 2007, 11:17:56 AM
Whiskey, even though I've been living in Lithuania for 10 years, I still consider myself American.  For that matter, so does Lithuania, as I once again had to go through the dehumanizing experience of applying for a residence visa.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 06:49:45 AM
No confidence vote today on Gonzales.  Will he remain or go?


Title: Gonzales
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 06:51:36 AM
I imagine he will hang on to the bitter end, as they all do.  Can anyone expect a better attorney general in his place?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 07:58:30 AM
It is really horrible what the Bushies have done to the Justice Department.  Justice should be about as independent as possible; not a polical arm of the White House.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 08:23:24 AM
No confidence vote today on Gonzales.  Will he remain or go?
I think that the last thing the Bush admin wants is a blood bath on the senate floor over the next AG nominee.  Add that on to Bush's self-righteous arrogance and I think you have your answer.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 08:39:49 AM
No confidence vote today on Gonzales.  Will he remain or go?
I think that the last thing the Bush admin wants is a blood bath on the senate floor over the next AG nominee.  Add that on to Bush's self-righteous arrogance and I think you have your answer.

Bush says he'll ignore any vote of confidence by Congress.  But as far as blood-baths, I wonder why he couldn't have found a less controversial candidate for Surgeon General? 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: prairiepop on June 11, 2007, 10:11:53 AM
Does anyone else in here see the irony in the cheering crowds in ALBANIA for the pResident?  I mean, pilgrims, Albania was the last in line to step away from the hard-line Evil Empire--and to have them be virtually the only country that now turns out to whoop it up FOR Bush is absolutely mind-blowing.  I guess they know their own...  This may be a forlorn hope on my part, but wouldn't it be loverly if Bush didn't use his Albanian kudos to validate his wonderfulness around the globe.  In his own country, he needs a cordon sanitaire to protect him from US public opinion and any expressions thereof... the Secret Service needs to work harder here to spare Bush's tender sensitivities than it did in Albania.  Took out one of my old passports recently...and Albania was prominently listed as a "can't go there" country.  Who'd'a thunk it...we've lived long enuf to see an American president get the warm fuzzies there that he can't get here!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 10:25:04 AM
I wouldn't be so hard on Albanians.  The rally was no doubt staged, and I doubt reflects the general sentiment of Albanians toward Bush.  Bush has a very low opinion rating in Eastern Europe, even among more stalwart allies such as Bulgaria and Poland.  The leaders supported Bush during the build-up to the Iraq War principally so that they could get the US to support their entry into NATO, which it did.  As far as Eastern European countries are concerned NATO is a very expensive insurance policy against Russian aggression, but this latest round of missile defense blustering has thrown the matter into even more turmoil, as seen in the Czech Republic. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 11, 2007, 10:30:23 AM
A no-confidence vote?  What kind of government do we have here?  The Democrats are as bad at political theater as the Republicans.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 10:40:32 AM
I wouldn't be so hard on Albanians.  The rally was no doubt staged, and I doubt reflects the general sentiment of Albanians toward Bush.  Bush has a very low opinion rating in Eastern Europe, even among more stalwart allies such as Bulgaria and Poland.  The leaders supported Bush during the build-up to the Iraq War principally so that they could get the US to support their entry into NATO, which it did.  As far as Eastern European countries are concerned NATO is a very expensive insurance policy against Russian aggression, but this latest round of missile defense blustering has thrown the matter into even more turmoil, as seen in the Czech Republic. 
Reminds me a little of the great scene early in Becket, when Peter O'Toole as Henry II is being celebrated in the streets of a French town, the dialogue running more or less:

Quote
Henry II:  See how my new French subjects love me!

Becket (Richard Burton): They don't.  They are celebrating you because we paid them to celebrate.

Henry II: Why must you shatter all my illusions?

Becket: Because you should have none.
Somehow, I suspect Bush's handlers in Albania skipped that last part.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 11, 2007, 10:49:29 AM
Right after that scene was shot, O'Toole and Burton went out drinking.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 10:53:57 AM
Right after that scene was shot, O'Toole and Burton went out drinking.
After?  Given those two, before and during.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 12:27:45 PM
Beckett was a powerful movie.  I can't think of a recent movie that has that same kind of power.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 11, 2007, 12:31:18 PM
I'm kind of hoping that after Congress finishes with their no-confidence vote thingy, they return to doing things they do well, like investigating steroid use in baseball.

God bless the Tuesday to Thursday club. 


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 01:07:20 PM
Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spearheading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plan's leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and destroyed, a genocide for the Muslim people.

The neocons think that by bombing Iran the U.S. will provoke Iran to arm the Shi'ite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against U.S. troops. These weapons would neutralize U.S. tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the U.S. military edge, leaving divided and isolated U.S. forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America on the verge of losing most of its troops in Iraq, the cry would go up to "save the troops" by nuking Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11084


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 11, 2007, 01:18:33 PM
It is really horrible what the Bushies have done to the Justice Department.  Justice should be about as independent as possible; not a polical arm of the White House.

I know you felt the same way with the Clinton Administration's "justice" department...


Title: Court rules in favor of enemy combatant
Post by: liquidsilver on June 11, 2007, 02:13:51 PM
The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/enemy_combatant


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: thecap0 on June 11, 2007, 02:37:40 PM
sam,

Beckett was a powerful movie.  I can't think of a recent movie that has that same kind of power.

I can!  CRASH!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 02:44:48 PM
Uggh!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Driver125 on June 11, 2007, 03:52:16 PM
Quote
Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spearheading the neocon plan,

This morning...a story out of Iraq on CNN....
There are some Sunni militias there who think that they would be first rate at killing foreign insurgents (when they are not busy killing Americans and Shia) so they have asked the Americans to better arm them. The Americans are supposedly considering the request. Insanity, complete insanity!!!


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 05:30:50 PM
It is really horrible what the Bushies have done to the Justice Department.  Justice should be about as independent as possible; not a polical arm of the White House.

I know you felt the same way with the Clinton Administration's "justice" department...

NO, that was the Nixon White House.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: European on June 11, 2007, 06:05:37 PM
The rally was no doubt staged, and I doubt reflects the general sentiment of Albanians toward Bush.

It may well be the case that the rally was staged, after all, why did his bodyguards let him out of the car in these times of terror and all-pervasive Bush hatred?  But then, I rather think that lots of Albanians have rather warm feelings for the U.S., predominantly because the Americans freed their brethren, the Kosovo Albanians from the harsh Serbian rule, which comes with the prospect of independence of Kosovo, and ultimately Greater Albania upon unification.  That would be the Albanian nationalists' wet dream, thanks to Clinton and the U.S. of A.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 11, 2007, 11:36:05 PM
samiinh re:#1149

Couldn't Murdoch just take Podhoretz out, by purchasing the WSJ and then,burying him under a pile of money?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 11, 2007, 11:39:40 PM
The rally was no doubt staged, and I doubt reflects the general sentiment of Albanians toward Bush.

It may well be the case that the rally was staged, after all, why did his bodyguards let him out of the car in these times of terror and all-pervasive Bush hatred?  But then, I rather think that lots of Albanians have rather warm feelings for the U.S., predominantly because the Americans freed their brethren, the Kosovo Albanians from the harsh Serbian rule, which comes with the prospect of independence of Kosovo, and ultimately Greater Albania upon unification.  That would be the Albanian nationalists' wet dream, thanks to Clinton and the U.S. of A.



European,

I'd always heard that Albanians were overtly fond of the Bushes, father more so than son. In fact, i thought that perhaps you were one of the Albanians from whom I had heard that;but, on second thought, I guess obviously not.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 12, 2007, 05:50:00 AM
Well, Gonzales survived the NCV.  Now what?  Will they begin an impeachment?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: European on June 12, 2007, 08:02:20 AM
Couldn't Murdoch just take Podhoretz out, by purchasing the WSJ and then,burying him under a pile of money?

Calling Podhoretz a right-wing whore would give whores a bad name.  That is to say, the man is so much to Murdoch's liking that I cannot figure out why he would bury him.

European,

I'd always heard that Albanians were overtly fond of the Bushes, father more so than son. In fact, i thought that perhaps you were one of the Albanians from whom I had heard that;but, on second thought, I guess obviously not.

I have to admit that, given baby Bush's performance, I have come to somewhat appreciate his dad's foreign policy.  "Overtly fond" wouldn't describe it, though.

Well, Gonzales survived the NCV.  Now what?  Will they begin an impeachment?

Are there sufficient grounds for impeachment?  I mean, impeachment is a procedure akin to a legal process, which means that something criminal must have occurred.  My understanding rather is that what Gonzales has done rather has its place at the border between the ethical and the political.  This, in my understanding, is to be punished by voters, not by way of an impeachment.

Upon further thought, no, I don't expect the Democrats to start impeachment procedures, not least because they wouldn't want to set a precedent for impeachment in the case of mere ethics violations.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: liquidsilver on June 12, 2007, 08:54:06 AM
I believe there are still further congressional hearings scheduled for Gonzalez


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: yankguy on June 12, 2007, 09:10:08 AM
After the failed "no-confidence vote", I think the Democrats are now angling for a President's Question Time on the floor of the Senate.  After, which the Democrats are going to call for a new election in the hopes that they can form a new government.  I wonder who our new Chancellor of Exchequer is going to be.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 12, 2007, 09:54:13 AM
european, reply to re:#1160

 "....I mean, impeachment is a procedure akin to a legal process, which means that something criminal must have occurred.  My understanding rather is that what Gonzales has done rather has its place at the border between the ethical and the political.  This, in my understanding, is to be punished by voters, not by way of an impeachment.

Upon further thought, no, I don't expect the Democrats to start impeachment procedures, not least because they wouldn't want to set a precedent for impeachment in the case of mere ethics violations."

Well, because the voters had no input into the installing of Gonzalez into the cabinet level position of the current Republican administration, and in fact his area of government should have remained a separate power as defined in the Constitution, for the sake of the constituency's protecting from "overweening Power" in another branch of govenment, impeachment procedures offer a very good format of investigation as to whether actions of the office holder had criminal intent; and were his recommendations likely to be considered, in the peoples' eyes(the voters), as illegal, or somehow extralegal?

As to mere "ethics violation" in the recommendations provided by the "counselor" to the president at the president's request, they are considered by other more international bodies as actual crimes against Humanity as put into practice by the Commander in Chief and his now no longer serving former Secretary of Defense. The latter may have erred in the application of such actions in facilities under his authority, whereas the former may have by merely ordering done what he asked his counselor to ascertain utile. This could be an obvious inquiry leading to further actions(a legal process)of impeachment. Need I say more?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 12, 2007, 10:00:03 AM
Ps, I do see what you mean concerning," I have come to somewhat appreciate his dad's foreign policy.", by comparison at least. More tempered?  Although at the time, we the public, the citizens, had very little idea of the actual manuevers that he was using, which he had picked up along the way through further on the job education in roles he fulfilled at CIA among other things .  He was always shrewd that way,relying on experience to carry him through what other entities within the division of powers of government might perceive as objectionable.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 10:07:08 AM
With only 18 months to go, nothing short of criminal charges will lead to the removal of any of Bush's cabinet.  He has sunk so low in the ratings that I don't think he cares anymore what people think of him.  Now comes the time to set himself and his cronies up for retirement.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: European on June 12, 2007, 10:14:23 AM
european, reply to re:#1160

Well, because the voters had no input into the installing of Gonzalez into the cabinet level position of the current Republican administration, and in fact his area of government should have remained a separate power as defined in the Constitution, for the sake of the constituency's protecting from "overweening Power" in another branch of govenment, impeachment procedures offer a very good format of investigation as to whether actions of the office holder had criminal intent; and were his recommendations likely to be considered, in the peoples' eyes(the voters), as illegal, or somehow extralegal?

Yes, the voters cannot directly remove Gonzales and had no lever installing him.  They can, however, remove those critters who installed the man in the first place, and that would be the punishment I had in mind.  To that it is immaterial whether the voters consider Gonzales' performance as extralegal or illegal or unethical; the man was but Bush's tool, and that certainly is not what the Attorney General was supposed to be.

Quote
As to mere "ethics violation" in the recommendations provided by the "counselor" to the president at the president's request, they are considered by other more international bodies as actual crimes against Humanity as put into practice by the Commander in Chief and his now no longer serving former Secretary of Defense. The latter may have erred in the application of such actions in facilities under his authority, whereas the former may have by merely ordering done what he asked his counselor to ascertain utile. This could be an obvious inquiry leading to further actions(a legal process)of impeachment. Need I say more?

May they rot in some dungeon for the rest of their pathetic lives.  Habeas corpus shall be granted.

Quote
Ps, I do see what you mean concerning," I have come to somewhat appreciate his dad's foreign policy.", by comparison at least. More tempered?

I gather you are talking about Iran-Contra (and the like)?  As I said, only by comparison with the imperial ideologues currently occupying the White House does Bush daddy look good on the scores of criminal intent and inhumane execution.


Title: Bush and Albania
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 10:21:59 AM
According to one NGO poll, about 60% of Albanians have a favorable impression of the United States,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1847107/posts

I don't know whether that directly translates into a favorable opinion of Bush, but having a state visit of this magnitude is certainly a high point in Albanian foreign relations.

What is interesting is the posturing taking place.  Russia supports Serbia, whereas the US supports the other former republics of Yugoslavia, along with Albania, leading to inevitable tensions in the region.  I'm not sure whether Kosovo independence will solve anything in the region, but it certainly makes for good pep rally fodder.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: madupont on June 12, 2007, 11:31:55 AM
European reL#1166

 "...gather you are talking about Iran-Contra (and the like)?  As I said, only by comparison with the imperial ideologues currently occupying the White House does Bush daddy look good on the scores of criminal intent and inhumane execution."

No, not at all. In fact, he hasn't looked good at all on that last score in regard to Iran-Contra, considering Negroponte and The School of the Americas.

What I had in mind was more on the lines he fed to his ambassador to deliver to Saddam Hussein that kicked off the Gulf War.

As far as I'm concerned, with all his experience,he implanted the current batch of imperialist ideologues in the White House, at his suggestion.

When last sighted on the Larry King show, in the company of his spouse, I'd say it won't be long now before he is as bonafide non compis mentis as Uncle Junior Corrado Soprano.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 12, 2007, 01:09:09 PM
It is really horrible what the Bushies have done to the Justice Department.  Justice should be about as independent as possible; not a polical arm of the White House.

I know you felt the same way with the Clinton Administration's "justice" department...

NO, that was the Nixon White House.

I, as a Democrat, never got the whole yank the Little Cuban out of the closet while in full riot gear act.

That and Waco...reminded me of Mayor Willie B. Goode and MOVE headquarters assault which burned down 1/2 of WEst Philly in 1985.

Plenty of abuse of power in Justice on both sides of the aisle.



Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 12, 2007, 01:51:13 PM
With only 18 months to go, nothing short of criminal charges will lead to the removal of any of Bush's cabinet.  He has sunk so low in the ratings that I don't think he cares anymore what people think of him.  Now comes the time to set himself and his cronies up for retirement.

And in the meantime run the nation.

Not unlike what other second term presidents do.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 02:08:35 PM
Looks like he has pretty much put "running the nation" on cruise control.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 12, 2007, 02:13:09 PM
Looks like he has pretty much put "running the nation" on cruise control.

Yep

That's why he's in Europe

Just sunnin


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: European on June 12, 2007, 03:07:40 PM

No, not at all. In fact, he [Bush daddy] hasn't looked good at all on that last score in regard to Iran-Contra, considering Negroponte and The School of the Americas.

Look, madupont, I didn't say he looked good.  Only compared to those imperial ideologues who, amongst other things, are responsible for a million fatalities, give or take, and the devastation wreaked upon the system of international law, did Bush daddy look good.  I thought that would be beyond dispute.

Quote
What I had in mind was more on the lines he fed to his ambassador to deliver to Saddam Hussein that kicked off the Gulf War.

Yeah, April Glaspie did a good job, didn't she?  Still, falling into April's trap definitely was Saddam's most devastating policy blunder, one that cost Iraqis dearly.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: sgrobin on June 12, 2007, 03:34:38 PM
Still, falling into April's trap

So Glaspie set a trap? What was its purpose?


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: samiinh on June 12, 2007, 04:00:49 PM
http://impeachgonzales.org/

The guy's a criminal.


Title: Re: Bush Administration
Post by: European on June 12, 2007, 04:45:08 PM
So Glaspie set a trap? What was its purpose?

To answer this question I need either to be George H. W. Bush, or to have mind reading capabilities, yet neither of these conditions are fulfilled.

If some guessing is allowed I'd say, subsequent to military defeat, he probably wanted Saddam toppled and killed off (along with the upper crust of the Iraqi establishment), in order to establish a firmer foothold in the Middle East and smoother and more profitable relations to the emerging regime, and to conceal his and Reagan's involvement in Saddam's atrocities.  Furthermore, he might have calculated that a war he knew he would easily win would increase his chances for re-election.  But, again, this is all mere speculation.

Yet, if you read this article (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2005-daily/25-12-2005/world/w2.htm), including a partial transcript of the conversation between Saddam and Glaspie (their only private meeting), it is really hard to see how this was