demonstrations......Posted by JudyS on 2/16/03 at 13:59 (109406)
I was watching CNN's coverage of the many demonstrations that took place yesterday. A story that followed was in regards to Saddam's control of television viewing in Iraq. According to CNN, he made it a point to broadcast some of the coverage of some of the demonstrations. The story went on to describe his strict control of any kind of news media in his country. A random thought I had while listening was to wonder if the Iraqi citizens who were viewing those broadcasts understood that the demonstrations they were watching were allowable because of the kinds of governments in those countries.
Re: demonstrations......Carole C in NOLA on 2/16/03 at 14:20 (109408)
I can't imagine what mindset the average Iraqi must have. Living under an oppressive regime must be quite a skill and it's one that I'm glad I have not had to develop. It would color every aspect of daily life.
Then, when you consider that half of them not only live under a dictator but also are female and subject to constraints based on gender, it does not sound like my cup of tea.
Re: demonstrations......Leon S. on 2/16/03 at 17:51 (109417)
While watching CSPAN this morning, the host took a call from an Iraqi citizen visiting London to visit some family and he was begging the US to come in and rescue the country from Saddam. When asked about the potential civilian casualties, he said it would be worth the sacrifice just to get rid of him.
Re: demonstrations......pala on 2/16/03 at 18:18 (109423)
just saw a sixy minutes show about how the govt is not giving our soldiers adequate protection against chemicals, like last time. all those soldiers who got sick from the gulf war, did they ever win their fight for their benifits?
Re: anti-war protestswendyn on 2/16/03 at 21:17 (109431)
According to our paper - there was a protest yesterday of about 5000 people. Doesn't sound like much for a city of almost a million - but even the G8 last year only had about 1000 to 2000 at best.
During the gulf war - the marches were attended by about 50 people (this is a city that doesn't get excited about too much) - so 5000 people in a march is unheard of.
Re: demonstrations......john h on 2/17/03 at 11:05 (109464)
In Bagdad all interviews with outside media must be conducted at one spot on top of an Iraqi hotel under controlled conditions. The Iraqi people are not permitted to view any TV from other countries and is tightly controlled. If we are to believe Sadam that they have no weapons of mass destruction then why would we worry about protective suits against gas and bio hazards? The facts are they certainly do have weapons of mass destruction and we had better be prepared. intelligence has said that Iraqi Field Commanders have been given orders to use these weapons. Our best hope would be that the Field Commanders would not follow orders as they have been told by America that anyone using such weapons will be tried was a war criminal much like Nurenberg. The big question is what will Israel do if they are attacked with weapons of mass destruction? Israel has always let it be known that if they are going to be overrun by any Arab nation they have enough nuclear weapons, know how, and will to destroy all of the middleeast. That is the reason you do not see all the Arab nations gang up on Israel. We used to have a member of the Israel Air Force post on this board. He emailed me for some time from Israel and made it clear that they would do whatever it took to protect their country. Saddam would do well to leave them alone because they will strike back and with what ever force it requires. If we let Saddam develop nuclear weapons it would probably be only a matter of time until there was a faceoff with Israel with both in possesion of weapons that could destroy the entire region. Saddam is not a sane person and he could easily try such a venture regardless of how many millions might die. We cannot sit by and watch this madman continue to build these weapons.It is either face him now or later when he has nukes..
Re: demonstrations......Richard, C.Ped on 2/17/03 at 12:28 (109480)
What gets me the most is that many people believe that this is something that we are recently dealing with. This goes back all the way to the gulf war..if not further.
The proof Colin Powell brought fourth was only a tiny portion of what the government knows about this person. The congress does in fact know all of what Bush knows, but also knows that he can not reveal it due to its classified status. That is were the Democrats are trying to take advantage of the situation and make Bush look like a war hungry crazy man.
I personally do not want a war, but I also do not want another 9/11. All I can do is pray that the good lord has his perfect way in all this.
Re: demonstrations......Carole C in NOLA on 2/17/03 at 13:40 (109494)
I'm not sure that all of Congress knows what Bush knows, because if my memory is correct highly classified defense information is restricted to the members of relevant committees.
Playing politics with the Iraq situation is just plain wrong even though we all know that politics is a nasty business. Still, I would never vote to re-elect anyone who did this.
Frankly, I don't think it matters how much proof we reveal. Even if we broadcast ever single thing that we know, the U.N. seems to have already made up its mind. Even if Saddam stood up in the U.N. and said, 'Yes, I have all of these awful weapons ready to go and I do not plan to get rid of them, so take that!', it still seems unlikely that the U.N. would sanction an immediate war until after he actually uses them.
It's always possible that Saddam will step down and leave Iraq, or be forcibly removed from power without an all out war. Maybe he'd like to take an extended vacation in Libya or somewhere.
Re: demonstrations......Nancy N on 2/17/03 at 13:51 (109498)
Bush is making himself look like a war-hungry crazy man all on his own--or perhaps with a little help from Cheney, Rove, and Rumm. He doesn't need the Democrats to do it for him.
Re: demonstrations......Richard, C.Ped on 2/17/03 at 15:25 (109507)
Perhaps nancy...but I do not remember any demonstrations when Clinton sent missles over there a few years back. For some reason, people still think of Bush as an idiot. I honestly do not see what they are seeing. If we have a chance to get rid of a madman who possibly helped fund the 9/11 attacks...so be it.
Re: demonstrations......Nancy N on 2/17/03 at 15:30 (109509)
I have a calendar full of quotes that demonstrate to me that this man is an idiot on a daily basis. He can't even speak his native language. He's famous for taking time off in the afternoons to play video golf, and for taking all of 15 minutes to decide the fate of a death row prisoner. He has utterly failed to convince me and many other Americans that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction OR that they had anything to do with 9/11. He makes comments about how even a C student can become president, and he stole the 2000 election by buying out the Supreme Court. I think it's pretty clear why people think he's an idiot. If you're right about 9/11, fine. But someone needs to offer me good, solid proof on that one before I'll be backing up an invasion.
Re: demonstrations......Richard, C.Ped on 2/17/03 at 15:39 (109510)
just to let everyone know....i am on instant messinger with nancy right this second...and everything is cool...lol. we are still buddies.
Re: demonstrations......pala on 2/17/03 at 15:46 (109511)
he also mocked the death row inmate and made fun of her right after she pleaded on tv for her life. here are some bushisms, if anyone thinks he is not an idiot 'families is where our nation finds home, where wings have dreams' 'i understand small business growth. i was one.' the only debate is if he is an idiot or a moron. type in bush moron or bush idiot for a lot more of these on you search engine. they are endless. chimpanzees are smarter and have been taught, at emory u. , to speak more fluently.
Re: demonstrations......pala on 2/17/03 at 15:48 (109514)
write us some good bush quotes nancy, larry and i enjoy them when we hear a good one.
Re: demonstrations......john h on 2/17/03 at 15:51 (109515)
The President has approximately a 70% approval rating on his hadling of Iraq in the latest poll. There is nothing wrong with a 'C' student. Wisdom does not come from grades.If you do not think Saddam has weapons of mass destruction then ask the Kurds or Iranians who were gassed by Saddam. Our own inspectors found thousands of tons of gas and biological weapons after the last gulf war and that is a fact. He is not accounting for where these weapons went as noted by Hans Blix. If someone does not think this guy does not have weapons of mass destruction it because they do not want to beleieve it. the question should be when or will he use them. The first smoking gun we see will be after it has been fired at us or Israel. At the begining of WWII and before we had many who did not want to get involved. Should we have got involved in WWII in Europe? 9 or 10 million Jews think so. . Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant. He is a clear and present danger. He is not going away. His son is worse and if it is possible more cruel than he is.
Re: demonstrations......john h on 2/17/03 at 16:05 (109520)
Bush is rather popular with the electorate and in particular the way he is handling Iraq (70% approval). He is not an idiot. Idiots cannot fly and F-102. Some of his speeches before Congress have been outstanding and inspiring as measured even by his critics. He is the President and he did not steal the election. Am I glad he is the President and not Al Gore? You bet I am. Am I glad JFK risked nuclear war and kept the missiles out of Cuba. You bet I am and it does not matter that he was a democrat or republican. We have lived a good life in America compared with other countries. The oceans have kept our homeland and civilian population protected. This is no longer the case and we had better be prepared to fight to protect our way of living or the fighting will eventually reach our homeland. Watching the Minister from Latvia today she noted that unless you live under a dictator like Saddam you cannot understand how horrible it is. I am really tired of hearing people say we are after the oil in Iraq. That is utter nonsense. We do not even need their oil. Our motives are pure. People will disagree which is their right but I can also disagree with them very strongly..
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarBGCPed on 2/17/03 at 16:05 (109521)
Who sold missle tech to china via loral space the biggest dem contributor. Also a sexual predator, ask Jaunita Broderick and a few others. A pathological liar. Blew up an aspirin factory to take heat of Lewinsky. (dont need to mention the cigar and stained dresses while on the clock.)
Doesnt no what 'is is means' If you watched George B speach after 9-11 or the more recent one that is not an idiot speaking. I would rather a sincere Texan than a guy that lies and bites his lip to look sincere. I know a person that wrote a few books about athletics. He gives talks to large corporations and groups. He always does a show of hands asking leaders and ceo types and the large majority of them were not A average students but low B
While I do not love any politicians Clinton was a sleeze bag and a liar. The guy has never ran a business or made a mortgage payment in his entire life. He can promise hand outs, pose for pics in Harlem, play the sax and charm some ladies with that lying grin. I dont think those qualities matter in a President.
If he didnt end up ther I can see him selling used cars in Arkansas.
Not trying to stir the pot, just pointing out a few things
Re: demonstrations......john h on 2/17/03 at 16:12 (109525)
Carole: I think the only way Saddam leaves is if you carry him out. Since I am preaching today I am also fed up with the French. They are not even part of the military establishment in NATO. In other words they do not participate with troops for NATO. That they would deny Turkey support if they were attacked by Iraq is crazy. How the worm has turned. Much of our support in Europe now comes from former countries behind the Iron Curtin. they understand what it is like to live under a dictator. For better or worse England and the U.S will forever be joined together at the hip. We will have disagreements but Englands enemy is our enemy and ultimately our enemy is England's enemy.
Re: demonstrations......Suzanne D on 2/17/03 at 16:21 (109527)
For what it's worth, John, I agree with you and thank you for expressing your thoughts. I respect everyone's right to their beliefs and opinions and try to stay away from political debates here or anywhere else (mostly because I feel so unqualified to do so. I miss having my father around. He always kept up with everything and had such a level head about such matters. I loved to hear what he had to say about politics.) But after reading many things on this subject in the past few days, I just felt I needed to chime in here after your comments.
Re: demonstrations......Carole C in NOLA on 2/17/03 at 16:59 (109537)
I hope you are right about England. I never would have thought Prince Charles would have turned on us like he did. I know he's just a figurehead, but still.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 19:52 (109565)
Do you really think GWB wrote that speech, or any of his others? Come on.
The true sign of intelligence is not your ability to read from a TelePromTer. It's your ability to make sense off the cuff. Clinton had it, Bush does not. Bush not only butchers grammar, he makes up entirely new words. The man has come up with such linguistic gems as 'A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness,' 'It's going to require numerous IRA agents,' and 'This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses.' Can you tell me what a 'mential loss' is? Is it any wonder that the rest of the world laughs at us, not only for the way the man was not elected, but for the way he can't express himself?
I would rather have a Rhodes scholar who has some personal issues than a C student whose strength is feigning sincerity (yes, Clinton was charming, but he had the brains to back it up). Just my personal preference. Your mileage obviously varies, and that's OK.
Re: demonstrations......Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 19:52 (109566)
One has the right to be wrong in a democracy. Unfortunately, those who are right risk their lives to protect many of those who have no appreciation of what is being done for them.
George W. Bush has demonstrated time and again, that he is one of the most astute and thoughtful Presidents we have had in a long time. I am really tired of the ridiculous criticisms of his intelligence. They have no basis in fact. Albert Einstein flunked 4th grade. People get good or average grades in school depending on a number of factors aside from intelligence. Why can't liberals debate the facts as opposed to resorting to name calling and character assasination?
Re: demonstrations......Nancy N on 2/17/03 at 19:57 (109569)
Liberals do appreciate the things that have been done for them. They just question the motives from time to time. Questioning and debate are the signs of a healthy democracy. Without them, this country would not be here right now.
GWB has demonstrated time and again that he need his advisors and experts to help him make a decision. I'm tired of people trying to defend his intelligence. Albert Einstein was a genius, and Bush owned a baseball team and is quite possibly a corporate criminal (Dick Cheney almost surely is).
And I've given you many facts in support of my arguments, which you've largely ignored. I've found that really fascinating, but figured I wouldn't pick nits. And you never explained how you can possibly be a strong environmentalist and support the most anti-environmental president in recent history, if not in all of American history. Do you support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 20:21 (109573)
i could discuss what i consider defects of conservatives but that would not be the way to have a debate and i have no intention of purposefully insulting anyone here either.
in a democracy everyone has a right to their opinion, and i for one respect every one here who wants to engage in the discussion. i disagreed with but respected your participation until the last posting which was unfair, illogical and did not, it seemed to me, show an understanding of the importance of debate and disagreeing about politics which is what america is about.
the right to call bush an idiot, while you may not agree with it, is in fact what makes america great. when folks here attack clinton and call him names that is their right and i don't jump on them. they have a right to do that. i am biting my tongue real hard not to make any generalizations about conservatives right now because i do not want this discussion to degenerate to that level.
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 20:26 (109574)
one more thing ed, i dont' know if others feel this way, but you have helped me so much here that is is not easy for me to 'take you to task' but i assume when you come to the social board you put your helper's hat aside and i put my helpee hat aside and we debate in good faith.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarD.Thomas on 2/17/03 at 20:33 (109575)
Clinton had a brain. ROFL - that's a good one, I'll have to remember that one (personally I think you confused snake oil salesman for brains but I guess that's me - and that's ok. Clinton was horrible on International affairs -his record speaks for itself.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarD.Thomas on 2/17/03 at 20:47 (109578)
Actually, Clinton almost succeeded taking out NASA and our forces (Army, Navy, Marines) in one big swoop, so he could say that he balanced the budget and was getting us back on track from the deficit.
I still love how Al Gore thought he created the Internet, 'The Information Highway,' as he put it - that was a classic I will never forget. I could see him at night saying, 'Tipper, I really did create it. Those people don't know what they are taking about.' This one hands down clearly beats anything Bush has done or will do.
I won't even bring up Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. That pair speaks for itself.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarpala on 2/17/03 at 21:01 (109581)
clinton is not the idiot in charge at this moment. we have a new idiot now.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:01 (109582)
Al Gore didn't create the internet and never actually said that he did. He was, however, instrumental in seeing that it got to the point where it is now--instrumental in daily life and available to the average citizen. Anyone who knows anything about internet history knows that it was started in the 1960s in order to allow the military to communicate more effectively. It's amazing how sound bites can be taken out of context and used to imply people said things they didn't.
And he did coin the term 'Information Superhighway.'
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarpala on 2/17/03 at 21:02 (109583)
what's your take on lieberman d. thomas?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.Nancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:04 (109584)
I didn't have time to say it earlier, but you are right, the comment was below the belt. If I had corked off with a 'Why can't conservatives...?' kind of remark, every conservative on this board would have jumped down my throat. Any comment that generalizes in such a way is not only low, it's also a lazy form of debate, because it's not making any specific point.
I've been grateful for the spirit in which we have all expressed our views thus far, but if we are going to degenerate to name-calling, I'll be the first to withdraw from the fray. I like my debates to be clean, and the only way to keep them that way is to leave when they start to get dirty.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:07 (109585)
Clinton was one of the most intelligent presidents this country has ever seen. You don't get to be a Rhodes scholar by being a C student. I'm sorry if the focus on Monica obscured that point for you. You're welcome to your opinion, but I for one would appreciate it if you would keep to posting your opinions and not attacking those of others. I haven't attacked you for yours.
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 21:13 (109586)
nancy, there's a part of me that would love a dirty fight. i'm not from brooklyn for nothing, but that is not a good idea for the health of this social board. i like to think i'd be pretty good at it tho and am growling and gnashing my teeth at the moment. aslo i can't bring myself to lash out at ed. also, there are about three folks here who are against this war and not bush supporters, as far as i can tell, so i think it would be pretty low to attack us. if shutting liberals up is the idea, then just wait and soon maybe bush will ship us off to the re education gulag.
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 21:21 (109588)
i live in a very very liberal section of atlanta and have had the luxury of choosing acquaintances who agree with me politically. therefore it has been a pleasure to debate here. and a pleasure to meet and befriend republicans and conservatives on the social board. because i don't really know any here in decatur - kirkwood.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarpala on 2/17/03 at 21:28 (109589)
nancy, who attacked you, i sort of missed that.
yes clinton is very intelligent. the american public has historically disliked intellectuals. hilary is very brilliant as well. i was a clinton, gore supporter. i miss them. i miss the surplus. i miss retirement savings. i miss peace. i miss prosperity. i miss sanity. i miss a president who can think properly, or at all.
Re: Dirty fightingNancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:31 (109590)
Dirty fighting can be kind of fun, but it's completely meaningless. You're no longer addressing any issues or using your brain, you're just tossing names back and forth at each other. What's the point in that, especially when it would destroy the atmosphere on this board (as has been seen in the past)?
I'm not saying you don't already know this, just pointing out my reasons for refusing to go there.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:34 (109591)
D. Thomas may not have actually attacked me (or intended to) but his snake oil comment comes a little too close for my comfort. I just want to debate on facts, not on barbs tossed back and forth at each other. I've certainly tried to debate in that spirit thus far and would like to continue to do so.
I agree, I miss the surplus and my retirement savings, too.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarD.Thomas on 2/17/03 at 21:39 (109592)
No win situation here. I'm not even going to try :)
By the way, I was just wondering if you are married or if you have ever been?
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 21:42 (109593)
What on earth does my marital status have to do with anything?
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarpala on 2/17/03 at 21:46 (109594)
just read d thomas. i agree with you nancy. will be interesting to see if any conservatives come here and say talk nice to nancy (and to every one here). i will certainly be disappointed if they don't. it takes effort on my part not to be scathingly sarcastic about this stuff. i edit out lots of things i think might be hurt others feelings.
as one of the more cynical members here i will say it is a fine line to walk. so i say to you d thomas and i remind myself as well; talk nice here please. we want to hear your views. we do not want to insult others here. if we drive nancy from the debate we lose one of the most perceptive debaters here. and then your just left with one lonely liberal chomping on bit to have at it :)
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarD.Thomas on 2/17/03 at 22:09 (109595)
Nevermind. Subject dead.
Re: Yes, let's continue to remember...Suzanne D on 2/17/03 at 22:13 (109597)
Here comes the teacher...:-) 'Boys and girls, let's all remember to talk to one another the way we would want to be spoken to and to treat one another with respect. I think you have all been trying hard and doing a good job for the most part. Let me just remind you to continue.'
How's that, Paula? :-)
I have appreciated the way people have expressed their opinions to one another in a civilized tone throughout the above discussions. Emotions run high on beliefs in politics and religion, and it is easy to be offended. But we are all friends and have helped one another and can agree to disagree.
My mother taught me to respect my teacher each year even if she/he was not my favorite. There could be no griping about any of them at the dinner table; they were our teacher, and we could not talk rudely about them.
She also made a big deal about respecting the president. I remember her crying after Kennedy was elected, but once he was, she said, 'He is our President, and we will give him the respect his office deserves'. She would not call him names or openly criticize him. She was very sad when he was asassinated.
That is how I grew up - which I am sure is different from many of you. I respect honesty and moral character as well as intelligence in a political official and try to vote for whomever I think will lead our nation in the best way. I respect others' rights to choose someone else.
I like to read what others are thinking as I don't believe I have all the answers. I appreciate reading thoughtful comments on issues more than name-calling or the like. I do know that when very emotional about an issue, it is sometimes hard to keep words from conveying those feelings.
I'll end with saying that on this Presidents' Day, I am thankful for the freedom to be able to write what I think and to read others' opinions without censor.
Abraham Lincoln was from 'my neck of the woods'. I have always admired many things about him.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarNancy N on 2/17/03 at 22:16 (109598)
No, I really want to know--and I think I have a right to know why you'd be interested in such personal information.
Re: demonstrations......Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 22:26 (109602)
Writing environemntal regulations is only a stopgap measure to protect the environment. The internal combustion engine can only be made so clean and the number of cars on our roads will continue to grow.
Proactive measures include development of alternative energy sources and support for public transportation, both areas that were severely neglected under Clinton-Gore. I will not claim that those before them did a better job. The problem I have is that they claimed to be pro-environment.
GWB is the first president to propose significant funding for alternative energy. How can that make him 'the most anti-environmental president in recent history.'? Yes, we should obtain oil from Alaska, as long as it is done with minimal environmental impact -- the technology exists to do so.
I am for debating the facts but not name calling. I do not have a high opinion of Clinton but I am am not going to spend time calling him names, questioning his character or intelligence as it does not add anything to the issues. Why not do the same for GWB?
Every president is dependent on advisors as they do not have expertise in all areas. It is a sign of a good leader to be able to delegate authority and use advisors well. Can you honestly state that GWB is any more or less dependent on advisors than any president in recent history?
What is your basis in fact for stating that 'Bush is quite possibly a corporate criminal?'
Which arguments, specifically do you fell that I am ignoring?
Re: Yes, let's continue to remember...pala on 2/17/03 at 22:30 (109604)
thank you suzanne.
i will say this tho, i think there is a difference in calling clinton or bush an idiot and calling each other names. it is the right of americans to respect all presidents, despise all presidents, respect some, despise others and express those feelings. i say go at it if you don't like a president, but be polite with others on this board. unless someone from this board gets elected president : then i will no doubt call them an idiot.
now who could dislike lincoln??
Re: ed i think that was unfair.Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 22:30 (109605)
Of course one has the right to call names. But what does that really add to the quality of a discussion or debate? I do not call Clinton names despite my disagreements with his policies as it adds nothing substantive to the discussion and only serves to inflame emotions. Why can't you do the same for GWB?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 22:36 (109606)
Understandable. Lets discuss the merits of the issues as opposed to name calling and criticism of an individual's character. It is one thing to debate the policies of GWB but yet another to levy insults as to his intelligence or character.
Re: I miss so much latelywendyn on 2/17/03 at 22:51 (109611)
Missed this entire thread.
I still think it's great that Americans get so excited about their politics. And for the record - I would trade the leader of our country for any you've had recently.
Have you ever listened to Chretien?
Nancy S - where are you?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 22:52 (109612)
i don't think it's name calling if it is actually what i think. i have heard many people speak in my lifetime but i have a never heard anyone that sounds so stupid to me. i think the man is an idiot ed.
. i don't think hightly of the conservative stance, in general, but would not insult those here because we are friends , in a cyber way, and we have helped each other. and because we are friends here i give all conservatives here the benifit of the doubt that they are debating in good faith. i am not friends with gwb. i give him no benifit of the doubt. i think he is a war profiteer and a stupid stupid man.
. say anything you like about liberal politicians ed. but when you attack all liberals you attack me. and nancy. here on the board. do you get what i am saying?
i think he has a very low i q. i am not sure at what point a low i q is classified as an idiot, but i think gwb sets a new standard for it. when the canadian political aide heard him speak and could not help blurting out 'what a moron', it was amazing to me because whenever he comes on tv, larry or i cannot help but blurt out 'what an idiot.'
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 23:08 (109616)
ed, i just read that back and not sure i'm making sense. it's late here on east coast for me. hopefully tomorrow nancy and you and i and d thomas and the rest of us can continue debating with politeness and respect towards each other. i have enjoyed the discussion till tonite.
Re: demonstrations......Nancy N on 2/17/03 at 23:22 (109618)
Internal combustion can, perhaps, be made only so clean, but efficiency can still be increased. But Bush has fought such measures every step of the way, with the help of his friends in Congress. And government lawyers recently joined major automakers in fighting California's new emissions regulations. I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not something Bush would have some control over. And I'm still having trouble comprehending the level of cognitive dissonance you must go through to be both a Bush supporter and an environmentalist.
Bush has, as I have already listed, repeatedly proven that he cannot speak his own native language. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but as an English major I'm deeply offended to have a president who makes up his own unintelligible new words. And as a teacher I'm even more deeply offended to have someone in that position essentially telling our kids that it doesn't matter how well they do in school (since he seems proud to have been C student because he managed to get elected anyway) while he touts useless new testing to 'raise academic standards.' Pick a message, and stick with it, please. And as for name-calling, I'm far less offended by labeling public figures than I am when it turns personal on a board such as this. I do feel that your 'Why can't liberals' comment came dangerously close to that territory. I have a very difficult time not taking that personally, but I am doing my best for the sake of the debate and the board, and because I'd like to maintain my respect for you, since your previous comments have been put forth intelligently.
Yes, all presidents have advisors. But GWB has given the impression, since before he got into office, that he needs his advisors to tell him what to do, not to merely advise. Consider the fact that he surrounded himself with his father's old cabinet. No, that's not hard evidence one way or another, but this is a case where perception creates reality, and the burden of proof is on Mr Bush to show otherwise. (And don't tell me that Uber-SpinDoctor Karl Rove doesn't know about perception--his job centers around it.) It's well known that, as governor of Texas, GWB spent a few hours a day playing video golf. It's not unreasonable to assume that he still does, and if not, again, it's on the White House press corps to make sure the public knows that their 'elected' leader isn't goofing off several hours a day.
My statements regarding corporate crime have to do with Harken Energy for Mr Bush and Halliburton for Mr Cheney. And let's not forget that Ken Lay of Enron was a massive campaign supporter. I will have to look up the info on Harken for you, which I will do tomorrow because it's late here and I'm just too tired to do it now.
As for subjects I've mentioned that I don't believe you've responded to (forgive me if I forget a response or two, I'm very tired and don't have the energy to go through all the posts from the past few days):
1. The fact that we put Saddam and Osama in power in the first place/short-sightedness of US foreign policy in the past.
2. The fact that BMW already has hydrogen-powered prototype cars, and therefore GWB is using fuel-cells as a smokescreen to keep environmentalists happy--which is why he's also not talking about the infrastructure needed to make hydrogen-based transportation a practical reality. And why he's not pushing for hybrid cars and other now-available technologies that can cut down on oil consumption until the time when we're ready for hydrogen. It really is all about oil, because he doesn't want to tell his oil cronies that they're going to be out of business shortly.
3. The fact that we have supplied arms to many different groups (it's not just French and the Germans who've done so) and that we may have even sold some to Iraq during their war with Iran, not to mention other groups that may now be selling them to the terrorists who want to use them against us. We sell weapons to a lot of countries--makes us a lot of $$$.
4. The notion of the inspections being the UN's show, not Saddam's, and therefore we should be able to use U-2s and other means to tell exactly what he's got squirreled away (he objected to the U-2s before, but put up with them ultimately--odds are he'd do the same thing again now if he knows he has no choice). The fact that inspections are currently being played by Saddam's rules is ridiculous and doesn't have to be that way, if the UN would be willing to back them up with force.
5. Bush's self-professed attitude toward nation-building (that we shouldn't be bothered with it) and therefore whether or not he'll be willing to do what needs to be done in Iraq after any war that might take place there. We don't need another Osama rising from the neglected ashes of Baghdad, as we got when we left Afghanistan.
(Most of my original comments re: the above are in the post at bbv.cgi?n=109350 if you're curious)
There may be more than this, but I'm tired and going to bed. Good night.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarBGCPed on 2/17/03 at 23:35 (109620)
'Sound bites can be taken out of context and used to imply people said things they didnt'? So all the quotes attributed to Bush are a blanket indictment on his being an 'idiot', but when applied to Gore or Clinton they are out of context?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 23:36 (109621)
I guess I am not getting anywhere with you on this. You again, just hurled a bunch of invectives on our President. Even if you do not like the man, cannot you least refrain from such name calling based on respect for the Office of the Presidency?
Re: ed i think that was unfair.pala on 2/17/03 at 23:45 (109622)
ed i just said it is late and i said i'm not sure what i said made sense. . and what about the folks attacking clinton. are they supposed to respect the office of the presidency ? really ed. i'm too tired to make sense so i should have waited to respond tommorrow. i rescinded what i said in previous post. geez.. what is your problem ed? go stomp on someone else for a while.
Re: demonstrations......Ed Davis, DPM on 2/17/03 at 23:56 (109623)
I am really not sure wher you are getting some of the information you are using to formulate some of the above statements.
GWB gives the impression to WHOM that he needs advisors to tell him what to do? Just the opposite -- he stands on principles and can derive opinions from that. Clinton in contrast, just followed the money (or sex).
There was a time we supported Saddam. It was not GWB though, nor his father but the liberal hero, Jimmy Carter.
We put Osama in power? Please explain?
Yes, the inspection rules have been a farce. No, the United Nations has not been willing to put its foot down on that issue -- maybe now they are since we are close to war. But why did they have to wait so long?
BMW has a hydrogen prototype car. How close is it to being practical for mass production? We still need to develop similar and dissimilar technologies before production is practical. Hydrogen is very explosive so there are some major safety issues that need to be resolved.
Where on earth did you get the opinion that Bush is ignoring the issue of nation building. There have been copious discussions and plans emanating from the Bush administration concerning this issue. I can only see how you can make such a statement if you have ignored that information.
Bush has never run on the platform of being an environmentalist. Clinton and Gore have. As such, I would need to hold Clinton/Gore to a higher standard in that area.
It is easy to be a Bush supporter an and environmentalist. I base my opinions on a multitude of issues. The environment is one of many issues that are important. Now, the most important issue to me is national security and defense -- something Clinton/Gore spent eight years running down. I am not a 'pure' conservative but a pragmatist. I read both conservative and liberal publications and make up my own mind. If we were at peace, with few signifcant threats to our security, I would give more weight to environmental issues. If you notice how the pendulum of public opinion shifts you will see that a lot of people think this way as opposed to being die hard ideologic conservatives or ideologic liberals.
Perhaps, you should consider reading magazines and news from a conservative perspective just to broaden your perspective ojn the issues.
I have no problem reading liberal publications as I feel that is the only way to get a comprehensive view on how people think.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarBGCPed on 2/18/03 at 00:02 (109624)
You get to be a Rhodes Scholar by visiting communist Russia back when it was not an easy place to visit and running off to England to escape the Draft. It is ironic that a man and his wife that have , in the past openly expressed contempt for out military would end up being in charge of it. Once in charge they decimated it and made huge cuts. Ones that will effect current members of the military.
Many on the left disdane the military. The fact that some 19 y/o kid from Alabama may be exposed to a greater risk because of what Clinton did to the military is sickening. I would ask if any past military (perhaps John) on here have an opinion.Many in the military disdained the guy and his co-enabeler Hillary. We owe our freedom to brave men that fought for it and for others.
This is not an argument that can be won by anybody. There will be opinions on both sides. I do find it strange that many on the left can preach tolerance and pc ideas but have no problem with name calling and insults to blast a conservative, they are open season. It is also something to ponder when FOX has Hannity and Colmes and The Orielly Factor that are the most popular programs in America on that type.
Just today I saw that the left wants to fund a show to combat the more conservative shows like that. They were thinking of letting Al Franken host it. Al as you know was a writer for Saturday Night Live i.e. a comedian. I think he also wrote a book about Rush Limbaugh called Rush is a big Fat Stupid Conservative or something like that.
As I said many times the left will resort nasty name calling, usually when they have a point that is factually flawed or lacks logic. Not attacking anyone here but it is a pattern. Look at Dan Quayle and Reagan.
Bottom line, Think if you would trust Clinton alone with your wife or daughter?
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarpala on 2/18/03 at 00:08 (109627)
the book is 'rush limbough is a big fat idiot' it was very funny. it cheered me up to hear that al frankin is going to host a liberal radio show. i really need to go to sleep now. you guys will just have to respect the office of the presidency of clinton without me. sorry. good night.
Re: demonstrations......BGCPed on 2/18/03 at 00:28 (109628)
What exactly did he say to 'mock' her? Another angle would be what options she gave the victim before she murdered them? Taking a persons life is the most hienous acts a human can commit. Perhaps he found it so disgusing he let his natural honest gut emotions come out? The person that is under the cold ground as a result of her actions didnt get a chance.
If you want mockery remember this Clinton moment? When his agricultural secretary Ron Brown died in the plane crash and they showed Clinton walking up to the curch with a few other men. He was laughing his butt off and smilling. He looked and saw a news cam and immediatly looked down and started rubbing his eyes like he was crying. That is something that was caught on film but speaks volumes about his lack of integrity and decency.
He owed Mr Brown more than that. He was the one that took a guy in charge of commodities and put him in charge of selling electronic and sattelite tech to China and Korea under the guise of tv and internet advancement. Know China has over 10 icbm nukes that can reach our shores ans are aimed at us as we speak. This was done through Loral which was one of the 1st or 2nd biggest contributors to the dems and Clinton. That is treason ans shows you what lengths he will go to to maintain and get power
Enough of this for now, but last thought, Korea, Middle East, Saddam, Bin Laden and Al Queda got out of hand under Clintons watch. Allof this nonsense about finding a smoking gun. Based off of what Saddam has already done and the human rights violations to his own people he should be killed. I would ask all the protester to go there and walk in an iraqis shoes. They are living in a cicil rights hell while he sits on 18ct gold toilet seats, drinking cognac, watching BayWatch and old John Wayne moveies.
He is a maniac and needs to be put to death, not exiled. The weapons inspections are nonsense. You dont warn a drug dealer a month before you are going to raid his house. You dont allow him to decide what rooms you can search and then let him make you leave and come back for 11 years.
Re: Dr EdBGCPed on 2/18/03 at 00:48 (109629)
You have a wonderful grasp of logic. I appreciate your well thought posts. I am sending you a cyber cigar and a single malt. Make sure you smoke the cigar and not use it on a 19 y/o receptionist in your office. Sorry couldnt resist a little levity
p.s. I do appreciate your posts.
p.p.s. Did you know that has a younster Al Gore had a black maid? They used to make her wait in the car when they went out to dinner. Isnt that nice.
Re: Dr EdEd Davis, DPM on 2/18/03 at 10:31 (109648)
Thank you. Gore amazed me as he spoke like a liberal when he was in the North, then went back to the South and pretended to be a conservative. I have a lot more respect for true ideologic liberals like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern even so I may not agree with them on policy.
Re: Clinton was a rhodes scholarEd Davis, DPM on 2/18/03 at 10:34 (109649)
I really don't want to belabor this point but how would you feel if a conservative wrote a book entitled, 'Bill Clinton is a big fat idiot?'
Good political discourse and dialogue is based on discussion of issues, not
Re: Yes, let's continue to remember...Sharon W on 2/18/03 at 10:44 (109650)
MANY people disliked Lincoln, back when he was president...
Re: Yes, let's continue to remember...BGCPed on 2/18/03 at 11:27 (109656)
That is correct Sharon, he was shot over it and there was also a very large war fought over some of his ideas. Many americans died. He was a great man in many respects