Why America please read and share ur thoughts

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

you know, it's self righteousness like this horseshit that makes me wanna puke. Btween you and me, Dubya's not long for the presidential world with this negative view.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jun 23 2005, 07:52 AM
How in the hell do you equate a blowjob to the deaths of thousands of our people lost needlessly in a war for oil rights? If you're too daft to realise that's what it's about, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Then I shouldn't be able to vote. I think the war is less about oil rights than it is about Dubya's determination avenge Daddy's failure to get Saddam Hussein when he had the chance. The oil is merely a justification for staying in Iraq after Saddam was captured.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jun 23 2005, 03:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Jun 23 2005, 03:37 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jun 23 2005, 07:52 AM
How in the hell do you equate a blowjob to the deaths of thousands of our people lost needlessly in a war for oil rights? If you&#39;re too daft to realise that&#39;s what it&#39;s about, you shouldn&#39;t be able to vote.

Then I shouldn&#39;t be able to vote. I think the war is less about oil rights than it is about Dubya&#39;s determination avenge Daddy&#39;s failure to get Saddam Hussein when he had the chance. The oil is merely a justification for staying in Iraq after Saddam was captured.

[post=323437]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

It&#39;s my own humble opinion that bush sr got ol dumbya to do his bidding. Their family, as well as Cheney&#39;s is making an assload of money off of this war, surely you don&#39;t think that&#39;s a by-product? Of course, I could be wrong (ha&#33 but hasn&#39;t bush sr. been close business allies as well as personal friends of the Bin Laden family for the last 20 years? Wasn&#39;t jr the most unpopular pres of our time when he was first elected? Well, just look at him now. I think it was about oil all along, the war just gave us an excuse to get over there and pillage their country. Once we got what we wanted from Afghanistan (the revititalisation of the pipeline, we sure didn&#39;t waste any time) we moved on to bigger and better things in Iraq without even bothering to come up with a very good cover story. The dumbass just said "terrorists" a lot on tv (and poorly, I might add) and all the fucking asswipe merkins bought it hook line and sinker. We all saw the news when 9/11 happened, we KNOW the terrorists were Saudi&#33; I can&#39;t for the life of me understand how anyone can believe a word out of that idiot&#39;s mouth. Yeah. jr might have believed he was going after Hussein to avenge "his daddy", but I&#39;ll bet sr. was pulling the strings all along.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jun 23 2005, 08:52 AM
Well, as "Bubba Clinton" said himself on a late night talk show last year, the reason the right-wing media won&#39;t let go of his blowjob is because THAT&#39;S ALL THEY&#39;VE GOT&#33; It&#39;s pretty damned hard to discredit his job performance in any other way. Let the record speak for itself, even here all we hear from the right-wingers is blowjob, blowjob, blowjob. How in the hell do you equate a blowjob to the deaths of thousands of our people lost needlessly in a war for oil rights? If you&#39;re too daft to realise that&#39;s what it&#39;s about, you shouldn&#39;t be able to vote. Obviously, historians will report the facts as they play out, not the convoluded myths being perpetrated on the American people today.

Steve, I guess it was just magic that made those eight years so great? If he had been a one term president, you could argue to a point that he had inherited a good government from the previous administration, but as a two term pres, that argument just doesn&#39;t hold water at all. Besides, I was working in the mortgage industry at the turn of the century and I remember quite well that the economy was taking a sharp beating BEFORE 9/11 hit. Were you asleep the first year and a half? The public had no confidence at all in bush jr, we egged his car on his inauguration walk, remember that?
He took off the first whole eight months of his presidency because he was the most unpopular pres in the last 100 years, do you remember that? NO, but you do remember Clinton&#39;s blowjob. Kudos, a great political mind at work, and so in touch with reality.

The one and only reason anyone thinks of bush as an ok pres is because of the war that HE started, then changed venues and purposes for. Anyone who can&#39;t see through the charade should be ashamed to call themselves an American. Oh, and thanks for helping to vote away our civil rights along with your own.

[post=323395]Quoted post[/post]​

If you will recall, madame, the leading economic indicators were turning downward during the election of 2000 and a recession was on its way, no matter who took up residence in the White House come January 2001. As with all near-recessions, not each sector of the country was equally weak, but the teeter-tottering on the edge of the economic cliff was present. We were at the end of the stock market bubble of the mid-late 90&#39;s AND the tech boom that the fears of Y2K had caused, where business ramped up technology spending to levels not seen previously, or since. In any event, the leading economic indicators primary function isn&#39;t to declare that the mortgage industry is healthy or ill, rather to guide policy makers that the economy is either weakening, strengthening, or holding its own. And, they did not suddenly turn south the day after Bush&#39;s election to the White House.

As a side bar to all of this...One thing that amuses me is that democrats like to harp on how Bush&#39;s massive tax cuts have "destroyed" the economy. Well, does anyone at all recall that when it became clear that Congress was likely going to pass most, if not all, of Bush&#39;s first round of cuts, the democrats raised their opening ante, if you will, upward from approx &#036;300 Billion to nearly &#036;900 Billion, "only" &#036;400 Billion over 10 years less than Bush himself was proposing. Point being, even if we&#39;d passed the tax cut platform of the democrats, we&#39;d still be arguing over so-called red ink, just a matter of degrees. When the other side gets up and goes on at length about Bush&#39;s dismantling of the economy, they hope and pray nobody remembers what they proposed themselves as it would have led to the same type of 10-year forecasts they are pounding on the lecterns before the cameras when an opening presents itself to talk about the economy...do liberals remember this...nah, not a chance.

Most of the years under Clinton were fairly good economically, true, as were most of the years under Reagan. Presidents, be they republicans or democrats, don&#39;t have a lot of day-to-day say over the GNP of this country. They can pass tax and spend policies that can either enhance or depress general economic activity, but with an &#036;11 Trillion economy running 24 hours a day, the wisest thing any President can do is learn how not to get in the way. When the republicans took control of Congress in the elections of 1994, and maintained that control during the remainder of Clinton&#39;s presidency, both sides served as a curb on each other&#39;s excesses, making dramatic gestures (like the health care scheme of 1993 or any widespread tax cutting) impossible in DC. And, when everyone became convinced the internet boom would solve every major problem short of the lack of paved roads on Mars, tax revenues relating to capital gains income made states and the fed govt quite quite happy for several years. Stuff such as that helps to paper over looming problems, like neither side having any guts to control long-term spending.

As to Bush&#39;s first 8 months, guiding an economic agenda through Congress doesn&#39;t smack to me of inactivity. I&#39;m sorry he didn&#39;t play the saxophone or go on cutting edge talk shows to talk about his choice of underwear like Pres Clinton did...perhaps if he had done so you would have cottoned up to him better. As to Clinton&#39;s legacy, "monicagate" shouldn&#39;t be all he that he will be remembered for, but because he didn&#39;t take on any tough issues after his own party&#39;s rebuttal of his health care plan (and welfare reform was forced upon him by the republicans lets remember), his personal indiscretions are what remain in people&#39;s memories. We&#39;re a nation that cares what Paris Hilton does on a daily basis, how many times Tom Cruise jumped up and down on Oprah&#39;s couch declaring his love for Katie Holmes, and whether or not Brad and Angelina are getting married and if she&#39;s responsible for the breakup of Brad and Jen&#39;s marriage...is it LITTLE wonder Clinton&#39;s blowjob remains an indelible image to the public??? There aren&#39;t too many republicans in control of NBC, CBS, or ABC, but I don&#39;t recall them avoiding reporting the story ad nauseam...as did every other outlet.

And, do you recall any of this? Of course not. You are so blinded by your hate for Bush and anyone calling themselves either republican or conservative that you automatically assume we&#39;re all horned devils with lightening bolts coming out of our tails carrying Bibles to save the world from the evil-doers (quite the image but I think it about sums it up). Decorum is perhaps the word we should nominate for our "enrich your word power with" word of the day, today. Politicians in DC have forgotten it as have you, from what I&#39;ve read of your previous discussions about the President and his band of merry men. It might SHOCK, yes SHOCK you to learn that not all republicans are in favor of all of the provisions of the Patriot Act. It might make your eyeballs pop out to read that not all conservatives are afraid of books, with words in them and big thoughts that while vile and despicable, should be read so people can see vile and despicable for themselves and be their own judge.

As to being ashamed to call myself an American, not even close to the truth. I&#39;m quite proud to call myself an American...one who is a republican but keeps an open mind to listen to and try to understand the other side. You cannot have a thriving democracy in a republic like ours without principled disagreement. Just friggin wish I could meet democrats who felt the same way...

 

[jay_too]

&#39;ndong...

Thanks for reminding everyone of the need for civility in political discussions by those who are NOT evangelical bible thumpers and may have supported Clinton&#39;s efforts to make America more inclusive.

Do you require civility for the demagogues of the right...ya know, like Tom Delay, Pat Roberson, Jerry Fallwell, . . .and the White House&#39;s own Karl Toad. In a sound bite on CNN this morning, I heard the latter tell HIS Republican base that after 9-11 that conservatives came to the aid of their country and supported actions against the terrorists while liberals tried to understand and seek counselling for the terrorists. Yea, I know he was attempting to be satirical; however, with a literal-minded audience of bible thumpers, the message they will take home is that they are good and their opponents are evil and stupid.

BTW, I am a Republican from a Republican family.....none of whom voted for Dubya in 2004. Reason? The stupidity of the invasion of Iraq.

jay

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 23 2005, 07:37 AM
Then I shouldn&#39;t be able to vote. I think the war is less about oil rights than it is about Dubya&#39;s determination avenge Daddy&#39;s failure to get Saddam Hussein when he had the chance. The oil is merely a justification for staying in Iraq after Saddam was captured.

[post=323437]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, I thought "fighting terrorism" or "looking for weapons" or whatever was their justification for staying.

Interesting take on Bush&#39;s Oedipal conflict. I always thought he was one fucked-up motherfucker.

 

[jonb]

If you will recall, madame, the leading economic indicators were turning downward during the election of 2000 and a recession was on its way, no matter who took up residence in the White House come January 2001. As with all near-recessions, not each sector of the country was equally weak, but the teeter-tottering on the edge of the economic cliff was present. We were at the end of the stock market bubble of the mid-late 90&#39;s AND the tech boom that the fears of Y2K had caused, where business ramped up technology spending to levels not seen previously, or since. In any event, the leading economic indicators primary function isn&#39;t to declare that the mortgage industry is healthy or ill, rather to guide policy makers that the economy is either weakening, strengthening, or holding its own. And, they did not suddenly turn south the day after Bush&#39;s election to the White House.

And who caused the Y2K fears? Actually, I was laughing the whole time because Y2K was a lot of anthropomorphism. When we see 99, we think 99. When a computer sees 99, it can think 01100011, or it can think 0011100100111001, depending on whether it&#39;s stored as a number or a character. The Y2K bug says that it would see 0011100100111001 and this is somehow more memory-efficient and easier to work with than 01100011. The second anthropomorphism was "I&#39;m a computer and it&#39;s 1900 and I haven&#39;t been invented yet so I&#39;ll just shut doooowwwwwwnnnn." Unfortunately, they didn&#39;t anthropomorphize enough to think the computer might realize it&#39;s 2000.

As a side bar to all of this...One thing that amuses me is that democrats like to harp on how Bush&#39;s massive tax cuts have "destroyed" the economy. Well, does anyone at all recall that when it became clear that Congress was likely going to pass most, if not all, of Bush&#39;s first round of cuts, the democrats raised their opening ante, if you will, upward from approx &#036;300 Billion to nearly &#036;900 Billion, "only" &#036;400 Billion over 10 years less than Bush himself was proposing. Point being, even if we&#39;d passed the tax cut platform of the democrats, we&#39;d still be arguing over so-called red ink, just a matter of degrees.

You don&#39;t complain because someone tries to compromise with you. Oh wait, yeah, you&#39;re a neocon and therefore a male borderline, so you do.

When the other side gets up and goes on at length about Bush&#39;s dismantling of the economy, they hope and pray nobody remembers what they proposed themselves as it would have led to the same type of 10-year forecasts they are pounding on the lecterns before the cameras when an opening presents itself to talk about the economy...do liberals remember this...nah, not a chance.

No, it just happens that we don&#39;t say "Oh, it&#39;s only fair that we give this money to the richest 1%." God, I hate Bush.

Most of the years under Clinton were fairly good economically, true, as were most of the years under Reagan.

Does ANY Republican remember the Reagan era? Oh, it was good, if you were the top 1%. If you weren&#39;t, sorry, but at least you can afford cocaine now. We call it crack.

Presidents, be they republicans or democrats, don&#39;t have a lot of day-to-day say over the GNP of this country. They can pass tax and spend policies that can either enhance or depress general economic activity, but with an &#036;11 Trillion economy running 24 hours a day, the wisest thing any President can do is learn how not to get in the way.

Actually, that&#39;s the least wise thing anybody can do. Not getting in the way causes a Darwinian nightmare.

When the republicans took control of Congress in the elections of 1994, and maintained that control during the remainder of Clinton&#39;s presidency, both sides served as a curb on each other&#39;s excesses, making dramatic gestures (like the health care scheme of 1993 or any widespread tax cutting) impossible in DC.

Actually, the Democrats&#39; health care plan was no different than in any other country. But the pharmaceutical companies hired a PR firm to convince us health care in the same tier as South Africa for prices higher than any other country on Earth was a Good Thing, and so the Democrats decided health care wasn&#39;t on the agenda.

And, when everyone became convinced the internet boom would solve every major problem short of the lack of paved roads on Mars, tax revenues relating to capital gains income made states and the fed govt quite quite happy for several years. Stuff such as that helps to paper over looming problems, like neither side having any guts to control long-term spending.

The biggest drain on government money, even under Clinton, was the military. Did you know the U.S. as much on military hardware as the rest of the world put together? If you want to talk about Big Government, start there. And while you&#39;re there, let&#39;s talk about Halliburton.

There aren&#39;t too many republicans in control of NBC, CBS, or ABC, but I don&#39;t recall them avoiding reporting the story ad nauseam...as did every other outlet.

Actually, General Electric controls NBC. General Electric is, among other things, a defense contractor. Guess who gets more out of defense contractors?

And, do you recall any of this? Of course not. You are so blinded by your hate for Bush and anyone calling themselves either republican or conservative that you automatically assume we&#39;re all horned devils with lightening bolts coming out of our tails carrying Bibles to save the world from the evil-doers (quite the image but I think it about sums it up).

Actually, I imagine Republicans as a bunch of paranoid nutjobs in tinfoil hats on the one hand and a bunch of pigs from Enron on the other, but that&#39;s just me.

It might SHOCK, yes SHOCK you to learn that not all republicans are in favor of all of the provisions of the Patriot Act. It might make your eyeballs pop out to read that not all conservatives are afraid of books, with words in them and big thoughts that while vile and despicable, should be read so people can see vile and despicable for themselves and be their own judge.

Then they should&#39;ve voted against the Patriot Act.

As to being ashamed to call myself an American, not even close to the truth. I&#39;m quite proud to call myself an American...one who is a republican but keeps an open mind to listen to and try to understand the other side. You cannot have a thriving democracy in a republic like ours without principled disagreement. Just friggin wish I could meet democrats who felt the same way...

[post=323528]Quoted post[/post]​

It&#39;s hard to have a principled democracy when people argue that it&#39;s not Nixon&#39;s fault for Watergate, but Deep Throat&#39;s for telling people.

BTW, if anyone wants to know about that line about worshipping Reverend Moon, here&#39;s the story

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by jay_too@Jun 23 2005, 03:38 PM
&#39;ndong...

Thanks for reminding everyone of the need for civility in political discussions by those who are NOT evangelical bible thumpers and may have supported Clinton&#39;s efforts to make America more inclusive.

Do you require civility for the demagogues of the right...ya know, like Tom Delay, Pat Roberson, Jerry Fallwell, . . .and the White House&#39;s own Karl Toad. In a sound bite on CNN this morning, I heard the latter tell HIS Republican base that after 9-11 that conservatives came to the aid of their country and supported actions against the terrorists while liberals tried to understand and seek counselling for the terrorists. Yea, I know he was attempting to be satirical; however, with a literal-minded audience of bible thumpers, the message they will take home is that they are good and their opponents are evil and stupid.

BTW, I am a Republican from a Republican family.....none of whom voted for Dubya in 2004. Reason? The stupidity of the invasion of Iraq.

jay

[post=323553]Quoted post[/post]​

People forget that the first thing Bush did in his first eight months of office was roll back every last counterterrorism plan the U.S. had. And then Richard Meyers had the option of scrambling fighters, and he waited 34 minutes to do so. 10 is the maximum legally allowed by the military code. Meyers got a promotion. Under any other president, he would&#39;ve been court martialed.

 

[madame_zora]

BnD, if you are suggesting that the media (yes, that includes television) is not primarily republican controlled, then I can only laugh heartily in your direction.

Yes, the economy was taking a downturn, responsible spending would have lessened the ill effects, but instead we got a pres who rarely went to Washington for the first eight months of his presidency, he went on vacation instead&#33; Sure the terrorist groups were planning it all along, I doubt we&#39;ve ever been off their agenda, but why do you think they waited until then? Could it possibly be because they feared Clinton more than the replacement who never went to work? Hmmm. I&#39;ll let you puzzle that one out. Also, how does it make sense to spend astronomical amounts of money on a war we can&#39;t afford, and have had to nearly deplete our SS fund for and have even sold bonds to other countries? China, Japan and India now own sizable chunks of our country, do you think this could possibly be a good idea? What if they pool their resources and make of themselves a power greater than us? They could easily do this, and may very well. This is YOUR future too, not just the democrats who bitch. Do you have any idea how many formerly American jobs have been outsourced to India? They have new money now, and the power and clout that it provides. Maybe they&#39;ll use it better than we have, I hope so. We could never win against them and China without resorting to nuclear war, they outnumber us many many times. Even if they only use their power as a bargaining tool, it could have serious impact on us in ways that will affect our daily lives. But who cares? bush has already made so much money that he and his cronies will be insulated for generations, while the grunts who supported him will be losing their 401ks, retirement opportunities, jobs, oh wait, that&#39;s already happened.

Yes, I am aware that the economic predictors job is not to declare the state of the mortgage industry&#33; Rather the reverse is true, the mortgage rates are a fairly good indication of where the economy IS. Duh. This is laborious. Reality IS what it IS, anyone can have any opinion they want, but "how things are operating now" is hard to argue with, unless you just have empty hours to fill. Interest rates are based on many complex components, such as the stock market, prime rate, libor rates, cofi rates, public confidence, political climate, unemployment rates and the like. They are a strong indication of where we stand. When they are at such a perversely low rate as to cause a boom in lending such as we saw, it is a strong indication of an unhealthy economy. What was shocking was how long it lasted&#33; Even people with vast experience in the field were certain it was only momentary, but little did they know that the government would garner a disproportionate amount of influence by engaging in a war, depleting our surpluses and plunging us headlong into massive debts to other countries.

Clinton was fairly right wing for a democrat, we keep forgetting that. He gets labeled a lecher and automatically people associate things with him that were never true. bush on the other hand is being judged on his performance. You want to excuse the blowjob blowup by saying "that&#39;s just how America is" and than claiming it&#39;s the democrats runing the media, bullshit&#33; You want decorum? Offer some realisitic remarks. There&#39;s only so much misinformation a person (such as myself) will take the time to decipher before it come down to "you&#39;re obvioulsy just a turd".

You mentioned the checks and balances when we had a democratic president and a republican congress, that&#39;s the way our government is structured to work. That&#39;s how it works best, when both sides have to come to a compromise on what&#39;s best for the majority of the people. Now we have republicans controlling everything and only a small portion of the people&#39;s interests are being represented. Why isn&#39;t that an obvious problem? Well, because it&#39;s your side I guess. Excuse me for calling that kind of thinking selfish.

Now you&#39;re saying not to call every republican an automaton without a thinking process. Here I&#39;ll offer an olive leaf, if someone voted for bush and believed he was doing the right thing (or if they were stinking rich), I can accept that, but to support him NOW after seeing him in action is inexcusable. That takes a moron, I have no interest in civility there. It is my considered opinion that most people who are still speaking up for that pig are just incapable of making a new decision based on new information. If you feel dedicated to supporting an inaccurate view just so you won&#39;t have to change you mind, that&#39;s an automaton. Change is good, stagnation is dangerous. Things get fetid.

Ayn Rand said it best, but I&#39;ll paraphrase. You can&#39;t vote for an ideology based on what you hope will happen and then when the predictably bad happens say "but I didn&#39;t mean THIS&#33;" We are all adults, we know how things work. If someone is showing ugly signs, it will get worse, much worse&#33; I mean, Clinton would have probably moved on to having intercourse with that Jew girl eventually&#33; Bush will keep shuffling through one thing after another on the right-wing agenda because he is so desperate to have support from ANYBODY that that&#39;s what he must do to stay in control. If his approval ratings drop much lower, he&#39;ll have a damned tough time making excuses for continuing the "war for freedom" which I can&#39;t even type without nearly puking.

Any republican who can offer some reasonably sensible explaination as to why we&#39;re fighting this war other than unholy reasons of self-interest, please feel free. I haven&#39;t heard ONE idea yet that wasn&#39;t just regurgitated rhetoric.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I can&#39;t understand why anyone would put that controversial and divisive man in the White House. His policies have done little more than split this nation apart.

I can&#39;t understand why anyone would take seriously a man who is so vain and arrogant that he claims never to have made any mistakes since taking office. Perhaps he feels himself to be on a par with Jesus Christ, the only other perfect being according to Christians.

Perhaps more Americans are beginning to feel the same way I do. Recent poll numbers show GWB&#39;s popularly plummeting.

sg

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

I haven&#39;t heard ONE idea yet that wasn&#39;t just regurgitated rhetoric.

As I read your reply, and that of jonb as well, that one line was better than any I could come up with myself to sum up the content of where both of you come from. Even though it was originally part of a sentence directed negatively at me, congratulations on coming up with at least PART of one statement of general use.

Ever since I&#39;d found this site in February, and had checked out the various rooms (especially this off-shoot) it was abundantly clear that for every thousand members there were approximately 999 confirmed/voting liberals for every thousand members espousing views inside the various political/social threads. I was curious how a republican with a mix of conservative, moderate, and even once in a while liberal views would be received when the opportunity presented itself to provide some factual counter-programming to the liberal talking-points that make the rounds here as pre-ordained fact. Sadly, you guys fully met my expectations. Neither side, anymore, can stand the fact that the other side might have a positive view or two to offer on our collective problems and has a "my way or the highway" mentality...same as what gets displayed in the threads here. If I were ever to tell you that I agreed with one thing you said, I might have to become Pagan and hope for reincarnation to allow enough time to get the favor returned.

And, as far as the war in Iraq goes, I think the President shows weakness when he shifts the justifications for going to war. As none of us will ever truly know (unless we buy on ebay a highest-level security pass to US intel reports) if the best available knowledge at the end of 2002/early 2003 suggested the maniac in Baghdad had WMD, then that should have been the first and only basis for the war, given any possible outcome when the search for them began. I have three friends serving in the country, one a marine, one in the army, and one an air force officer. While I dread possibly getting a call one day telling me that one or more of them might be dead, I feel they are over there doing what needs to be done. I know, that opinion of mine is because I&#39;m uninformed. Possibly...it&#39;s because GW and Halliburton are sharing profits with my family surreptitiously and I don&#39;t want to bite the hand that feeds me (NIN reference there...wonder how Trent would feel being used in a pro-republican paragraph??)

It would seem diversity in this room is defined as a group of people who look totally different but think entirely alike. Since it&#39;s obvious my views are so well loved around here and I&#39;m a political pig who loves rolling around in the mud, you can guarantee I&#39;ll be a regular thorn with my particular world-view from now on

Got to run for now as I&#39;ve finally got a free weekend and have plans, but you and jonb have a good weekend, madame.


Steve

 

[jonb]

About Iraq, let&#39;s see . . . Hans Blix, Valerie Plame, not to mention the fact that the justification for the first Iraq war was also a lie since they weren&#39;t dumping babies out of incubators.

 

[madame_zora]

BnD,

I actually spent a great deal of time collecting and posting some factual information, and as always when these discussions come up you completely dismissed my whole post, even though I had made every attempt to answer every one of your points. This is what I mean by regurgitated rhetoric, when the facts don&#39;t play out in your favor you dump and run. No one ever said anything about GW being in callusion with your family, I know that was a joke, but you really did me a disservice by not responding to my points at all when I had tried in earnest to do that for you.

The truth is, bush&#39;s lack of involvment in governmental affairs for the first eight months of his presidency did leave us looking weak, it&#39;s hard to deny that point. No one secures their job by not going&#33; This is just common sense and doesn&#39;t seem to warrant argument.

I can appreciate that you may disagree with some things he does by still appreciate others, I just don&#39;t follow in the same direction. I have a great deal of disrespect for him, but I still look at his individual policies in terms of how they will affect the country and me personally. I don&#39;t just automatically dislike everything he tries to do just because I happen to dislike him. Quite the reverse, I dislike him because of the things he does and the manner in which he goes about it. The FACTS that Haliburton and the Carlyle Group are making a ton of money from the military contracts this war is continuing to generate cannot be disputed, nor can the FACTS that bush(es) and cheney are personally enjoying shares of the profits there. If this isn&#39;t clear cut conflict of interest, I sure don&#39;t know what is.

If you only go so far as to say that changing the reasons for the war makes you uncomfortable, but you still think we&#39;re doing the right thing, that confuses me. I am incensed that the original reason (or excuse) turned out not to be true, don&#39;t you get angry when you find out you&#39;ve been lied to? I guess herein lies my frustration. If when someone is caught red handed with their hand in the cookie jar and they come up saying "I was only looking for my car keys" I get angry. This is what I feel this administration has been doing to us as a country and I find it unacceptable.

Hope you have a nice weekend.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

With a 97 degree temp and a heat index of 104, today turned out not to be the greatest of days to get everything done, hence I&#39;m back here for quick visit. M. Zora, I say this respectfully, but one reason I don&#39;t go into tremendous detail in countering each of your 235 (or thereabouts) reasons you cannot stand the current administration is that I am a part-timer in the forum and my ability to be here and participate on a daily basis is limited. I enjoy this forum and wish I did have more time, but I&#39;m active in two other internet-based forums (no, neither one of them has to do with politics or "1001 things to enjoy your weiner more") as well as all the work and personal life issues that keep your typical college student hopping. I would say that you likely spend a great deal more time here on a daily or weekly basis, or else you type about 2,000 words per minute as opposed to my 30 (with a tail wind and I&#39;m not talking farting). <my reply to dumping and running, part one>

My writing style is to take a series of my thoughts, compare them as best I can, both time and length-wise, and make a post that both establishes my point of view and tries to work in a few replies to other&#39;s posts here. IF I happen to luck into some additional free time, soonest I can see that happening is early August, I promise that you&#39;ll need to use the bathroom before taking time to digest my replies

<dumping and running, part 2> Also, why should I spend time and effort trying to convince on what to me are micro-points (companies making a higher than usual profit on a war...no, not something I&#39;d otherwise endorse and as a taxpayer don&#39;t like to see or hear about...but a fact that has taken place over time in many different wars and this is just the latest iteration...very unfortunately it&#39;s the nature of the beast...just ask our good friends the French who have a long history of taking in money through the back door and spewing idealistic rhetoric out the front). If what I&#39;ve read on the subject doesn&#39;t lead me to either believe it or feel that it is in any way impacting our efforts in the war, then why spend 3,000 words fighting with you about it? At the end of that carpal tunnel inducing episode, both of us will likely still feel the same way and have doctor bills to boot for hand therapy.

As to the war, I do hold Bush accountable for lack of planning for any version of Post-Iraq you can conjure up, either the one we currently have or the best possible one any designer could have come up with. We need more troops in the country to quell the sunni triangle and additional forces to better secure the borders with Syria and Iran. Large parts of Iraq are somewhat stable, when you take into account the middle eastern definition of the word. However, most of the reporters are in the Sunni Triangle and that is where the car bombings and killings are taking place...amazing coincidence. We should report those things, but reporting only those things distorts what the country as a whole has managed to achieve in two+ years after Saddam. And, for insurgents determined to blow their own countrymen up, there isn&#39;t much you can do about it when you get right down to it. Isreal has been fighting Palestinian homicide bombers for years and with forces breathing down the terrorists necks the Isrealis still can suffer from it. By not making the case for more forces in the Sunni Triangle or requesting NATO (if the high and mighty french and germans would provide it) assistance with the border regions, the President might possibly be committing this mission to ultimate failure.

Reasons for the war...President Clinton&#39;s administration had certified on paper that they felt Saddam had WMD when Clinton left office. The UN weapons inspection team felt he had WMD. Russian intelligence felt the same way, and on the eve of the war in 2003, Tommy Franks was warned by the Egyptians and (I believe) the Jordanians that Saddam&#39;s troops would use chemical weapons on advancing US troops once they entered the country. Clinton, during last summer&#39;s election cycle, in an interview in Time magazine, cautioned democrats about jumping Bush&#39;s case too vigorously as he said, words to the effect, that "we felt he had WMD when I left office and barring his demonstrated destruction of those weapons it is logical to say they will eventually be found".

What DID happen is that either Saddam orchestrated one of the major intelligence failings of the late 20th century and bluffed the entire world into feeling that he still possessed WMD and was willing to be deposed still carrying that belief, or US intelligence relied too strongly upon Iraqi dissidents in their pre-war planning. I&#39;d vote for a combination of the two. Clinton himself, in one arena I admired he took the guts to make a stand, made it the policy of this country to support regime change in Baghdad and the overthrow of Saddam.

If Clinton had been able to run for a third term (something I know many here would wet themselves over), would he have pursued RC in any meaningful way? I doubt it, doing that would have required more than cruise missle capability. Also, nobody would have supported Bush going into Afghanistan on September 10, 2001, if he&#39;d stood before Congress and laid out the reasons for war, which were the same after 9/11 except for 3,000 dead people in NYC. It always takes a disaster before we&#39;re ready, as a nation, to do anything that needs to be done. Just check thru history.

We invaded the country and two+ years hence have found no WMD. Do I feel lied to about that? No. As per my earlier paragraph, the entire world had reason to believe he had the weapons and in the aftermath of 9/11 Saddam looked a bit different than he did prior to it (threat-wise). Should Bush periodically modify his reasons for the war just to try and surf the winds of public opinion? No. WMD and the threat it potentially posed to our country and interests in the region were sound enough...it&#39;s just obvious to me that a morally corrupt UN couldn&#39;t stand with us lest they expose the cash pipelines they&#39;d established with Baghdad.

*************

As to a few stray points jonb has thrown my way...the first gulf war...I take it in retrospect you didn&#39;t support what was done in that conflict? I thought that even if a somewhat suspect UN endorsed a course of action suggested by the US that that would be enough to elevate it to the level of "get &#39;er done" for liberals and quasi-liberals alike. Country A invaded Country B and in the process threatened the engergy supply of the civilized world...the civilized world gets together and eventually votes to form a coalition to throw Country A back behind its borders and succeeds and that is somehow bad? Life doesn&#39;t usually present clearer cut cases of right and wrong than that one.

And our military spending vs the rest of the world...yes we do spend more than many nations combined. If it is more than the entire world combined, who knows for sure? Russia, China, and countries like N. Korea are in that "combined" part and while they may report figures or we may estimate totals, hindsight after the cold war was over found out that the Soviet Union was spending much more on military budgets than we&#39;d estimated in the 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s. Besides, if you&#39;re so quick in this room to jump US intelligence and their accuracy, why do you rely upon it when it comes to the forming of estimates of military budgets in potentially hostile countries?

And, we expect soooo much more of our military than the rest of the world does. If the UN ever did, God help us all, actually want to take military action to resolve a situation, what country would provide the vast majority of the ships, troops, planes, and support for said operations? When the tsunami hit last December, what one nation had the resources to reach some of the most remote, devastated regions? What one nation has, for nearly 60 years, maintained a standing army in Europe to defend against threats to their way of life? What nation has maintained an army in Korea for 50 years to protect against their neighbor to the north threatening their very existence? Point being, yes we do spend &#036;1200 now and then on a toilet seat and I&#39;m sure it is a very nice toilet, but we also have kept the peace (or at least deterred aggressors) around the world since WWII. Do we always make the correct decisions? Hell no. We have sometimes coddled dictators and have paid prices for that behavior. However, the former Soviets were fond of puppet regimes and specialized in those for decades so stupidity is in abundance in certain circumstances and knows no ideological borders.

Whew...my wrists are killing me now and there isn&#39;t even a Penthouse magazine open anywhere near me...least not yet. We shall have to agree to disagree I&#39;m sure, MZ and jb, and I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll be doing it again soon.


Steve

 

[Onslow]

You know, every time I start to respond to the many points brought into play here I find myself being drawn back into a frighteningly negative place. My views have been stated before and I see no reason to dredge them up again. Most of you have been here know my political leanings are usually conservative although I have a few odd liberal tendencies such as my views on womens rights.

Anyway, I figure I am not going to get people to shift over into my way of thinking just as I am rather unlikely to shift over into their ways of thinking. We all have our beliefs and our ideas and that in the final picture is what makes life interesting. Imagine if you will the entire world all living in a mopey monotonous drudgery where we had no free thought.
Is everything perfect under Junior and his sometimes absurd leadership? Not even close; however I still prefer him over Clinton. Don&#39;t ask me to explain it further, I&#39;ve outlined things in the past--Health care, Welfare Reform (which will lead to the death of millions of young children--I warned you that I have some liberal tendencies) and of course THE BIG LIE. Remember folks it was not about the sex act it was about the LIE. THAT is what caused the rancor towards Clinton by so many people. It wasn&#39;t a bunch of ninnies following the rancid chants of Formerly Sexy Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy. Give people credit folks for having opinions and minds of their own. Don&#39;t forget that I am a gay man, (or is the correct term queer or joy-boy?) I am on a lower rung of the economic ladder, I am not a Bible thumper, I have not been to any Church in close to 20 years (excepting the services for a friend in 1996 and AA meetings which are often found in church basements). No church services or singing of hymns. And yet I have a deep and abiding belief in one political party over the other. Is it wrong? I&#39;ll find out when I&#39;m dead.


Darn, you made me do it. You made me go off on another tirade. (If I&#39;m going to be the villain here then I see no reason to take responsibility for it.) The final (?????) bottom line here is that there is always going to be some issue which will cause discontent and anger amongst us, my choice for right now is how I want to handle the different opinions I see here and for this moment I am choosing to let the whole darn issue drop. I just made the mistake at the start of trying to let the original poster know that there are Republicans out there who are gay and that even more importantly if he does not like what he is seeing then he should get himself involved in the political arena. He should be in contact and communicating with all his reperesentatives-- Democrat and Republican and Independent, Conservative, Liberal, Green Party, etc. It&#39;s one thing to say it&#39;s all wrong, it&#39;s yet another to then do nothing about it but still expect it to change.

 

[jonb]

Actually, the rancor existed BEFORE Monica. Monica was BECAUSE of the rancor. Ever heard of the Arkansas Project? Let&#39;s not forget about how Clinton was responsible for every death in Arkansas history, including ones which were obvious accidents. One case involved two teens hit by a train. (A train? What is this? A silent movie?)

 

[jonb]

Oh, and brainzz, you might get away with such stories if we didn&#39;t have videotape and if we weren&#39;t talking about stuff which everyone here can remember. (Waiting for Chris to nitpick.)

 

[KinkGuy]

In some way, somehow, Bill Clinton is responsible for absolutely everything bad and in error, everywhere on the planet. All of it.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Jun 25 2005, 05:31 PM
In some way, somehow, Bill Clinton is responsible for absolutely everything bad and in error, everywhere on the planet. All of it.

[post=324046]Quoted post[/post]​

I am from Arkansas. So I watched closely all the goings on of Whitewater et all. And nothing was pinned on Clinton except denying he had sex with Monica. Hell, why should that have even been asked by anyone except Hillary? It certainly had nothing to do with the governing of the country if his dick had been in the mouth of Monica. How did that shape foreign policy or domesetic policy or any other policy? Clinton should have told them up front that that was Hillary&#39;s business and Hillary&#39;s alone and refused to answer.

It pisses of the Republicans that there were surpluses under Clinton that turned into record deficits under George quickly. Sorry. That is the breaks. Not our fault that Clinton and his adisors did a good job of running the country.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Onslow@Jun 25 2005, 09:32 PM
Remember folks it was not about the sex act it was about the LIE.

[post=324036]Quoted post[/post]​

sorry, but in relative terms I have much less of a problem with clinton lying about a blowjob that cost a white house intern her job, than I have with bush lying about justifications for a war that cost thousands of lives, or lying about fictitious "security threats" that cost the entire country essential personal liberties.

politicians are scumbags and we expect them to lie - in fact we know that they only tell the truth when a lie won&#39;t serve their interests. don&#39;t pretend otherwise, because everybody with any shred of intelligence knows better. it&#39;s what they lie about and why that makes them relatively tolerable or intolerable. clinton&#39;s lie was ultimately harmless; bush&#39;s sure as hell ain&#39;t.