HOW THE HELL DOES HE STILL HAVE MAJORITY APPROVAL??
Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
How'd you manage to have all caps in one post? Easy, you just didn't change the settings when you typed each letter.
Hobbes Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Because the media's so "liberal."
Duh.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The media being so liberal is why its so low.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I still think nfl should keep looking. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh HEH.
Okay, dude. Please. Give me a list of things Bush has done right.
Hell, name one thing. Iraq, possibly, but even that was perverted by corrupt Halliburton contracts and Bush's claim of his exclusive right to Iraqi oil.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Dammit.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Iraq? Come on Eddie, I thought you hated Bush. I do not, and I still think he fücked it up royally.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think Iraq was right and not "ruined" and I think the economy is on a rebound and that's why I'll be voting for him in '04 barring something extremely unexpected. I also agree with him on a majority of issues and those issues that I don't agree with him on including gun control aren't likely to change enough to my liking anyways. There are things he could do better but I'm much more scared of what someone like Graham, Dean, or Kerry will do. And if its Sharpton...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And wow Danzig Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
Yah, this is a family forum...
Anyways, my point was that most people don't pay all that much attention to what's going on. So whatever the last really major event did for them (approval/non-approval) is probably how most of them will vote now.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If Iraq is what Bush has done right -- then I wonder what you think he's done wrong.
Posted by Bricks-N-Sandwiches (Member # 5603) on :
So really your only gripe is he's screwing up within tolerable Uhh...*searches for word*...limits*Im sure theres a better word* So you want to see more competant opponents? Hehehe starts thinking of jokes that start: More competant then George Bush Jr. HahHaHaha For starters: A room full of monkeys with typewriters...
Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
I just gave a reason for why most people still support Bush, I didn't endorse their reasons.
[Edit: And don't]
Hobbes
[ September 12, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Willy Shmily Tiger ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
ok about this "war for oil" garbage, i dont see MY gas prices dropping so bag that crap up and bury it already. and Iraq was a swift decisive victory. There was stage one: The kicking of ass, followed by stage two: the taking of names.
National security, Defending the meek, Invasion and liberation of a country is a nasty business. It's not lilacs and fruit juice. If you dont have the stomach for it, turn the channel. Watch emeril or something. Leave the Security of the Nation to the leaders.
Posted by Bricks-N-Sandwiches (Member # 5603) on :
I think I need a new name..I've worn this one for maybe a week or two...and I don't think it fits... What does this have to do with Bush??? Well takes one to know one !!!!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
My point is that the only perfect candidate for me is me so I have to go with the best that's available. Honestly I wasn't impressed with Bush's mastery of the English language before the 2000 election but I saw him as the "lesser of two evils". I'm far more impressed with him after than before.
Just as a note he nor Gore was actually evil despite what some members on this forum like to claim.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
seriously brick, if monkey with typwriters could do the job better than bush, and bush got the job, and YOU havent made it to the oval office yourself...wouldnt the next logical step be that you yourself are at least one degree below bush on the monkeys/typwriters scale?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
im so sick of this fashionable "poo poo on bush" attitude that has become as prominent and unfounded as tae-bo. 'here's my rant on bush it matches my couch arent I chic?'
Just shut up. not a one of you could have done better. and if you think you can, put up. hit the streets, get your name on the ballot and see if otehrs feel the same way about you internet commandos out there. Ten feet tall on the net.
And i say this as a staunch liberal. I did not vote in the last election, i thought they were both shitty candidates, and i was grumpy when bush won. Seemed to conservative for me. But he's done well enough with the shitstorm he was blindsided with. Done well sidestepping the landmines that we liberals are good at planting (the stock issues: Abortion, gay marriage, etc) because he was focused ont he task at hand: The safety and security of the American public. What good is honoring a gay marriage if both husbands are dying from ebola and antrax while a suicide bomber runs headlong into the ceremony?
People are dying for our right to sit here and bitch and moan about 'George W ruined the economy, I can't buy my lexus SUV.' You short on cash? do what I did: Get another damned job. If you think you cant handle a second job, then you sure as hell couldnt handle being president and you need to staple your mouth shut and replace your head firmly between your buttocks.
We have serious problems in this country and with the international community and the terrorists at large. It's gonna take focused, imaginative people to make things happen and make strides towards the better; not internet forum crybabies. Not 19 year old hippies handcuffing themselves to garbage cans in street corners.
You want to help? Join the military Become a scoutmaster, Volunteer at a soup kitchen, become a mentor, sponser an underprivelaged child in an underdevoloped country, write a letter to your congressman, campaign for candidates you like. In short, do something selfless and make a difference.
You know, just for a change.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
I am simply put too young to apply for candidacy for president of the united states...my dad skipped out when I was three and my mom washes toilets for a living...No expensive college for me handed on a silver platter no daddy in the CIA no one to get me around the draft..You are SOOO right I am below Bush...But I am a REAL person and NOT a shadow puppet! The only reason bush is allowed power is that he has none and dances to the strings of the oil companies.
[ September 12, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Lautsprecher für die Toten ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A room full of monkeys with typewriters..--Bricks hahahaha Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
I am now fuming with anger I can barely Repress!! GET ANOTHER JOB???? And just where do you suppose i do THAT??? I have put in over 100 applications for employment I have a CDA and an RDA and I applied for jobs in everything from food preperation to industrial. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ALL RIGHT JOB YOU HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE!!!!! You make me sick. THERE ARE NO JOBS! Wake up smell the garbage! Thank you Bush for giving us an insurmountable deficit I'm so glad an adulterous democrat did sooooo much better with his presidency than this No talent daddies boy
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Show me the oil. Im waiting for it. Im waiting for the proof that he's on a string for oil companies.
You may too young for the presidency, but that doesnt mean youre too young to contribute in some way. If you cant imagine a way how then you couldnt possibly come up with a decent strategy to hell america out of the funk it's in.
And you dont need anything handed on a silver platter to succeed. I never saw much of my parents either, i swept floors and unloaded trucks and cleaned toilets and bounced at clubs to make my way all in a single day's work. No tears from me. I feel the that hardship helps forge a good leader. I also do not feel that a person born well to do with advantages is automatically an unqualified leader. If that was the case than itd have to be applied to ALL second generation celebrities and politicians and that would make for a very sparse and lonely spotlight. No one would question the ability of a second generation Navy SEAL to do his job effectively, why automatically discount the efforts fo a second generation leader of the free world?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
All i can say is: put in another application. I had a piss poor time finding work too, but i found it. I wasnt choosy. They said clean shit, so i cleaned it. they said unload trucks, so i did. Get sick at the thought of me if you want, i got sick plenty of times putting in 23 hour days for stints of three days at a time trying to stay standing hurling boxes out of trucks and scrubbing shitters. Throw up in the parking lot and get back to the dock and keep working. when i lost my decent job i admitted to myself that i might have to start again at the bottom. So i did. sweeping floors for six bucks an hour, 12 hours a day. worked my way up. Now im the manager. I had to search for a good month too. Work is out there, it's just not pleasant, and it doesnt pay well.
(edited b/c the last sentence, while written in sincerity, read like an insult)
[ September 12, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
See Odouls, I don't feel even the tiniest bit safer from the actions of our administration since September 11th. You think that since we invaded a couple countries everything is hunky-dorry now? If anything, I feel like we've given amunition to the next generation of terrorists. Bush has completely overstepped his bounds with the new legislation limiting our civil rights. His economic strategy of cutting taxes for the rich while increasing spending to me seems sublimely retarded.
Most of all though, I feel I was decieved by this administration into supporting an unjust war. I sat here, on this very forum, and stated my beliefs that there was sufficient evidence of WMD to invade Iraq, and that the administration had intelligence they hadn't revealed yet. Now months and months later there is not a freaking SHRED of evidence that there was a danger of nuclear of biological attack from Hussien. I feel like a fool, a puppet, and have lost a lot of trust in my government.
And take a chill pill Odouls. We still have the freedom of speach, at least until Patriot Act II comes along.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
And you dont need anything handed on a silver platter to succeed. You are soooo right cause you know there are a whole LOT of recent presidents that grew up in POOR families right? Don't kid yourself he is only there because thats where rich daddy and rich mommy want him...and for that matter his running mate OWNED an oil company. Battle of wits unarmed something? how does that go now? You smug self satisfied idiot. I would wish the life of bean with your current intellect on someone with your HOLIER THEN THOU view
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its as if having a powerful family disqualifies you from being good at something or so the liberals claim. Lautsprecher für die Toten, I'm sorry you can't find a decent job but I can't see any reason to believe that its Bush's fault.
Xavier, there was evidence found being that of the mobile bio-labs. Personally I think we gave Saddam too much time. However, I don't think this thread should turn into another were we justified thread? but instead just a discussion of why people still support Bush since that was what the original question was. What everyone has to realize is that just because you think that the war wasn't justified doesn't mean that others don't and that's why they will vote for Bush. Also, about 80% of the nation already has their mind made up before the election just based on the party.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
Now its off to bed because a liscensed professional cannot find a job in this terrible Bush inspired DEPRESSION. Its off to be a sandwich jockey for another day.
Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
I was going to say something about Nixon but there are far too many flames in this thread to actually discusses anything. *hint hint*
Hobbes Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
lol 'chill pill'. Believe it or not, the last person to tell me to take a 'chill pill' was my senior year algebra teacher. The TEACHER for goodness sake. There's a good memory. Thanks X
I dont think everything is hunky dory now though, thats why i insist, that the fight must go on, (in a figurative sense as much as in the literal) and we need bright imaginative people to continue to step up.
Im by no means saying the man i sperfect, like I said im a liberal and his tax policies leave much to be desird in my mind, but he has made bold decisive moves towards ridding us of terrorism. They warned us from september 12th on that the campaign would be long and difficult. Americans, unfortunately, want highlights on CNN and then bring the boys back home. If THAT was the decision made by the administration, THEN we would be in more danger from teh terrorists.
As far as the infringing of civil liberties are concerned, If the US government is that damned interested in monitoring what books I decide to buy, and how often I pee, then they know that Im a big geek, an OSC fan and i drink a lot of water. Piss on them. They can monitor all my phone calls that they want. It's been years since i said anything interesting or original. Theyll get tired of listening to me faster than you fine people, if thats possible. If they try to take our freedom of speech away, Im certiant here will be a lot of "F" words thrown about on that day, proving that you cant keep a good swearer down.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Guys, stop stressing and come on over to the nudist colony.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier, there was evidence found being that of the mobile bio-labs.
I thought the British government even admitted those were exactly what the Iraqis claimed they were, mobile Hydrogen producers for baloons.
Posted by LR (Member # 5109) on :
im in odouls268 camp here...if you want to make a difference there are literally hundreds of different organizations in most areas to volunter and help with...and if there isnt start one someone had to for the others...as for the economy, the clinton era left a little timebomb for the next administration with the economy and if youre pissed off with "dynasties" why vote for al gore, or hilary when she comes up? isnt that the same as voting for a son?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The thing that most stresses me out is that if we as a nation re-elect Bush, it will be a validation for everything he's done.
I don't think history will judge us kindly for this war and the "Bush doctrine". If he gets a second term, it won't be some cowboy president going too far, it will be a nation of blood-thirsty unilateralists out for revenge.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I never heard of the British admitting that. The claim sounds as credible as the one that we blew up a "baby milk" factory back in the first Gulf War. Besides Hydrogen would be a chemical while the labs were supposed to be bio, now that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:im so sick of this fashionable "poo poo on bush" attitude that has become as prominent and unfounded as tae-bo. 'here's my rant on bush it matches my couch arent I chic?'
Actually quite a lot of Hatrackers are on record as having poo pooed on Bush long before it was fashionable. I'm one.
What I would have done differently? I wouldn't have gone after Iraq. I would have kept after Afghanistan and I would have asked Saudi Arabia some hard questions, like why there were far more links from there to the terrorists than there ever were from Iraq. I would have paid more attention to Afghanistan after I got my photo opps out of it. I would not have bulled my way into Iraq without full UN support, and that doesn't count weasley resolutions put forth under pressure after months of publicly stating I didn't need to. I wouldn't have kept hammering on the tax cut, changing the reasons for it to meet the current conditions, and then started spending like a drunken sailor without the slightest clue of where the money would come from. And I certainly wouldn't make loud claims of support for programs that I fail to support in reality. I might have to cut a program's funding, but I sure as hell wouldn't be so blatantly hypocritical as to praise it the week before. I wouldn't have acted like the archetype conservative, letting big business do as they please and stripping away regulations and environmental controls. I wouldn't nominate judges based on their opinions rather than their records, and if I did I wouldn't act surprised and puzzled when the opposing party sought to block them. I wouldn't keep acting like I can do whatever I want, especially because I would have learned better after such arrogance lost me the Senate in my first six months. And in my speech last weekend, I would have apologized to the world for calling the war wrong, and asked for UN help in exchange for turning over control of Iraq.
[ September 12, 2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: No one would question the ability of a second generation Navy SEAL to do his job effectively, why automatically discount the efforts fo a second generation leader of the free world?
odouls You obviously know nothing about elite military units. A SEAL could care less if someone's daddy was a SEAL, what's important is, can he do the job at hand? And the leader of the free world is far more important to Americans than 1 soldier. The fact is, like Reagan, Bush is not up to the intellectual demands of high office. Too bad that has nothing to do with getting elected.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And therein lies your problem LfdT. "Im a lisenced professional, this other stuff is beneath me." I may be smug, but i am NOT self satisfied. I go to work everyday busting my ass to get better, learn more and take another step forward. And you wanna see a poor man become president? Keep watching. I came up poor as the filth i clean everyday, and i fully intend to make it to the presidency.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Of what?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Morbo, thats my point, man. No one would give a second thought in either direction about a Navy SEAL having had a father on the Teams or not having had a father on the Teams. "Can he do the job at hand?" Exactly. If he can do it, no number of accomplishments or lack of them by his father will discount what he can do.
And i certainly dont purport to know anything about the Specwar community, the example could just as easily have been made with a marine corps communications wireman. I have nothing but absolute unwavering respect for the men and women who serve. In any facet of the armed forces.
If you feel the George W is ill equipped for the job, then thats that. Your opinion. But if you feel that since his father was president he obviously slid into the job and is THEREFORE unqualified, that is what i feel is unjust.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Kayla, of my fraternity. Posted by LR (Member # 5109) on :
wasnt the reagan administration the one that killed the russians with enough money to by the paper and ink to write up the "star wars" defense?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Chris I agree with you wholeheartedly on the "paying more attention to afghanistan" front. Absolutely.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I will most certainly not be voting for Bush next year.
The problem is, there's no one else to vote for.
If any candidate stood up and said, "What's done is done, stop throwing blame. Here's how I think we should move forward," I'd listen.
Not a politician in a hundred dares define himself by who and what he is. Instead they define themselves by who and what they are not. "I'm not George Bush" is not enough to get me to vote for you, and spending all your time campaigning about how stupid Bush has been doesn't help me decide if I like your policies or not.
You would think that the Dems learned this from their last trouncing. Or even from how badly the Republicans lost when they tried to run on the "We're not Bill Clinton" ticket.
Give me someone to vote for, I already know whom to vote against.
[ September 12, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The USSR was killing itself with military spending...their collapse was inevitable, IMHO.
Odouls, you sound like a very hard worker, and I certainly respect that. But you said you wanted to "learn more and take another step forward." Lfdt has done that, that's why he's a licensed pro. Surely you can understand his frustration in not getting a job he's spent time and energy traing for?
"People are dying for our right to sit here and bitch and moan"--odouls. Why do they bother, when civil liberties are so unimportant to so many, as you claim they are irrelevant to you?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"Surely you can understand his frustration in not getting a job he's spent time and energy traing for?"
Absolutely, Ive watch my father go through it every day for two years. But he's working graveyard at a convienance store in the meantime. These are hard times, without a doubt, but blaming bush doesnt pay the bills.
"'People are dying for our right to sit here and bitch and moan'--odouls. Why do they bother, when civil liberties are so unimportant to so many, as you claim they are irrelevant to you?"
I definately needed to phrase myself better. I shouldnt have taken such a facetious tone in describing my attitude about it. In fact for a good two years I kept up a website exclusively devoted to ranting about the government's intrusiveness into individual's lives and the rampant obstruction of privacy. It's just that in this case, I know that 1: i have nothing to hide and 2: they are going to find out anything they want to about me anyway. I value my privacy, but if the government wishes me ill, the most i can hope for is to protect myself from immediate physical threat. if the US government wants me snuffed or embarassed, i cant hope to compete with that.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
that being said, i dont honestly think that they wish me dead or discredited.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you haven't discredited yourself by taking the name of a nonalcoholic beer, you never will Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Id be horribly insulted if it wasnt a nickname forced upon me despite my kicking screaming objections. I swear. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No insult intended. It was more of a "oh, you poor dear" reaction.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
yes. i need a hug Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Are you sure? Check here first before asking...
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
G O O
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Interesting points and quotes from Al Franken's book "LIES and the lying liars who tell them":
Liberal media?
Tone of coverage for Gore & Bush during 2000 election
Positive: 13% Gore, 24% Bush Neutral: 31% Gore, 27% Bush Negative: 56% Gore, 49% Bush
source: Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellance in Journalism
a great quote regarding Clinton and Dubya on terrorism and al Qaeda:
quote: Immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidental directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Assassinate bin Laden? Amen, I say. Sean Hannity, though, has devoted a substantial amount of time, both on air and in his book, to pretending that this never happened and criticizing Clinton for not having the balls to do it. On his show, he yammers about Reagan's Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the assassination of foreign heads of state. Watch Hannity on TV, or listen to the radio. He'll bring it up.
quote: The final al Qaeda attack of the Clinton Era came on October 12, 2000. Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen of our sailors. Clinton decided to take the fight against al Qaeda to the highest level possible. Instead of funding them like Reagan, or ignoring them Bush, Clinton decided to destroy them. He put Richard Clarke, the legendary bulldog whom he had appointed as the first national antiterroism coordinator, in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al Qadea. ...
Working furiously, Clarke produced a strategy paper that he presented to Sandy Berger and other national security principles on December 20, 2000. The plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funnding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda ...; and, most significantly, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself. Clarke proposed bulking up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official told Time, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11." ... But the plan was never carried out. In its place Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, and his national security team would conceive and execute a different plan entirely. A plan called Operation Ignore. ... Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleeza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." ... While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying any attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under the Clinton administration. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism-fighting was to the Clinton White House.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a comission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern" and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security"...
The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."
... The public face of [Bush's terrorism policy] would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. ... Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. ... No one understood better the importance of taking a break to spend a little special time with the wife and dog than President George W. Bush. Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As he told a $1,000-a-plate crowd at a fund-raiser in June, "Washington, D.C., is a great place to work, but Texas is a great place to relax." That's why on August 3, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose" nukes in the former Soviet Union [a possible source of nuclear weapons for terrorists] he bade farewell to the Washington grind and headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in thirty-two years.
...
Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tene delivered a report to Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. ...
Among those left to swelter in the D.C. heat that August was one Thomas J. Pickard. ... In his role as acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundred of new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau's capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received the final ... communique': an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat. ...
On September 9 ... Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at being between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs incurred Rummy's ire, and he threated a presidential veto. ...
[the next day, September 10, 2001], Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget requests to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list. ... The day after that [9/11], they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America.
Posted by Sid the SIoth (Member # 5654) on :
Just thought this thread might be relevant. Not so much the thread as the second post fromt he top. November 6th, 2002 is the post date.
[ September 13, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Sid the SIoth ]
Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
quote:Tone of coverage for Gore & Bush during 2000 election
Positive: 13% Gore, 24% Bush Neutral: 31% Gore, 27% Bush Negative: 56% Gore, 49% Bush
I'd just like to say that I'm not going to trust anything that will give actual percentages on "positive" and "negative" media.
Hobbes Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow. Just ...wow. I've heard of the Sep. 10 DoJ budget thing, most of the rest is news to me.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: I'd just like to say that I'm not going to trust anything that will give actual percentages on "positive" and "negative" media.
Franken talks about that a little later:
quote: Holy sh*t!
A million questions raced through our minds. Who are these Pew people? Where do these numbers come from? Was this just another liberal lie?
No. It turns out that the Pew Charitable Trusts are among the largest, most prestigious foundations in America. Totally mainstream. Their Project for Excellence in Journalism comes out of the top-rated Columbia School of Journalism and is one of the few media research organizations without a political axe to grind.
And the numbers? Turns out they came from a comprehensive study examining 1,149 stories from seventeen leading news sources. ... So what had happened? It turns out that TeamFranken had spent the 2000 election cycle locked away in its ivory tower. Any normal American who watched the news or read the papers that year would have noticed that the media just hated Al Gore.
Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off. Instead of covering the issues and how they might affect average Americans, the media looked for little scraps of evidence to support its story line of Gore the Exaggerator.
They found them in the unlikeliest places. For example, where he didn't exaggerate. Take his role in the creation of the Internet. In the 1980s, Gore was one of the handful of leaders who foresaw the tremendous power of Arpanet, an emergency military computer network. As both a congressman and a senator, Gore fought tirelessly for the funding that would turn Apranet into what is now the Internet.
The Internet, as you may know, became a big hit in the nineties and briefly enjoyed a great deal of media coverage. With this in mind, Gore told Wolf Blitzer in a 1999 interview, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
What do you suppose he meant? That, late at night in his office in the Russell Building, after the other senators had gone home, he had written the PASCAL code that allowed packet switching? Probably not. No. What he seemed to be doing is what members of Congress do: He was taking credit for a program he championed and funded. In this case one that revolutionized the information infrastructure of the entire world.
What an a**hole.
The phrase "invented the Internet" first appeared in a Republican Party press release and would be repeated by the "liberal" press thousands of times during the campaign. What should have been an enormous credit to the man's vision became a symbol of his insidious, compulsive disonesty. Ironically, Gore was sometimes criticied via the Internet itself!
When a few people -- like me -- pointed out that he hadn't said that he had invented the Internet, Ann Coulter responded: "In point of fact, 'create' is a synonym for 'invent.' Any thesaurus will quickly confirm this." That may be true. But the very same thesaurus would show that "friendly" is a synonym for "intimate". So, when Ann told the New York Observer that she and I were "friendly", they knew it was her way of claiming that we are lovers, which we most certainly are not. I am not currently having an affair with any Republican woman, but if I were, it would be with Maine senator Olympia Snowe, whom I respect for voting her conscience.
- ibid
Buy this book. It totally rocks. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. It'd be sad if it weren't so funny.
Jeff
[ September 13, 2003, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
BTW, though I've never been a fan of Dubya, the more I read this book, the more I hate him. The lies, the smear campaigns, the record deficit, and worst of all, the blaming it on Clinton, the "liberal media", and a lack of "patriotism". Makes me furious!
Jeff
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Yeah, that book is ridiculous. It was during Clinton's administration John O'Neil, the "man who knew" wwas alienated from the FBI. Bush is the one who wants to coordinate the sharing of information between agencies. Clinton said Saddam Hussein was going to use his WMDs but when Bush wants to do something about it Clinton retracts his comments and opposes the war. Clinton never did anything regarding foreign policy in eight years of office.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Franken provides his sources. Can you provide me yours? In particular, I'm interested in seeing your proof for the statement, "Clinton never did anything regarding foreign policy in eight years of office."
Jeff
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*wonders how freeing Kosovo from oppression, which resulted in the democratic freeing of a dictator from power in serbia, counts as nothing*
*wonders similarly about such things as maintaining relative peace in the middle east, compared to, say, now*
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
fugu13, yes, but what has he done for us lately?
Jeff
Posted by Willy Shmily Tiger (Member # 5647) on :
I haven't finished reading that yet, but I needed to stop and point out this line:
quote:As both a congressman and a senator
Hobbes Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Morbo,
I admit that I only skimmed this thread, but you said that the USSR ruined itself by its military spending, right? I don't know who that was addressed to, but when I think about it, that does apply to the current situation in the US, doesn't it?
Both seem to have a system of morals set down by their economic system, and if you didn't adhear to these same values you were ruled by tyranny. It was their duty to free you from it. Both countries also ground down their middle class to fuel their huge military budgets.
Granted I've only been thinking about this for 5 minutes, but it's a neat idea that I'll have to think on a little more. Thanks Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
OK, Kosovo which would have been a disaster had Milosevic been willing to continue fighting. Clinton showed through his presidency that he wasn't willing to put any effort into anything. He didn't provide the necessary support for our troops in Somalia, he virtually ignored Bosnia, he was never willing to do anything about Iraq except launch a few cruise missiles even though he himself declared Saddam to be a threat to the world.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."-Bill Clinton
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
There was also another quote that I have repeatedly heard where he says that someday someway Saddam will use his weapons but I couldn't find it.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
As for the Soviet spending it was Reagan who made them outspend themselves and whatever you might say about it it was what worked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Newfoundlogic, That is a myth which is contrary to existing evidence. Since the end of the cold war, Soviet records have been opened and it has been conclusively shown that the USSR did not increase its military spending in response to Reagan's military build up. Not at all. Unless you are maintaining that the USSR would have decreased it military spending without Reagans excess (something that is highly speculative to say the least) then you must conclude that Reagan's spending excesses played no role in the collapse of the USSR.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Except no. Or was it coincidence? Maybe a magical fairy told the Soviets to give up. Yeah, I believe that. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No, There are plenty of good reasons that the USSR collapsed, Reagan's spending excesses just doesn't happen to be one of them.
And rather than mocking my arguments, perhaps you can explain how the Reagan military budget caused the USSR to collapse even though all the data proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response. Your conjecture is built on pixie dust.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First you say Reagan's spending didn't affect the Soviets then you say its just one of the reasons why they collapsed and then you say again that it didn't affect them. You keep contradicting yourself. What data? That's what I'm most skeptical about. This is the first time I've heard that Reagan's spending had no effect.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
newfoundlogic, Where did I say Reagan's spending was one of the reasons the USSR collapsed? I'm sorry but I can't find it anywhere in my posts.
The popularity of a myth, is no evidence for its validity. Show me the data that says the USSR increased their military spending in response to Reagan's increased military budget. Then we can start talking. Without data, you are simply talking conjecture.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
OK, sorry I actually misread your post. However you did claim that data says that the Soviets didn't increase spending. I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: If Ann Coulter were genuinely interested in finding out who single-handedly won the Cold War, she should have called my old friend Marshal Viktor Kulikov, the former Warsaw Pact comamnder. In 1992, Kulikov told U.S. News & World Report that "Reagan was a logical extension of what had started with Truman, a concentrated effort to weaken and intimidate the Soviet Union."
Other people give credit for ending the Cold War to the Polish Pope, John Paul II; to Lech Walesa and his independent trade union, Solidarity; to Jimmy Carter, who put pressure on Moscow to respect the human rights of its people; and to the Soviet Union itself, which was collapsing under the crushing weight of its own failed system. Reagan, of course, did put medium-range Pershing II missiles in Europe and began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan's aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days.
- ibid
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response."
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
Jeff
P.S. I prefer the oldfoundlogic: without the fallacies.
[ September 13, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
Day late and dollar short but I would like to RE-point out to odouls the number and the range of applications put forth...also the fact that I am now a SANDWICH JOCKEY for the simple fact that 99 other applications didn't get so much as a call back. With college behind me and a history in manufacturing to put me through school I still could not find a job in this DEPRESSION. I still feel that the folks that this is not directly affecting are deluding themselves into believing that this is not an immediate problem. That the people without jobs are just lazy. Just be glad the cuts haven't hit you yet. Because when they do you will realize that there is NOTHING. You can't even FIND a job shoveling shit to earn 6.50 an hour. Do you know why? Because some bank VP just beat you to the manure shoveling job 10 min ago.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
Day late and dollar short but I would like to RE-point out to odouls the number and the range of applications put forth...also the fact that I am now a SANDWICH JOCKEY for the simple fact that 99 other applications didn't get so much as a call back. With college behind me and a history in manufacturing to put me through school I still could not find a job in this DEPRESSION. I still feel that the folks that this is not directly affecting are deluding themselves into believing that this is not an immediate problem. That the people without jobs are just lazy. Just be glad the cuts haven't hit you yet. Because when they do you will realize that there is NOTHING. You can't even FIND a job shoveling shit to earn 6.50 an hour. Do you know why? Because some bank VP just beat you to the manure shoveling job 10 min ago.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
I agree. I was out of work for OVER A YEAR AND A QUARTER after Intel laid me off. I was applying for positions that I used be too senior to manage before the lay offs. Now I'm back to work, having taken a signficant step backwards in my career and a $30,000 pay cut.
Oh yeah, and Intel had at least two other rounds of layoffs after mine, and one before mine. And rumor has it, another one's coming ...
Oh no, the economy's not in trouble. Of course not. Bush's miracle tax cut has done what all the respected economists said couldn't be done with a tax cut. It has ended the reces ... whoops, I guess that statement's a wee bit premature.
What could possibly be better in this, this best of all possible worlds?
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
P.S. My apartment complex has a record number of empty apartments. Apparently, nobody can afford the rent anymore, so they're all moving in together or going back to live with their families. At the office park where I work, the space is about 2/3 empty because of all the businesses that keep folding. Hey, at least it's easy to find a parking spot now.
Oh yes, thank you Dubya. That tax break really fixed the economy reeaaaaaal good.
Jeff
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
I like real people Although I know it hurts others as well...Misery does love company And thanks to Dubaya...theres plenty of company.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan's aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days.
Rabbit, it seems from this statement that the author was probably being sarcastic in what came before it.
[ September 13, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, Jeff, you WERE living at the top of the bubble in your career and your area. While I'm not applauding Bush's handling of the economy, the tech industry -- and the West Coast in general -- was WAY overdue for a correction.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I thought Jeff lived in Jersey. Doesn't he?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"Just be glad the cuts haven't hit you yet."
They did. Me and my father both. At the same time. We got back up and started back at the bottom. Same as you.
"Life sucks, get a fuggin helmet." -Dennis Leary
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
See you were the one who said that the data quote, "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." I don't see how asking you to back that up is a logical falacy.
Your first link has tons of flaws. For example:
quote: Israel, Taiwan, and North and South Korea have allocated a disproportionate share of resources to defense without bankrupting their economies.
North Korea even has economy? That's news to me. South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan all have industries that the Soviet Union didn't also. Furthermore none of those three is communist. They can't be compared. Furthermore, the fact that Soviet spending didn't decrease with less hostile relations is actually proof of Reagan's success. The Soviets still felt the need to pour money into their military in order to try to keep up with America despite a less likely war.
The second link is just "Chernoff is great, Chernoff is wonderful, all hail Chernoff" so it doesn't really leave me a lot of room to attack.
The third one doesn't go anywhere, it just babbles for a really long time. It does mention Afgahnistan however. What's intresting about that is that the Soviet pullout basically matches their decrease in the rate defense spending. The author also never explains why all these Soviet high-ups complain about American spending and yet supposedly nothing new on the Soviet side happened. There's a logical gap there that is never explained.
Lautsprecher für die Toten, again sorry but how are your problems Bush's fault? Also, with Bush as president I've had no problems, my family has had no problems, and no one I know has had problems. All this despite living in a very liberal community being South Florida.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: Quote: Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Not exactly true. Not exactly false, either. The Star Wars project worked on high powered lasers to shoot down missiles, when the project died, the prototype lasers fell into disuse.
Then at some point in the last few years these lasers have been brought back and are actually proving themselves excellently in shooting down missiles. Not just missiles, either. The device, called the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) has been able to shoot down artillery shells.
We gave one of these things to Israel, another we're mounting on a 747.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
While I'm here...
*warms hands on fire from all the flaming*
Mmmm. I wish I had some hot chocolate with those little tasty marshmellows. Yeah. *placid happy look* Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The Bush Administration has definitely made its share of mistakes since September Eleventh. My own personal annoyance list:
1. Ass-covering Paranoia. Everyone is so frightened that they might get blamed in the event of a new terrorist attack, that they issue warnings and instigate security panics at the drop of a turban. The new security procedures and National Guard patrols made sense during the first few weeks, when we were still in the midst of the Anthrax scare, and we had no idea if apocalyptic terrorist strikes were going to happen on a weekly or a monthly basis. But what we needed after that was confidence and defiance, not fear. Of course, who can blame members of the administration for a little paranoia, when the first thing many people did after the attacks was try to find some American bureaucrat to blame for them.
2. The Iraq Excuses. Seriously, people need to say what they mean. We didn't go to Iraq because of the sudden emergence of WMDs. We went to Iraq because September Eleventh forced us into a paradigm shift. Suddenly, an enemy half a world away was as dangerous as an enemy right on our borders. We had to finish the job we started in 1991, because if we didn't, Saddam Hussein had the money, the connections, the motivation, and now the inspiration to really hurt us. He didn't NEED weapons of mass destruction. All he NEEDED was a little creativity, and maybe a box cutter or two. A bit of fertilizer, some pipe, and some rednecks to deliver it. But ever making excuses, our politician friends built this huge house of cards justifying the war in Iraq with dubious reports of WMDs, only to watch it crash around them when no weapons were found. If they'd said what they meant from the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue.
3. Speeches. Bush is freaking awful at dealing with the press. Ari Fleischer was good at it. Rumsfeld was good. Powell was good. Bush SUCKS at it. Not that I can really fault him as a person. I'd probably suck at it too. But the leader of the free world is at a HUGE disadvantage if he can't answer questions confidently and clearly without sounding like a goon. I'm similarly mystified as to why Colin Quinn has his own show. He's smart, he's cool, I love the writing and the format ... but dude, the guy CAN'T TALK! Good oratory skills are not the only mark of a good leader, but lacking them is still a huge hit to your effectiveness.
4. The Afghanistan Thing. One of the most serious legitimate doubts that people have about the situation in Iraq is America's spotty record of building nations. We haven't really done it since Japan, and it's not a task to be taken lightly. I think people would have far more confidence in the success of our efforts if we'd proved a little something in Afghanistan before moving on.
5. Ignorance of Their Own Weaknesses. Look, if someone is going to accuse you of going to war over oil, you have to GO OUT OF YOUR WAY not to give contracts to companies you're associated with. I mean, sheesh, isn't that common sense? I saw it on the West Wing, for crying out loud. If someone is going to accuse you of cowardice, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to show courage. If someone is going to accuse you of corruption, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to be honorable. In politics, appearances ARE everything. You have to be a complete idiot to go into the political arena unprepared to head off your enemies' accusations.
Etcetera. There are problems. But this argument isn't about issues like this at all. This argument is nothing more than a continuation of the 2000 election. President Bush left a lot of angry people lying around when he took on the job, and those angry people have been SEARCHING for reasons to denouce Bush and pry him out of that office since his term began.
You know this attitude. You saw it from conservatives during Clinton's presidency, after he "unjustly" beat the once-popular Bush Senior over a silly but politically distastrous decision about taxes. It wasn't enough that Clinton actually was a philanderer with contempt for defense and a high tolerance for corrupt behavior — his detractors made him out to be a murderer and got him impeached, which was way beyond the mark.
So it's not limited to one end of the political spectrum. But it's SHEER IDIOCY, no matter who does it. So it makes you mad that a guy you don't like got to be president. That doesn't mean that it's suddenly your responsibility to turn into a raging fool, accepting any and every stupid bit of negative propaganda as truth, so long as it takes down the man you have already predetermined that you are going to hate. Give me a break. There is no conspiracy to "roll back civil rights". This war was not started to build anyone's private fortune. Bush neither planned nor anticipated September Eleventh. If you want conspiracies, The X-Files is on TNT, and Deus Ex: Invisible War comes out in December.
Meanwhile, our country has taken the war to the terrorists, and we are trying to build democracies in a region once driven to madness by fanatical theocracies and warlord mentalities. If we succeed, we can defuse an entire culture of ticking time bombs. But we won't succeed if we let our own frustration over political grudges drive us into self-righteous bickering, at the expense of our ongoing efforts. I'm not saying we need to "support the president no matter what because we're at war and you're not a patriot otherwise". I'm saying that descending into fanatical hysteria does no one any good. Constructive criticism is awesome. Destructive raving is nothing more than that. Destructive. To everyone.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Whoah. This thread had two pages. And it totally moved on from where I thought it was when I wrote that. Feel free to ignore Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: In all fairness, Jeff, you WERE living at the top of the bubble in your career and your area. While I'm not applauding Bush's handling of the economy, the tech industry -- and the West Coast in general -- was WAY overdue for a correction.
Tom,
Actually, I was extremely underpaid for my my profession and expertise, and I live on the East Coast and not the West Coast. But other than that, your comments were spot on.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
TheRabbit,
Xavier's correct. Al Franken is a comedian. He was using sarcasm and irony to point out how useless Reagan's policies were despite the fact that Republicans like to laud how he single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union.
The term Rube Goldberg should have clued you in....
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
See you were the one who said that the data quote, "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." I don't see how asking you to back that up is a logical falacy.
Actually, no, I wasn't the one who said that. Go back and check.
quote: Your first link has tons of flaws. For example:
Not my link, either. Go back and check.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Not exactly true. Not exactly false, either. The Star Wars project worked on high powered lasers to shoot down missiles, when the project died, the prototype lasers fell into disuse.
Then at some point in the last few years these lasers have been brought back and are actually proving themselves excellently in shooting down missiles. Not just missiles, either. The device, called the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) has been able to shoot down artillery shells.
We gave one of these things to Israel, another we're mounting on a 747.
Thus, single-handedly kicking off the arms race into high gear once more, despite the fact that we had finally got it to ease up and we were actively working on reducing weapons. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
So, let's see, who does this help? Well, it doesn't help us, because it makes the world less safe instead of more safe.
But it does help the defense industry, of which Haliburton is a part. Oddly enough, while Bush's terrible decisions have sent the American economy into a death spiral, Cheney's beloved Haliburton has made billions.
Coincidence, I say.
Jeff
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Um, Rabbit, I'd just like to point out that a "Rube Goldberg" *anything* doesn't exist. (It's an older metaphor, so he's dating himself) That's exactly what he was trying to say. The argument, I believe, is that the very *idea* of such a complex and expensive defense, whether it's built or not, is enough to freak out the world, to "scare" other countries into dialogue.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote:Clinton [had] contempt for defense.
Interesting, Franken addresses this fallacy in his book, too. It's really a great book!
quote: The bombing campaign [in Kosovo] was extremely unpopular with certain Republicans, who had no qualms about expressing their objections while our troops were in harm's way.
"[President Clinton] said if if we did nothing, there would be an instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all these problems to explode."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay --- May 2, 1999
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
Senator Richard Lugar --- May 3, 1999
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
Senator Trent Lott --- May 4, 1999
"They haven't prepared for anything in this. And they're running out of weapons to do it. And frankly, I don't think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly."
Sean Hannity --- May 10, 1999
...
The bombing campaign in Kosovo ended on June 10, 1999, with the signing of a peace accord. Milosevic was kicked out of Belgrade a few months later and sent to The Hague, where he's now on trial for crimes against humanity. (I say "guilty.") And as I pointed out in my joke to the troops, there was not one American combat casuality during the entire campaign.
Ah yes, flagrant disregard for the proper use of the military ...
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
A Rat Named Dog (nice to see this name again!) you said. . .
quote:We didn't go to Iraq because of the sudden emergence of WMDs. We went to Iraq because September Eleventh forced us into a paradigm shift. Suddenly, an enemy half a world away was as dangerous as an enemy right on our borders.
And in the same paragraph. . .
quote: He didn't NEED weapons of mass destruction. All he NEEDED was a little creativity, and maybe a box cutter or two.
Now, to me, that implies that although Hussein didn't have WMD, he had access to enough cash to hire people to carry out terrorist attacks on his behalf.
The things I don't understand are as follows. Didn't Saddam always have that capability? Are you saying that he didn't think of it before 9/11? Is the fact that he can do it more frightening now, that before 9/11? Is this part of the paradigm shift you were talking about? That there are those out there who would like to do us harm and we need to eliminate that threat?
See, what I inferred from that paragraph was that there are crazy leaders out there who suddenly realize that they don't need WMD. They just need to hire a few zealots with box cutters. So, in an effort to defend ourselves, we've gone ahead and put the "preemptive strike" thing on the table.
I also don't see how Saddam is any more dangerous that the psychopath in North Korea. There are plenty of despots all over the world who could do the same thing.
As for the conspiracy theory nuts (like me ) I think that Bush has made it too easy for them. The fact that they had a plan, in writing, and were in the last stages of starting a war with Afghanistan certainly don't help their situation. The fact that they want the oil from the Caspian Sea and need for the pipeline to run through Afghanistan, Pakistan and end in India, where, surprise, Halliburton has a 3 billion dollar power plant idling by, is at best an eyebrow raising coincidence. (You did address this point 5, but I just thought I'd reiterate how bad it looks.)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
But if we went after the psychopath in North Korea you'd be pissed about that as well. Saddam was more dangerous because like Clinton himself said, he had used his weapons, while Kim Jong Il has been the biggest bluffer in history.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
He used his weapons against his own people in 1986. 17 years ago. And even after that, the US continued to arm him. We actually increased aid to Iraq and encouraged them to step up their air war against Iran. So, let's not suddenly get morals on that issue, k?
Also, I don't think you know my position on Iraq, so, what you think I would, or wouldn't say about North Korea is irrelevant.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First off he used them in 1988 against the Kurds and throughout the Iran-Iraq War against the Iranians. He couldn't use them in the 90's because during the first Gulf War nukes would have been used in retaliation and we established a no fly zone over Kurdish areas. As far as arming Iraq I wonder if we armed him so much then why doesn't he have any American tanks, no American planes, not even American rifles. Instead he used Soviet tanks, MiGs and Mirages, and AK-47s. We never encouraged him to use WMDs against anyone. Your statements seem to show that you were against any intervention in Iraq and that you believe Bush is doing a poor job there now. If that isn't your position then maybe you should state your real one more clearly.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: As far as arming Iraq I wonder if we armed him so much then why doesn't he have any American tanks, no American planes, not even American rifles.
Dude, are you questioning whether we armed Iraq? It's a matter of public record. Let me guess: the Holocaust never happened either, did it?
Jeff
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
With what did we arm Iraq? To what extent did we arm Iraq? Don't compare me questioning the extent to which we armed Iraq to someone questioning the Holocaust. That's disgusting.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Is it? Why?
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Oh, with regard to your question, here are some links that provide the answers you need. It's ugly.
Let me know if you need any other links. There're plenty out there.
Jeff
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title. The Guardian, Moore, Sunday Herald which actually quotes Scott Ritter, The Green Left . When a neutral source actually presents credible information I'll listen.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Please, for the love of God, SOMEBODY name a neutral source. In all the years I've ever been here I don't think I've heard of one. Can we make a list? The following sources: x, y, z are neutral. All others will be totally ignored.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
edit: Well, that didn't work.
Nevermind.
[ September 14, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ralphie is loved by everyone, ergo, Ralphie is a neutral source. From now on, Ralphie will be the only source of information allowable on this forum.
Thank you,
--mgmt
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title. The Guardian, Moore, Sunday Herald which actually quotes Scott Ritter, The Green Left . When a neutral source actually presents credible information I'll listen.
What? You expect Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reily to cite reasons why they're dead wrong?
Don't be silly. Did these people say these things they are quoted as saying or did they not? Regardless of who's doing the quoting, the quotes are either real or they aren't.
But I'm game. As the others say, whom would you consider to be a neutral source? There are plenty of other sources out there, so I'm more than happy to provide you one you'll accept, just so long as you tell me who they are and explain why they're neutral.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
By the way, the right honorable Bonduca has this to say:
quote: tell him that the Guardian and the NY Times are no less reputable than Fox news et al. And ultimately you could send him links all day and he could turn up his nose at them like a baby at his strained carrots.
so I have to say:
GOOGLE, my good man
GOOGLE and the truth shall set you free
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Fine, if not neutral then try to come close. How about mainstream, and just because the Guardian is used a lot on this forum does not make it mainstream. I would even accept the NY Times and Washington Post even though they are both to the left. The sources you named aren't just skewed but they outright lie consistently.
quote: What? You expect Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reily to cite reasons why they're dead wrong?
Do you except the Guardian to admit that Bush might have been justified in Iraq? Or that their claims about Bush and oil were BS? Let's say enough WMDs were found to wipe out the population of earth 5 times over. Would any of those sources have admitted Bush was right? I would be willing to bet that if Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were found together sipping tea with a map detailing how sleeper agents were going to infiltrate the US will nerve gas those sources would still say bin Laden hated Saddam so much that it isn't possible that they could be allied. So no, I doubt Rush Limbaugh would try to prove that the US is responsible the death of thousands of Kurds but I don't think that's a reason to use unreliable sources.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
You should have read the links. The NYT is quoted (ahem) liberally, as well as a number of right-wingers including (get this!) William Safire.
Now go on, tell me that William Safire's got a liberal axe to grind. Go ahead. I can't wait to hear this!
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Let's say enough WMDs were found to wipe out the population of earth 5 times over.
Yes, absolutely! I agree with you 100%!!
Oh wait, you meant in Iraq. That's different! In that case, please cite your source for this ... um ... interesting assertion.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
By the way, let's say for the sake of argument that I was walking in the middle of a crowded city, say, New York City, and then suddenly, without warning, I randomly leap onto a wizened old nun, beat her senseless, tore off her clothing, and while exposing her stark naked to the hostile world around her, I reveal that she had a bunch of dynamite strapped to her body.
Now, I might have saved a whole bunch of people. But does the end justify the means?
So would you advocate stripping every nun who walks by on the off chance that one's a terrorist? Because there's a word for a person like me then: vigilante. (also "nutcase", but that's a different story.)
Jeff
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No one is paying any attention to my hilarious, tension breaking Ralphie suggestion. Suck. Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Jeff
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yay! I am somebody! Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Jeff, what the Hell are you talking about? I was giving a hypothetical and it should have been pretty clear that that's what it was.
What does a Nun have to do with anything?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: What does a Nun have to do with anything?
*ahem* I was giving a hypothetical and it should have been pretty clear that that's what it was.
newfoundlogic, how old are you?
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
nfl, you're right. It was 1988, not 1986. I don't know what my fingers where thinking. However, the Kurds were Iraqi. See, if Bush decides to gas democrats, he will still be gasing his own people. They will still be Americans.
"The sources you named aren't just skewed but they outright lie consistently."
Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of Fox News? j/k
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title
nfl Bwhahahhah!
I don't dismiss posts that perhaps I should, just from their author, though this quote makes me reconsider that policy...
Perhaps you could try taking things with a grain of salt, whatever their source. Put some thought into it. Read between the lines. Question authority. Read sources from more than one side of an idealogical divide. That's what I try to do, though I must admit, I'm often to lazy to do it properly, due to time and energy constraints.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I certainly never denied that Saddam gassed his own people and in fact that's one of the reasons why I supported military action.
Jeff my hypothetical actually had to do with something. Your's was just, "Oh look a Nun!"
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
First, there's no apostrophe in "yours". Second, you've done an excellent job of changing the subject.
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
nfl, that still makes no sense. It was 15 years ago. Did you support military action between now and then? Every day? If not, why now? Why did the government increase it's aid to Iraq after Saddam gassed his own people? Why is the government only now realizing he might be dangerous?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Kayla, the point is that Saddam has shown a willingness to use WMDs in the past and there's no reason to believe that he would refrain from doing so in the future. The fact that he didn't use them from '88 onwards doesn't mean anything because our no-fly zones did not allow him to. On the other hand North Korea has a history of showing of its weapons while not intending to use them. Basically Iraq's weapons served a practical use while North Korea's serve as a deterent.
As far as aid is concerned I see no reason to punish a population based on its leader when the leader is a ruthless dictator.
George Bush realized in 1990 that Saddam was dangerous but was under international pressure not to remove him, obviously it was a mistake to succumb to that pressure but that's what happened. Then Clinton saw that Saddam was a threat and warned of him using WMDs in the future. That's the past three presidents, two Republicans, one Democrat, 8 years. It is a mistake to assume that the government is only now seeing the former Iraqi regime as a threat.
Despite all this my main reason for supporting this war is the human rights issue. WMDs were just a "bonus" for me. If an influx of oil saved me money I'm not complaining, but that's not why I support Bush. When administrations, Democratic or Republican, support totalitarian governments I oppose that.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You realize that you are supporting a preemptive strike, right? I can't think of a bigger threat in the world right now than the US. I certainly hope someone doesn't decided to preemptively strike us.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
newfoundlogic, how old are you?
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Are you thinking he's young, too, Jeffy? Stauch, intractable, intransigent conservatives usually are very young, or very old. Have you ever noticed that?
Maybe it's just me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I think it was Churchill who said "A man who is conservative at 20 has no heart, and one who is liberal at 40 has no brain." Something like that. Personally, I was very conservative when I was younger, but have become more liberal as I grew older. By Churchill's aphorism, this makes me heartless and brainless. I'm a Scarecrow Tinman!
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Are you thinking he's young, too, Jeffy? Stauch, intractable, intransigent conservatives usually are very young, or very old. Have you ever noticed that?
Maybe it's just me.
No, I agree with you. I wonder why that is, but yes, I've noticed that phenomenon too. I have some theories, but they're not very nice, so I'll just keep them to myself.
Jeff
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, neo-conservatives just like to splatter that bit of disinformation around: Churchill feelings on the matter were quite the opposite.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
aspectre, I don't know how Churchill felt about it because he never told me but he did say that quote so unless he was lying... and I'm just heartless.
Kayla, we're only a threat to governments who shouldn't exist and honestly governments we are capable of deposing. To whoever this makes us threatening to I don't wish to back down.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
newfoundlogic, how old are you?
Jeff
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
nfl, how old are you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, if NFL doesn't actually want to tell you his age, you really shouldn't press. It's no biggie.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
*plants landmine* Such blind faith reminds me of all of those brainless sheep following blindly the words of their preacher *KABOOOM*
ok it's out of my system now....I should be alright for another month or so
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, if that's all it takes, you're welcome.
Posted by Lautsprecher für die Toten (Member # 5653) on :
thanks tom...I think though that it is in my best interests to stay out of this one from now on...even though I started it who could have predicted it would end up going all the places it has
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
See, if the US was as cool as ancient Rome, we'd have gates of war. I wish we had gates of war.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
If he doesn't want to tell us his age, he should have just said so.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
!!!!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Besides Hydrogen would be a chemical while the labs were supposed to be bio, now that wouldn't make much sense would it?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)