| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Time to Beat the Bush.......again |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
There used to be a time when our government stood together in the face of international crises or threats. Those days are obviously long gone. The minute the news of the North Korean nuclear testing came out, Democrats ran to microphones to blame it on George Bush. After all, there's an election coming. Who could resist such a mouth-watering opportunity, right? Democrats condemned North Korea's actions and cited the reported test as evidence that Bush's foreign policy strategy is ineffective. They point to six-party talks with the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea that have stalled and so far failed to quell North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, said the Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has tried to downplay the issue. Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, said the test might have been avoided if the Bush administration had been more willing to fully engage North Korea diplomatically. "The Bush administration has spent six years without a coherent North Korea policy, leaving the United States rudderless in the face of Pyongyang's brinkmanship," he said. Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a "shocking failure," and said, "While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction." "We had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq," added Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat in a tough campaign in New Jersey. These same people who assailed Bush for not working with the UN or other countries in Iraq now scream that he didn't act alone on North Korea. How about that? Let's not forget Hillary, who came up with her own condemnation of Bush. Of course, this is nothing new for her. Here's a little trip down memory lane to last year with the gal who would be president and whose husband handed the nuclear technology to North Korea on a silver platter: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/30/110516.shtml New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is blaming President Bush for the fact that North Korea can now hit the U.S. with nuclear missiles - after a top intelligence official told her Thursday that Kim Jong Il's ICBMs can now reach the Northwestern U.S. "They couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can," Mrs. Clinton complained to the New York Times.The top Democrat pointed her finger at the Bush administration despite a 1999 congressional finding that North Korea first obtained the capacity to develop nuclear weapons under her husband's administration, which actually gave Kim Jong Il nuclear technology in exchange for the promise that he would not make weapons. A report compiled at the time by the House North Korea Advisory Group warned: "If the [Clinton administration's] 1994 Agreed Framework is implemented and two [U.S. Light Water Reactors] are eventually built and operated in North Korea, the reactors could produce close to 500 kilograms of plutonium in spent reactor fuel each year; enough for nearly 100 bombs annually if North Korea decides to break its obligations and reprocess the material." The advisory group also blasted the Clinton administration for making North Korea "the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region." "In an astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations," the report said, "the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1994, committed not only to provide foreign aid for North Korea, but to earmark that aid primarily for the construction of nuclear reactors worth up to $6 billion." The advisory group also warned that North Korea would soon be able to hit the U.S. with ICBMs - and blamed the Clinton administration for facilitating Pyongyang's progress. Want some interesting reading on the subject of North Korea? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/30/110516.shtml It's bad enough that the situation exists but to have the Democrats go on a feeding frenzy to further their election chances is despicable. How many Republicans have come forth to lay blame on Clinton, where it belongs? Could it be that just perhaps they are thinking a little more of the country than the political gains/losses it would present? Hillary says North Korea didn't have nuclear capabilities when Bush was elected and they do now so it must be his fault. This is a woman to be admired??? McConnell said it best...... Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, accused Democrats of playing partisan politics with a nuclear weapons threat. "Listening to some Democrats, you'd think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il," he said. No kidding, senator. Bush has ALWAYS been the enemy. It's taken you this long to figure that out???? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
What a rant! Mike, I've just one question for you: Do you do volunteer work for the Party or are you paid? You really do know how to throw a spin. (ps: don't count me as a hillary fan, either) OBAMA OBAMA! (I can dream, can't I?) *smiles* |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Iliana, it's no spin at all. it's fact and you won't find one thing there misquoted or misrepresented. If you want to label it as pure rant, be my guest. That's one way to dismiss itwithout addressing it, I guess.  To tell you the truth, I've never considered myself as a strong Republican at all. I was a pure Kennedy fan way back when. What I HAVE become, though, is a strong anti-Democrat. They have shown me they have absolutely no regard for the well-being of this country at all. Their being in power is the only thing that matters to them and they will use the sleaziest tactics known to man to get there. I have no respect for them at all. I am referring to the Democratic leaders, not the average person who votes Democratic. I suspect that there are even many of them whose own party tactics they find disturbing. |
||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Michael, I'm pretty sure you'll get Serenity's attention with that title! And she won't be thinking politics.  I registered as a Republican for years and then quite some time ago identified myself as an Independent, though I vote more Republican than Democrat. Your remarks mirror my comments at the office today. I totally agree and didn't even have to do any research, I'll just quote you. Thanks.If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
While I might enjoy a banter with you over Clinton’s mistakes and might even banter on your side (who knows 'cuz I'm not going there), I believe he inherited this situation from his predecessor's wheelings and dealings. Some interesting information for you. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/101100a.html http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0310-03.htm Here's what wiki has to say about Moon and his political influence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon And here's a really juicy article indicating Moon's influence over the press in Dubya's campaign in 2004: http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01142003.html Did you know that it was one of Moon's initiates who coined the term "Axis of Evil" for Dubya? Just do a search on this guy, Mike. It is fascinating how he has been influencing government with his money even during the Nixon era, the Contra affair, and Watergate. Lastly, Mike, you didn’t have to spin things, the media did it for you. Just another link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsMax to show you that NewsMax has a purpose....and that is to champion what it believes to be conservative causes, including trashing Hillary Clinton (and I am not a fan of hers, just looking at all sides here). I don’t stop reading when I find something to suit my politics because having worked in media business, particularly involving government and legal issues, I’ve found there are always two sides to the story. Mainstream journalism can rarely be trusted to give the entire story when it comes to politics. My feeling about who's to blame is people who want power, whether that is a religious empire for the Moon Unification Church or someone hoping to build a dynasty within the U.S.  Mike, if you haven't read any of the above links or done a search for Moon, please at least take a look at this, http://youtube.com/watch?v=f08clPMODw8&search=sun%20myung%20moon and then do a search for Sun Myung Moon videos on the net -- it's all jaw dropping, really. You asked me once to name some globalists....look no further. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm guessing the people whose tactics you don't like, Mike, are practicing something called "the end justifies the means." I wonder who they learned that from? But lets' assume you're right and these really are "bad" people. Are you actually claiming there's not one single Republican out there playing similar political games? When you attack a group designator in lieu of specific people, that's certainly the implication you're making. It is the group that is guilty, you are saying, not the individuals. You know, just in case sleazy political maneuvering turns out to be non-partisan, Mike, maybe you should enlarge your group designator to cover both Democrats and Republicans. Oh, wait, that might not work either. If we call them Americans, after all, that would make you a strong anti-American? I'm sure that's not where you wanted to go. The alternative, I guess, is to treat people as individuals and realize that perhaps both parties at this very unremarkable time in history suffer from misguided ideals. When people do what seems expedient, instead of holding fast to what is ethically right, the results are rarely what anyone expected. Of course, if a nuke lands in the middle of Southern Michigan, Mike, it's going to be comforting to know it's Clinton's fault and our current President isn't willing to accept any responsibility for it. That is what you said, right? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I just wanted to note that here I yam, lurking, just minding everybody else's business and once again I get yanked into the bushes.  I'm innocent this time, Mike. Larry ?Trying to get me into trouble are ya? Tempting me to be myself like that, why I oughtta...  smack ya!Now, proceed good people. I'm celebrating a Bush this week. (Focus, Karen, focus!) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course, if a nuke lands in the middle of Southern Michigan, Mike, it's going to be comforting to know it's Clinton's fault and our current President isn't willing to accept any responsibility for it. That is what you said, right? Actually that's not what I said at all but you make a nice twist of it. My point is that Bush has not claimed to not accept any responsibility, nor has he laid any blame at the Clinton doorstep. My point is that it is the Democrats rushing for airtime to do exactly that to him in an effort to increase their election chances. Based on the fact that Clinton's wheeling and dealing with NK made this situation possible in a large way, that it a ludicrous thing to do. It's like blaming a man for having his face in the way when you threw a punch.No, Ron, sleaze is not limited to Democrats alone. It's part of our political process, unfortunately. For the past six years, however, the Democrats have raised it to a new level. They have done nothing but go after Bush in ways that are not only shameful but also detrimental to the US overseas. They have jumped on every opportunity, valid or not, to condemn the administration in the largest print possible for the world to see. Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, Bush's military record, surveillance.....the list goes on and on. They keep it alive for a week or so and then let it go. None of these topics mattered at all to them but they just did it for the negative publicity and a chance to slam the White House. Throw enough dung against the wall and maybe something will stick. LR claimed in a thread that anything done here that portrays the US government in a bad light overseas is bad for the country and he is right. Does that matter to the Democrats? Not a whit, apparently. They have given aid and comfort to the enemy with their constant barrage of attacks on the President of the Unites States in a time of such world turmoil, a time when the US should project the image that, differences or not, the parties are united in a common cause. Instead we get "Impeach Bush!" "Fire Rumsfeld!" "Rice must go!" In a world such as the political arena, where members are highly educated, well-bred and raised with privilege, wealthier than the average person could ever hope to be, one expects to find class. Isn't it ironic that the one showing the most class is a little Texan that stumbles over three-syllable words? Well, that's the way it is. The Democrats assailed Bush's military service. Did Bush say anything about Kerry's, which was about as authentic as a three-dollar bill? Did he say anything about Clinton, who left the country not to serve and protested against the United States overseas? Not a word. He simply thanked Kerry for his service to the country. Has Bush ever gone after Clinton for anything at all? Not a word. Clinton, however, has recently gone overseas several times to badmouth Bush. Has Bush ever said anything against Carter, even when Jimmy gave a big bearhug to Michael Moore at the DNC and sat him at his table? Not a word. Carter, however, has followed in Clinton's footsteps to badmouth Bush. All of these senators listed above that rushed in to blame Bush for North Korea.....has Bush criticized any of them? Nope....not even Hillary, who has been very active in her condemnation of him. While all of these individual are doing their best to bring him down, Bush seems to be the only one showing class and the only one considering what type of rhetoric is most beneficial to the United States in the eyes of the world. He has criticized no one and done his best to present the United States in the most positive light. At any rate, the topic of this thread was the once-again rush of Democratic attack dogs to immediately lay the blame on Bush for the North Korean situation for political purposes - as they have done for many other topics- and whether or not anyone else had opinions on it. It was not who got us into the NK mess, as Iliana seems to believe. It was...was it right for them to do this, when it is so obviously for political gain only? Is it beneficial or harmful? Does it matter? I didn't see an answer to that, Ron. My replies are my personal opinion and my opinion is this: When George Bush attacks, it is against foreign terrorist regimes. When Democratic leaders attack it is against our own governemnt. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
With all due respect, Michael, I do recognize the general point you are trying to make here; that resorting to political finger-pointing domestically isn't going to do anything to defuse the threats and issues that we face in this uncertain world, and the Democrats here I agree should be using their energy more productively here to bi-laterally work together with the GOP to seek solutions to dealing with this matter at hand, rather than resort to a family feud. I agree with you there. However, I must say I also find it curious how you haven't spoken out with an equal volume at the number of instances the Bush Administration has been doing likewise against not only the Democrats, but virtually anyone who disagrees with them on issues such as Iraq. Three weeks after 9/11, when Bush is his special address called for bi-partisan unity in confronting the threats that face us in the war on terror, and saying, "We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”, he is now going out on the campaign trail, almost coming close at times to suggesting that the Democrats are the real enemies of freedom, speaking out at them with a similar volume he has against the true threats facing our nation; al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Kim Jong II, etc. Bush At Heller for Congress Reception: Reno, Nevada: October 2, 2006 Last Monday, Bush appeared at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign, and said, "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like - it sounds like - they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again,". Bush At Doolittle For Congress Reception: El Dorado Hills, California: October 3, 2006 Bush At Pombo For Congress Reception: Stockton, California: October 3, 2006 Last Tuesday, Bush made a couple campaign stops in California; one at the Serrano Country Club in El Dorado Hills, California for John Doolittle's re-election bid, and another at the Stockton Memorial Civic Auditorium in Stockton, California, where both times he again demonized Democrats, saying, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we‘re attacked again before we respond.”.....and at the other, "If the people of Arizona, if the people of the United States don't think we ought to be listening in on the conversations of people who could do harm to the United States, then go ahead and vote for the Democrats. If you want to make sure those on the front line of protecting you have the tools necessary to do so, you vote Republican, for the safety of the United States of America." Bush At Renzi For Congress Breakfast: Scottsdale, Arizona: October 4, 2006 And last Wednesday, Bush appeared at the Camelsback Inn in Scottsdale, Arizona for a fundraiser breakfast for Rick Renzi, saying, "177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don‘t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.‘”, as well as again repeating, "If the people of Arizona, if the people of the United States don't think we ought to be listening in on the conversations of people who could do harm to the United States, then go ahead and vote for the Democrats. If you want to make sure those on the front line of protecting you have the tools necessary to do so, you vote Republican, for the safety of the United States of America." * As much as I am no fan of the Democratic Party like I'm not of the Republican Party, I also believe neither party would ever intentionally want to wait until we are attacked again, would actually want the terrorists to succeed, etc, and believe these are lies and slander, pure and simple. 177 Democrats, for instance, opposed the president‘s seizure of a further weakening of our Constitution and Article III of the Geneva Conventions. And despite his heated rhetoric, he can't name one Democrat who ever specifically said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists. It is rhetoric like that that makes it sound as though he was serious when he said, "Either you're with us or against us!", and it's as though it's almost borderline of him suggesting that not only the 177 Democratic representatives who challenged that vote in Congress, but anyone who disagrees with his policies on Iraq or the war on terror or anything in particular is treasonous. It feels sometimes, somehow, that Bush only hears what he wants to hear. The fact is, no matter how much some try to attempt to re-write the history and memory of September 11th, 98% of Americans polled have said they can still remember where they were and how they first heard about the tragedy, and even half of Americans say they think about 9/11 multiple times every week, and when our nation was arguably seemingly 50/50 prior to the attacks, a genuine spirit of national unity blossomed in response to this tragedy which claimed several thousand innocent lives and broke tens of millions more American hearts nationwide. And any poll you look at following September 11th shows a unanimous majority among all parties, all labels, all demographics, etc. agreeing that we must go after those directly responsible for those attacks, and regardless of the disagreements that may come up in how we go about going after them, this unanimous spirit remains very much alive to this day. The roller-coaster ride of this president's popularity indicates how crucially important it is to be two things; 1) someone who is strong, visionary and stays true to his word, but also 2) understanding, flexible and competent. Bush is very much the former, but lacks the latter very much I believe, and it shows just how being either extreme can backfire, where in Bush's case the reason why his popularity is in the 30's is because a majority of the American public believes he is way too stubborn, is warped up in his own bubble, his own reality, and won't even listen to many of his own generals and intelligence experts and accept their questions and criticisms toward Iraq and the war on terror, where he said last week also, "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me,", which strikes me as codename for his state of denial Woodward has also been talking about. * The bottom line is, I do happen to agree with you very much in that the Democrats shouldn't be channeling all their energy toward Bush on the North Korea issue, as it is inconvenient and it doesn't do anyone any good here. But I also find it curious why you haven't responded likewise to the same polarizing rhetoric this administration has been shooting at the Democrats, perhaps all his critics in general. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (10-10-2006 06:36 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Do we really need to get into the entire treasure trove of Rovian sleazy tactics Mike? On the spectrum of sleaze I'm not even sure this registers. Aren't politicians, particularly in election years, supposed to call attention to the differences between themselves and opponents? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The same polarizing rhetoric, Noah? We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us You call that polarizing rhetoric? I'm afraid your examples fall way short of anything similar to Democratic attacks. From the beginning the Kennedys, Boxers, Pelosis, Kerrys and a host of others have piled insult upon insult and accusation upon accusation upon Bush personally. Nowhere in your examples or anywhere else has Bush attacked any individual member of the Democratic party, not even those who have missed no opportunity to go after him relentlessly. If you want to form a comparison, you are going to have to come up with better examples than "putting aside our differences and working together". |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aren't politicians, particularly in election years, supposed to call attention to the differences between themselves and opponents? Sure, LR. Can you point out where they have done that in the comments I started this thread with? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
certainly |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for the links, Iliana...very interesting reading. While I might enjoy a banter with you over Clinton’s mistakes and might even banter on your side (who knows 'cuz I'm not going there), I believe he inherited this situation from his predecessor's wheelings and dealings. In that case you agree with me that the Democratic rhetoric blaming the North Korean situation on G.W. is wrong. Thank you |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ Balladeer, you rock! ~ Don't worry, others may not be able "to see" the critical thought and objectiveness that you relate in your posts, but I do. ~ As a debator, you are the man. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, JCP....I appreciate the support  Same to you, Larry, my friend. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-10-2006 11:06 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I wish I had time to do some homework but if someone else has the time can you check on these: 1. The 1994 agreements were never actually implemented. That is, America never gave the North Koreans technology to make light water reactors. 2. We agreed to give them this technology because it does not lend itself to the development of nuclear weapons. 3. N. Korea does not have the capacity to send a nuclear weapon to Saipan let alone N. America. 4. Wasn't it already thought, a 'slam dunk' if you will, that North Korea had two or three nukes? ---------------------- possible dangers now: 1. This might trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. Japan is now talking, somewhat openly, about going nuclear. 2. North Korean needs cash. They wouldn't hesitate to sell their 'stuff' to terrorists. 3. The collapse of the North Korean regime altogether. Believe it or not, this is in nobody's national interest at the present time. ---------------------- The funny thing is that the South Koreans I've talked to today and yesterday are, well, not just unconcerned, they are positively apathetic. To a large extent, North Korea is still following the same pattern of brinksmanship that they always have. The danger here is simply that a spoiled brat that has actually detonated a nuke is different from a spoiled brat that hasn't. We live in interesting times. I wish it were boring. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, some of your questions may be answered here.. http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=245372699451426 Another probable 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said, "The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement (in 1994). But at least they were talking." That gets to the heart of the Democrats' foreign policy failures: Talking with tyrants is always better than shunning them, no matter the situation. Neville Chamberlain thought so, too, in the late 1930s, and millions paid for his naivete with their lives. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — yet another likely White House hopeful — quickly pointed out the obvious fact that Bill Clinton's agreement 12 years ago was "a failure." McCain noted that "the Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military." Clinton set up a state of affairs in which the U.S. spent billions trying to bribe North Korea, then we crossed our fingers that it would behave itself. It didn't work. Much of our aid was secretly diverted to uranium enrichment during the Clinton administration. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Read through my previous response again, Michael, especially over the quotations that I have bolded and italicized which were actual quotations spoken on the campaign trail. When you do so, you'll find that my purpose of listing that comment he made on 9/11 (which wasn't devisive) was to compare and contrast that rhetoric of unity to the political, divisive rhetoric he made last week on the campaign trail. In each particular comment I note out, Bush isn't specific on who he's referring to among the Democrats as those who don't want us to listen on the messages of terrorists and such, and it strikes me very much as though he's referring to the Democratic Party establishment in general. What I've been attempting to point out to begin with is while you charge that the Democrats appear to depict Bush as the enemy of sorts, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and others and other administration officials have been doing likewise in suggesting the Democrats don't believe in defending this country and are impediments to achieving freedom and such. I agree with your initial point, and therefore I hope you can accept that this behavior is discouraging from both ends. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, and yet you give us another biased, capitalistic and globalistic newspaper link! Of course, Investors.com will say the democrats were in the wrong because the stock market has benefited from this Republican rule. That doesn't mean the middle class has benefited though nor has our overall economy (and we have had this discussion...no need to rehash). The stock market has one God and one country...Money. By showing you the shady link between the Bush boys and Rev. Moon and his money and newspaper conglomeration, I was merely trying to show you that it was during George H. W. Bush's presidency, with the assistance of his "friend," Rev. Sun Myung Moon, that North Korea started its major arms build up. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if NK didn't purchase arms through The Carlyle Group (Bush family on the BOD) or other Bush enterprises though I do not know for a fact and that is just my cynicism popping through. Although I did find a reference which quoted a New York Times article (from 3/5/01) stating, "Mr. Bush led Carlyle's successful entry into South Korea...[that included] control of KorAm, one of Korea's few healthy banks." Moreover, Carlyle chief Frank Carlucci, who was Bush's National Security Adviser, was seen with Rev. Moon at the Second World Peace Conference in Seoul -- that was sponsored by the Unification Church." I DID NOT SAY I AGREED WITH YOU.  In fact, Clinton's tactics did seem to work and I believe Brad is correct. Can't believe I'm defending Clinton, but in this case, yes, I think Brad is right. G.W.'s stubborn policy of refusing to even sit down and talk about things with Kim Jong-il, I believe, effectively worked to call the mad-man's bluff. If the administration believed he was a loose cannon, then they shouldn't have given him the opportunity to accomplish what he has. The truth, I believe, is that they have been too distracted with other issues...."stolen elections" twice, DeLay, an inappropriate Supreme Court nominee (what was he thinking???), two more Supreme Court judges, the detainee torture issue, the Iraq mess, "spying on Americans" allegations, Katrina and FEMA incompetent appointee, the 911 Commission and Richard Clark's allegations that the administration was warned...oh, and then there are all those signing orders he had to create, over 750 of them...the Israeli/Lebanon war...the War Crimes bill which was a major coup in more ways than one...and on and on....Dubya's had a lot on his plate....but then again, I hear he has a very hearty appetite. You have to ask yourself, "Why wouldn't we meet with NK?" And, why wouldn't the party in opposition want to use the failure of this administration to keep NK at bay as an example of failed foreign policy in the upcoming election? Oh and, you're welcome. Glad you found it interesting. You know, it's really true; they did crown Rev. Moon King of the World and the Second Coming a couple of years ago, in our very own Dirkson Senate Office Building with many elected politicians in attendance -- one of those was Dennis Hastert and I believe another was Orin Hatch. Very, very weird. Here's another link for you; this one will give you a concept of just how far reaching this man's influence is http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/#resources This is off track, Mike, but do you remember when I said in another link I felt like the next big business venture for the Bushes (particularly Neil Bush) would be education? Well, Rev. Sun Myung Moon recently made a $1,000,000 donation to Neil's COWs program. I know this all sounds nuts...but it is happening. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005059.htm [This message has been edited by iliana (10-11-2006 05:28 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
he truth, I believe, is that they have been too distracted with other issues...."stolen elections" twice, DeLay, an inappropriate Supreme Court nominee (what was he thinking???), two more Supreme Court judges, the detainee torture issue, the Iraq mess, "spying on Americans" allegations, Katrina and FEMA incompetent appointee, the 911 Commission and Richard Clark's allegations that the administration was warned... Stolen elections...get off the party line, please. Even the Democratic leadership knows they weren't stolen but it sure made for good copy. They ignored the two independant and then their own ballot recounts (in which Bush was shown to be successful) so that people even years later would come out still pointing a finger at those stolen elections. The detainee torture issue? Spying on Americans allegations? Well, Iliana, who heaped these on the President's plate? Yep, our friendly Democrats. Did anything come of them? Nope. Just more fodder to fertilize the masses with. You think it would be better if Bush didn't have so much on his plate? Tell the Democrats to stop dumping it there! Sit down with a dictator to solve the problems? Clinton tried it...Carter tried it. Doesn't work. Bush is smart enough to know that it doesn't work. What exactly would you say to Ill? Here's a man who's a complete terroristic dictator, who starves and slaughters hiw own people, who has no regard for either his country's well-being or the thoughts of the world community...what do you say to him in a sit-down? How's the weather in North Korea? Do you tell him the advantages to his country if he cooperates? He's shown he doesn't care. Do you tell him there will be sanctions? He doesn't care. He has his own little empire there. So what do you tell him to convince him to change? Sure, it would be a wonderful thing to make work. Noah would like to sit down with the terrorist leaders and explain to them that killing is wrong and we all need to get along. IT DOESN'T WORK! It's been tried throughout history, the latest before this being Chamberlain sitting down with Hitler. That didn't work out too well, either, did it? You or anyone else want to claim the Bush's refusal to sit down with Ill has in some way led to this result? Bush is smart enough to know that it just doesn't work. When asked in a news conference today about a sit-down with Ill, he responded "He knows exactly how America feels". He's right. If you think that's wrong, you can convince me very easily. Just tell me what you would say to Ill on a one-on-one basis to get him to stop his nuclear ambitions. I'm all ears. Bush understands the situation exactly and is not going to put on a Pollyanna smile and waste time going through some mock routine to obtain a result unobtainable. Bush said today that the only discourse possible must come from many throats,many countries, all speaking the same message. George Bush alone, or any US president, would not be able to bring about results. They would simply try to play him in the same way they played Clinton. I feel confident that, if Bush HAD tried to play it alone with Ill, the same Democrats criticizing him now for not doing it would be criticizing him for doing it. "A little more heaped on your plate, Mr. President?" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and you call Investor's Business Daily now a biased newspaper because the stock market has gone up under Bush? Do you have any idea in the world how amazing that statement is? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, So, what do you propose? Hmmm, we get rid of the North Korean government and what do we do with 20 plus million living there? Send them to America? You think I'm joking? South Korea does not have the resources to absorb these people. China does not want these people. Russia? Japan? Madagascar? The point of the 1994 agreement was to keep NK from developing a nuclear bomb at that time. It worked. Bush's strategy was to snub North Korea whenever he could -- from day one. And it still took another six years for the North Koreans to finally test a nuke. This is a successful strategy? You can accuse me of being a cold fish, of not caring about the North Koreans. To this, I plead guilty. But geo-political strategy isn't about caring about the other guy, it's about what's best for you. It's about getting the other guy to do what you want him to. Did that happen? ________________ You seem to think Bush criticism jumps from one issue to the next forgetting the last. I keep seeing the sentences getting longer and longer. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Taken by just what you quoted, it does sound like a ridiculous statement, Mike....but once again, you've taken things out of context. The items I put in quotes were not accusations....they were things Bush has had to deal with....I did not mean them as absolute truths. The things within his own party...the Abramhoff scandal, leaking secret information, Tom Delay, Iraq, detainee torture, 911, Katrina handling, supreme court appointees, oh and let's not forget the Dubai ports deal and border problems......how can you blame that on Democrats? res ipsa loquitor "The detainee torture issue? Spying on Americans allegations? Well, Iliana, who heaped these on the President's plate? Yep, our friendly Democrats. Did anything come of them? Nope." Actually, yes something did come from it, Mike -- namely the new war crimes bill he signed a couple of weeks ago after the Supreme Court's recent ruling basically made it possible for him to be tried for war crimes. He pushed to get the war crimes bill passed, which incidentally gives him a full pardon from any war crimes and assaults individual human rights of detainess whether foreign or American citizens (and we have argued this too), giving him or any president complete interpretative powers of the word "detainee" and anything else in that bill. "...and you call Investor's Business Daily now a biased newspaper because the stock market has gone up under Bush? Do you have any idea in the world how amazing that statement is? No, Mike, that is not the reason I called it biased, capitalist, etc. The reason why I said that is because it caters to a specific group of people -- and there is no way you can argue that it doesn't. You might be right about how Bush is handling NK. I don't know, but I thought maybe he could have been more actively putting pressure on China and the other countries...but then again, I think we are not really in a financial position to put any kind of pressure on China anymore. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, you are asking me what I propose? I wish I knew! What I DO believe is that any solution will have to come from a coalition of countries. I do not believe that Bush sitting down with Ill, either past, present or future, would solve anything. The only possible thing that MIGHT make him back down is the solidarity and resolve of surrounding nations. We have gotten way off topic and it's my fault for joining in it. The question of this thread was not whose fault was it or how to resolve it. The question was - it is right for the Democrats to immediately jump up and start cricizing and blaming Bush as soon as the testing came out? Was it right of them? Was it right for America? Should they have made that the immediate focus or should resolving the issue be the paramount concern? There is always time to point fingers later. Was it right for that to be their first act in order to further their election hopes or not? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Iliana, Investor's Business Daily does attract a certain type of individuals...investors...people who have put their money as an investment of this country. Poeple who are concerned about the success of this country. People who are counting on the government to allow businesses to flourish. That's not a bad type of clientele to attract, don't you think? I would guess that 99.9%of the Democrats in Congress also read Investor's Business Daily, too, and are also involved in the stock market, wouldn't you say? It's not some right-wing rag to be read or ignored. It is a very respectable publication read by all investors of all parties. To dismiss it as garbage just because it ran an editorial not favorable to Clinton is ludicrous. By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the stock market set four new highs in the past week. True, you may have to search your local paper to find that but it's true. When the market hit a high under Clinton it was front page news, screaming headlines, people danicing in the street, Democrats praising Democrats to the skies, "It's the economy,stupid!"buttons showing up everywhere as their mantra to what is really important to America. Seen any Democrat say anything about the stock market lately? hehe....nope, they avoid the subject like the plague. Now they want to convince you the important thing is NOT the economy, it's a senator sending sexual e-mails to young pages, it's Bush causing North Korea to have nukes, it's blah blah blah blah blah. Aren't politics fun? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, you are confusing the issue...Investors.com caters to big money investors and not American citizens, per se. Those could be investors from anywhere in the world and the stock market is not limited to American companies or companies only doing business in America. It is a global business with global investors with capitalistic ideals, just as I said. I have not said that there are not democrats that fit into that category; however, if you check into it, you will find that the biggest businesses and business interests in this country just happen to be aligned with the politics of G.W. And, any successful business caters to its interest groups. Oh, and yes...I did know about the new record highs. And that is good for business and shareholders. But, I think Reb addressed very adequately what is happening to American manufacturing and many American businesses. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-11-2006 10:49 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Investors.com caters to big money investors and not American citizens, per se. It has a subscription base of 800,000 members. you will find that the biggest businesses and business interests in this country just happen to be aligned with the politics of G.W. Considering the success of the market and the lowest unemployment rate in many years, that is a huge compliment to Bush. Thank you! |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Success for the upper class....yes....people who have money to invest. Mike, we have been over this before. The disparity between the upper class and lower class is growing. Unemployment figures are questionable. I've given you this documentation before and so has Local Rebel. Wages have not risen with the cost of living. The rich are truly getting richer, yes. And, the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is shrinking. That is not my vision of the United States of America. Investors.com has 800,000 subscribers. Well that's a pretty good number, but did you know that there are approximately 2.5 Million millionaries in the United States (counting direct assets only) according to Merrill Lynch and that number is projected to triple within the next few years. So, Investors.com has a sector of the 2.5 Million millionaries, more than likely, or at least caters to them. The numbers on the other side of the fence meaning the poverty level have also grown at a rapid rate. Mike, your argument that if rich people are doing good then America is doing good sounds great, but it just doesn't hold water when all is said and done. NYTimes Week In Review URL shortened with UBB code. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-11-2006 10:51 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
well, if you don't feel that America is doing good if the rich are doing good, then imagine how America would be doing if the rich were doing badly. Anyway, that's all about as far away from the thread's topic that we can get. May your visions all come true to you one day |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Thank you, Mike. Yours, too. *smile* |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The answer to your question Mike is no, they shouldn't. But neither should the republicans. http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/nav/tap2/ |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad's right. Nobody should be muddslinging. Here's a really low blow from the Republicans..."at least no one died" with regard to Foley's scandal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/shays.kennedy.ap/index.html |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ It may be just me, but I hope it is not, but am I only one that can see that Mike doesn't base his beliefs on "being" on one side of the political spectrum, but he is merely showing how those who are one side of the political spectrum (liberal) are in fault due to their biases and subjectiveness in political thought? ~ Having been a poly-sci teacher at the college level, and having read many books on politics AND critical thinking... that combo has lead me to "see what I see." ~ Mike, you are kicking their behinds. And, even though I don't believe in all you believe in, I wish more people thought like you. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Well, JCP, you must be a superman genius who sees through the screen because I do not see Mike coming across as unbiased. He even outright said near the beginning of this thread that he has no respect for the democratic party and labeled himself an "anti-democrat." If you have followed his previous threads, it is obvious he supports this administration for the most part. I'll give you this though...he sure knows how to carry on a debate without proper documentation...he succeeds mostly on his personal writing skills and sense of wit. Oh, and with your fine education which is so pertinent to this discussion, I'm curious as to why you have not commented anything of substance to this thread? *smiles* It's an election year. All the news rhetoric is anticipated. So what was the point of this thread other than to point out that Democrats are picking on Bush's (or the Republican) policies again, particularly his foreign policy? No surprise and how do you argue that? There is no argument here really except to say that this has been going on with both parties as long as I can remember. And what does it do to a country's morale when people start disputing the validity of a particular policy? Well, it serves to make some people think...and maybe even look into things for themselves....and afterall, don't we want intelligent voters? Or, would we rather have mindless masses going to the polls fed by media's dangling carrots and voting for the party who was able to get the most carrots in there (positive air time)? When people quit arguing about foreign policy, I think I'll get worried. As long as there is diversity of opinion in this country, then there's still hope for a better tomorrow. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-13-2006 01:18 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The bottom line is, I believe we all attempt to make genuine efforts to be fair and moderate in these discussions, but I do believe with belief, there will always be a sort of bias regardless. With all due respect, I do disagree with JesusChristPose that Michael isn't biased, as when you look back on the history of threads he's started, they have a unanimous anti-Democrats streak to them, while posts critical of the Bush Administration or GOP are rare. It certainly doesn't mean that Michael does not care and is not open to other, alternate points of view and open discussion; he is very much interested in engaging with others and speaking of the many topics and I believe certainly does not resort to belittling anyone or making you feel your opinion is worthless. Michael is a great debater, a great voice and all in all, a great person, and I do very much enjoy his friendship and speaking with him. But I do believe that his views tend to be slanted. Of course I believe a vast majority of individuals, including reasonably all of us here, have slanted vews, so that's nothing to be ashamed of, and room for improvement and growth comes in learning to be more flexible and independent-minded in conversations than others, which I try doing by alternating recently in starting posts that criticize something on one side followed by something on the other side, back and forth. The primary point I was making earlier was, yes, there are Democrats who certainly waste ever too much time attacking Bush rather than address ideas and alternatives for dealing with conflicts. That's a given, and that's one central reason why I am a registered Independent like Larry C, who may lean Democratic but in my first election in 2004 voted for many Green and Independent candidates. But at the same time, there are Republicans and Bush Administration officials who have done likewise, blasting the Democrats and other political opposition as being "morally and intellectually confused", forgetting the lessons of 9/11, sometimes even appeasing the terrorists, etc. And the question I asked Michael was, "Do you not agree that both sides are resorting to these mean political tactics?". And, yes, I absolutely agree with Jo's latter thought in her latest response.  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
C'mon, Brad....don't send me a link to an article entitled "The Slime Talk Express" and expect me to take it seriously. Besides, McCain's talk was a REPLY to Hillary's bashing. It was not an initial assault. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Well, JCP, you must be a superman genius who sees through the screen because I do not see Mike coming across as unbiased." ~ I have never been called a "superman genius" before. I guess, as the saying goes, there is always a first time for everything. "He even outright said near the beginning of this thread that he has no respect for the democratic party and labeled himself an "anti-democrat." If you have followed his previous threads, it is obvious he supports this administration for the most part." ~ That doesn't make Mike biased or not. One can take a side of a political party, but call it as it truly is. Now, that doesn't mean 100% all the time, but if one is unbiased and objective in his/her thinking, one will definitely show it in an argument, such as Mike had done here. "Oh, and with your fine education which is so pertinent to this discussion, I'm curious as to why you have not commented anything of substance to this thread? *smiles*" ~ Now if I was sarcastic like that, Ron would have my a#%. lol "It's an election year. All the news rhetoric is anticipated. So what was the point of this thread other than to point out that Democrats are picking on Bush's (or the Republican) policies again, particularly his foreign policy?" ~ You tell me? However, for whatever reason, it doesn't make the originator of the thread biased ... maybe sick and tired of how some liberals on this site bash Bush at every chance, but show how hypocritical they can be when "the shoe is on the other foot." ~ The rest of your post trailed off in an entirely different issue. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So what was the point of this thread other than to point out that Democrats are picking on Bush's (or the Republican) policies again, particularly his foreign policy? I'm sorry if that's all you get out of this, Iliana. I wish it were as simple as that. This is not the normal petty bickering the Democrats like to employ. This is not the ridiculous Dubai ownership of ports complaint - by the way,have you seen the Democrats follow up on that at all? - this is not the complaint of loud music torturing Gitmo prisoners. This is not trying to scare Joe Citizen that the government is listening in on their phone calls. This is serious stuff. North Korea having nuclear weaponsis serious stuff. The United States needs to put up a united front against this. Believe it or not, there are countries out there that believe in the US and count on the US. By the Democrats immediately coming out with "It wasn't our fault! Bush did it!!" finger-pointing, our government comes across internationally as a dysfunctional family, at best. It does not help us. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership could care less if it helps us or not. Their only concernis what helps THEM. What's bad for the country (as long as they are not in power) is good for them, in their mindset. When a situation this important comes along, we need to present ourselves in a strong, united way to handle the situation. The blame-laying can happen later. Democrats don;t want to wait for later because they have an election they want to influence coming up so they trash Bush to get some votes, uncaring about what it does to the image of the country overseas. As long as there is diversity of opinion in this country, then there's still hope for a better tomorrow. Fine, but this is no diversity of opinion. This is simple character assassination and it does NOT present hope for a better tomorrow. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I will certainly grant you that both sides have employed political tactics such as these but, as what was pointed out in Brad's example,and also in Iliana's, the republican's dialogue comes as a RESPONSE to Democratic attacks. Personally, I've always wished they had done more of it. For years Republicans have taken insults, abuse and attacks from politicians they could have blasted out of the water and they haven't done it. It's gotten to the point of infuriating at times and made them look too wishy-washy to fight back. They have a lot more reserve than I would have for sure. So if you want to chastise them for fighting back the few times they do, go ahead. I wish they would do a lot more of it. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
JCP, I apoligize if you took my question about your not commenting to this thread as sarcasm. It was a genuine question and was not meant as sarcasm. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Well you should of ... when a person calls another a "superman genius" and then goes on about his educational background, it is all too easy to interpet it as pure sarcasm. Not only that, you edited what you wrote too. Bad combination. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, that argument seems to rest solely on the presumption that their conclusions are wrong. What if they were demonstrably right? If current policies were placing this country in imminent military danger, would it really make sense to remain silent until after the elections? How much should we be willing to pay for a united front? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I'll give you that about how it appears Republicans fight back, Mike. But, let me ask you if you have ever heard the old saying, "Don't get mad, get even"? Maybe they come across as taking the high road, but they play war here in Texas and it's just as underhanded and low down as anything you accuse the other side of doing if not more so -- in fact, here in Texas, I would say it is more so. It's just a little more sophisticated and much better financed. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-14-2006 01:04 AM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
JCP -- What? I edited my comment? If you take a look at most of my comments, they are edited. So I proof after I post and find mistakes or think of things I want to add or think of a better way to say something....what is wrong with that? [This message has been edited by iliana (10-14-2006 01:06 AM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"JCP -- What? I edited my comment? ~ You don't know? "If you take a look at most of my comments, they are edited?" ~ You are telling me? "So I proof after I post and find mistakes....what is wrong with that?" ~ Editing automatically means that one is editing for the sole purpose of "mistakes?" ... I'll answer that for you, no. ~ Seriously, if you can't reply back to what I said to you in "full compass," then you are definitely giving American liberals a bad name. No wonder Mike is kicking butt. ~ In other words, your editing was only one of the points I made in regards to your remarks being sarcastic, yet you only focused on the editing. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I'm sorry, JCP, but you have me completely baffled. And, for your information, I am not a liberal. I am a registered Republican who votes independently, meaning for the best candidate (not the Independent party). Ooops....there I edited again. lol |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"I'm sorry, JCP, but you have me completely baffled." ~ Oh, I have to spell it out for you... you didn't notice your remark of "superman genius" and how that related to a possibility of sarcasm. "And, for your information, I am not a liberal. I am a registered Republican who votes independently." ~ Anyone can be a registered anything, but that doesn't make the person a liberal, conservative or anything else. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
JCP, I often wonder whether you come into a thread to play "blocker" for the quarterback. I've asked why you haven't commented here and you have still not responded. It would make sense you would have much to say, given your background....and no, that is not meant sarcastically....and yet, nothing except pounching on me. Perhaps, I should have said you were a mindreader....given your credentials, however, I was trying to evoke a response from you. Afterall, I was told once, that in this forum, you have to have tough skin and that was insinuated to me in a post Mike posted in my thread in the suggestion forum. So, my suggestion to you is to take my first comment with a little smartdonkey attitude, and my second comment as a challenge. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
JCP, well dah, of course. I am a registered Republican who represented personally an Ohio Senator in 1969 who ran for governor. I will leave off his name as he disgraced his party. I personally met Barry Goldwater and was kissed on the check by Ronald Regan (picture subsequently posted in the Western Star newspaper in 1969) and have a group photo with him. I was one of two Ohio TAR representatives for the Southwest District for radio and attended the Republican conventions campaigning for Richard Nixon. I am a registered Republican who is very disturbed with the direction of my party. There. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ Before I reply, I can say with much certainty, that you are not a Republican/conservative, derived from your latest reply. "JCP, I often wonder whether you come into a thread to play "blocker" for the quarterback." ~ I don't come to "play" anything on any thread. "I've asked why you haven't commented here and you have still not responded. It would make sense you would have much to say, given your background....and no, that is not meant sarcastically....and yet, nothing except pounching on me." ~ [Sigh] Repeat. I didn't answer you because of your sarcastic remark. Let me put it to you this way ... if a person comes up to me and calls me a "superman genius" without knowing much about me or anything at all for that matter, and then asks for my input on a subject matter, stating how educated I am and how important my response would be because I am educated, I am not going to oblige. "Perhaps, I should have said you were a mindreader....given your credentials, however, I was trying to evoke a response from you." ~ LOL. And then after being called a "superman genius" by you, now I am a "mindreader" and I am supposed to take you seriously? Not. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, ok, I'll play. What if their accusations were right? Their accusations were that Bush got us into this mess. The fact is that we are "in this mess". The object is to clean up the mess. Pointing a finger and yelling "He did it!" serves no purpose as far as finding a solution goes. They did it for strictly political purposes, not because of any fear of imminent danger to the US.....and you know it. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"JCP, well dah, of course." ~ It is "duh." "I am a registered Republican who represented personally an Ohio Senator in 1969 who ran for governor." ~ 1969? Are you serious? lol That was over 30 years ago. "I will leave off his name as he disgraced his party. I personally met Barry Goldwater and was kissed on the check by Ronald Regan (picture subsequently posted in the Western Star newspaper in 1969) and have a group photo with him. I was the Ohio Young Republicans representative for radio and attended the Republican conventions. I am a registered Republican who is very disturbed with the direction of my party. There." ~ LOL. There [gives raspberries with much enthusiasm}. I think it is high-time and you are long overdue in registering yourself for whom you truly are, politically speaking of course. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
And what do you think that is, Mike? I am not a liberal as you are not a democrat. Get it? |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"And what do you think that is, Mike? I am not a liberal, just as you are not a democrat. ~ Which Mike are you relating to? "Get it? ~ Nope. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
JCP, I corrected Ohio Young Republicans to TARS, btw. True, I was young then. But I held those same Republican views through the 80s and even through the early 90s. When I vote now, I still vote some Republican, as if that is any of your business....but I research the candidate and I carefully choose. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm sorely tempted to go back and delete all posts that are completely off-topic, but frankly, I don't particularly feel like wasting my time on something that is a recurring theme for some. Knock it off. quote: If the current mess is the result of refusing to meet one-on-one with Korea, Mike, I think it makes perfect sense to want to change that policy. The first step towards changing it is to highlight it, and the next step is to get people in place willing to address it. Neither of those should have to wait. quote: Agreed. But I would quickly add that is also exactly why we invaded Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean those making the decisions don't believe they are right. It simply means they think the stakes are high and (need I say it?) the end justifies the means. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Ron, I don't know if you are refering to my replies, but hope you are not. Why? Because read how those posts came to be. It certainly had no doing of my own. If I called Stephanos a "superman genius" in a reply during any debate, you would of deleted that post as soon as you read it. I am only following the replies of a person who is keeping it going. Therefore, I hope you are not putting the "knock it off" on me. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If the current mess is the result of refusing to meet one-on-one with Korea, Mike, I think it makes perfect sense to want to change that policy. I can't believe that you think it makes perfect sense that Bush meeting one on one with Ill would make a difference, though. What possible conclusion from a meeting between the two would have made a difference? You know the answer as well as I do. I just heard on the news that all major UN players have agreed on tough sanctions against North Korea, including China and Russia. Now THIS is major and this is the way it should be done....not the US and Korea alone but the solidarity of the nations working together. This is something that should be good news to all. Will you see the Democrats applaud this tomorrow and give credit to Bolton and Rice for their part in causing this to come to fruition? Me, neither. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Yes, JCP, I was talking to you. Specifically you, in fact, because you have a long history of disrupting threads. I agree iliana crossed the sarcasm line, but she also apologized about two pages ago. And I'll tell you what ... if Stephen ever brags about his education, especially an education he has never been able to demonstrate, you have my permission to call him a genius, super-human or otherwise. I don't feel there's much danger of that happening. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, that is good news and I actually was concerned that would not happen. Thanks for the news flash. *smiles* And apologies to JCP, again, and also for calling him Mike...senior moments happen more frequently than I'd like. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-14-2006 04:16 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think you missed the "If" in that sentence of mine you quoted, Mike. It doesn't matter what I believe because I'm not being accused of being un-American for trying to change current policies. Well, at least not that particular policy. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Yes, JCP, I was talking to you. Specifically you, in fact, because you have a long history of disrupting threads." ~ All I did was state that Mike is a good debator and unbiased in his political reasonings, and then was subsequently called (unprovoked of course), not only a "superman genius," but a "mindreader" even after an initial apology was made. ~ How that makes me the disrupter, I don't understand. But ... you are the boss, so I will bow out after this post. "And I'll tell you what ... if Stephen ever brags about his education, especially an education he has never been able to demonstrate, you have my permission to call him a genius, super-human or otherwise." ~ As you know, politics is a subject matter much like religion. Many people have opinions about which political party is best or which direction our country should take, etc. Yet, unless a person actually learns about the political process through books and study, that person is not going to understand politics, but merely spew forth opinions based on conjecture and biases of what one reads or sees through the media. Furthermore, that is still not enough! The ability to synthesize the political knowledge one obtains into unbiased and objective reasoning is the key to demonstrating one's education, and demonstrating that education in a, at the very least, above average manner. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually,ron, I didn't miss the "if". I just didn't regard it as being pertinent. Let's face it. I have little doubt you are sitting there with a smile on your face, playing the devil's advocate but there's something you know as well as I. If the Democrats felt that the Bush policies were responsible for the situation and if they felt that the US was in danger due to those policies, the proper thing to would be to call a meeting with Bush, discuss their opinions, and try to come up with a mutually acceptable plan. That is what intelligent people do who are sincerely looking for solutions. The fact that they only went running en masse to the nearest news agencies to call Bush names and throw the blame on him clearly shows their intent.....and it has nothing to do with working together or finding solutions. What it has to do with is using whatever means available to influence the upcoming election. They would have done the same thing regardless. If Bush HAD met privately with Ill, they would have said THAT was the reason for everything going awry and he should have let the UN handle it.You can keep using "if"'s if you like to try to give some justification to their actions but they don't hold water and every half-way intelligent American knows exactly what their motives were. .....and STILL they keep wondering why they lose elections! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Now we're seeing the true failure of Eisenhower's cut and run Presidency. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good grief! I get chastised for going all the way back to Clinton! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
zactly |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
