Bring it on...

Post #136,824 by danreck 1/21/04 10:09:44 AM Reply	Bring it on... I saw it a different way. I think that the linked author is a tad bit optimistic... The speech was a sign that Bush and Karl Rove see no need to modulate, triangulate, or recalibrate. They have nothing to apologize for. Nothing to explain. They are quite pleased with the path they have charted this past year. They will stay the course. They are not ducking. There is no rope-a-dope. That probably is good news for Democrats. Bush is a fixed target, defiantly standing by his policies and daring his opponents to bring it on. Bold added for emphasis by me. I watched (as much as possible) the Dems debates, the State of Union, etc... I came away with a few distinct impressions. 1. I distinctly heard Bush say the word nuclear (Noo Klee ahr as opposed to Noo Q lar). This means that he is trainable. 2. Most Americans, me included, see the world popularity "card" as a strawman, as well as the Health Care card (remember the Clinton Admin?), the WMD, et al... Not to mention the fact that Bush's campaign promises were superceded by 9/11. Most voters won't be holding him to his pledges because they understand that priorities and budgets changed as a result of 9-11. Want to watch Americans turn on you, Mr. Candidate? Try and bring up domestic budgeting issues against patriotism... 3. He is staying the course because no Dem candidate poses any credible threat to challenge him. Gebhardt most probably will be the VP candidate as he is the only one of the lot with the IQ and experience to face off with Cheney. (Speaking of Cheney, was it just me or did he look more bored and disgusted than Kennedy?) (Also speaking of Cheney, when Bush started faltering on one sentence, he perked up just a bit as if he had lost control of one the strings... Ah, the travailles of a puppeteer). 4. Unless George sr. dies before the election, this isn't going to be much of an re-election... A lot of bluster, followed by marathon God Bless Americathons... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #136,826 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 10:12:25 AM 1/21/04 10:22:01 AM Reply	Cheney an intellectual? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGG. What I find most obnoxious about positions such as yours is that it almost completely without merit. "9/11 changed everything". Really? Well, if the Commander in Chief hadn't been the most vacationing, least well read pResident in memory; if he hadn't ordered the FBI to "back off the Saudis", if his first million dollar oil deal hadn't come from Osama's daddy, etc. perhaps, just perhaps, as former Governor Kean said (which spawned the most recent "Code Orange" alert) 9/11 would have been prevented. Now, you apparently want to excuse every other mistake Dumbya has made on account of his first and arguably biggest blunder. Please. Nice troll, though. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java. Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 21, 2004, 10:20:59 AM EST Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 21, 2004, 10:22:01 AM EST Expand All History
Post #136,850 by danreck 1/21/04 12:07:34 PM Reply	Thank you for proving my point... Your post was filled with nothing but vacuous blather. The same kind of shit that the Dems did at their debates. The innuendo that Bush/Cheney were in some respect responsible for 9/11... What about the first trade center bombings? Was that theirs? Wasn't this plot about 7 or 8 years in the hatching? Even the most primitive troglodite apriori... It's this kind of shit that won't fly. I'm telling you. We're not buying that bill of rot. Spew on, my man, but I'm not buying it and most with even a double digit IQ see through it. "Completely without merit". Pot - Kettle - Black... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #136,868 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 1:00:39 PM Reply	Here's a few clues for you. > What about the first trade center bombings? Um, no. That was handled with intelligence and did not result in the shredding of the Constitution. Of course, that was when there was a Rhodes scholar in Seat Number 1 and some one who got into Harvard on his own merit - not from a "Legacy admission" - in Seat Number 2. And, in case you weren't paying attention, those responsible for that *criminal* act are in prison, where they belong. We aren't, as Dumbya and Cheney want you to believe, at war. > Wasn't this plot about 7 or 8 years in the hatching? Um, take a look at who was arrested shortly before 1/1/2000 when the exact same thing was planned for jets out of LAX. It took putting a complete moron and an absolutely indefensible crook in the White House for the plan to work. > It's this kind of shit that won't fly. I'm telling you. We're not buying that bill of rot. "We" in this case would be whom? You and the rest of the Rush Limbaugh fan club? bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,874 by danreck 1/21/04 1:21:06 PM Reply	Back atcha, Mikey... We... the sheeple. The dumb sons of bitches you are trying your best to con with bullshit rhetoric. We've heard it before. We, the same 56% plus that will re-elect the NON-RHODES Scholar (excluding me, of course). Rhodes scholar? [link\|http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001lh\|http://www.greenspun...tcl?msg_id=0001lh] More bullshit. And I'm sure you'll pile on even more bullshit. Election year, you know. Since we're getting personal now, you don't know the first damned thing about communism... You just envy the former Soviet Union's ability to propagandize. Let me clue you in - the sheeple of the former SU didn't buy the propaganda either... And it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see through the steaming heap of your "agenda"... Exaggerate, obfuscate, make up lies, twist, contort, repeat. Exaggerate, obfuscate, make up lies, twist, contort, repeat. Exaggerate, obfuscate, make up lies, twist, contort, repeat. Exaggerate, obfuscate, make up lies, twist, contort, repeat. We get it... We're really not all that stupid like the "liberal" Democratic Elite like to think of us as. Condescending bastards. Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #136,882 by jb4 1/21/04 1:50:11 PM Reply	Litmus test question: Do you believe the current "administration" did everything they could to prevent 9-11 before 9-11? Or were they (intentionally or unintentionally) derelict? Given what we knew at that time, could the attack have been stopped or derailed? If you think more could have been done with the intelligence we had, then you sir, are the blatherskite. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #136,886 by boxley 1/21/04 2:03:39 PM Reply	Since that subject was brought up in the bowels of the FAA circa 1997 why wernt the precautions put in place then? Its not a Repo or Demo answer, it was the fucking public wouldnt put up with it. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #136,887 by jb4 1/21/04 2:05:19 PM Reply	These people weren't taking flying lessons in '97 without bothering to learn how to land.... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #136,890 by Silverlock 1/21/04 2:06:19 PM Reply	Talking out your ass again Try reading that question again and limiting the kneejerk response, ok? ----------------------------------------- .sig pending
Post #136,937 by boxley 1/21/04 3:51:13 PM Reply	the question was whose fault was it bush/clinton the answer was neither, and presented a valid reason for it. What could have been done to prevent 9/11 lots. Who had the guts to institute the changes needed to prevent it. No one did. Knee Jerk that. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #136,954 by Silverlock 1/21/04 5:03:42 PM Reply	If that's how you want to spin it. I read it as "Given what was known at the time, could the Bush admin have prevented 9/11". Hmmmm. Don't see Clinton mentioned there. I repeat, kneejerk reaction. ----------------------------------------- .sig pending
Post #136,963 by jb4 1/21/04 5:35:12 PM Reply	Reading is a skill... Box opines: the question was whose fault was it bush/clinton Box fumbles again. The real question was: Do you believe the current "administration" did everything they could to prevent 9-11 before 9-11? Sorry Box, these are different questions. Point Silverlock. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #136,975 by boxley 1/21/04 6:43:04 PM Reply	I read it and discarded the "Litmus" test then presented my opinion. Did shrub et all do everything they could to stop it fuck no and nether did anyone else. The closest that came to it was Gore who presented a plan to tighten security that was quickly shot down by EVERYBODY. If you think getting terrorists is a soley a partisan effort no wonder those fuckin muslims want to kill us. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,066 by jb4 1/22/04 9:38:21 AM Reply	Such an easy question; such incredible spin If this is the sort of "logic" we can expect, no wonder the fuckin neocons want to kill us. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #136,884 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 1:59:31 PM Reply	Yo, read your own links closer. William Jefferson Clinton was nominated by William J. Fulbright (for whom Clinton worked during his study at Georgetown University) and finally elected for a Rhodes Scholarship in 1968. Clinton was initially accepted to University College (in Oxford) to take a B.Litt. (a degree just below the D.Phil.). However, he soon changed to a B.Phil. in Politics. His tutor, Zbigniew Pelczynski, spoke very highly of Clinton as a student. That said, it is true that Clinton did not finish his degree there. Incidentally, eight other members of the 1968 Rhodes class also "failed" to take their degrees. Clinton was accepted to study for a third year and turn his B.Phil. into a D.Phil, but finally turned down the opportunity and began his 3 year stint at Yale Law School. For a brief, well-written account of this period in Clinton's life, see Thomas J. Schaeper and Kathleen Schaper, _Cowboys into Gentlemen: Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite_ (New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 1998), 169-218. For a listing of former Rhodes Scholars, see: Schaeper & Schaeper, 360-92 (covers Rhodes alumni from 1904-1998). _Register or Rhodes Scholars, 1903-1981._ Oxford: Rhodes Trust, 1981. _Register of Rhodes Scholars, 1903-1995._ Edited by Ralph Evans. Oxford: Rhodes Trust, 1996. -- Victor (Victor_Boutros@gse.harvard.edu), January 06, 1999. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,888 by admin 1/21/04 2:06:01 PM Reply	Re: Yo, read your own links closer. Getting a Rhodes scholarship is not the same as being a Rhodes Scholar. He didn't complete the degree. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #136,891 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 2:07:14 PM Reply	Okay, Was he a Rhodes Scholar when he was elected to be? or no? bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,892 by admin 1/21/04 2:08:36 PM Reply	Not AFAIK You're not a Rhodes Scholar until you finished the two years and gotten the degree. It's a technicality (hell, he got the scholarship in the first place), but there it is. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #136,893 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 2:08:58 PM Reply	I guess it depends on your definition of "was" ;-) bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,894 by admin 1/21/04 2:10:34 PM Reply	No. Depends on the definition used by the people who have stewardship over what it means to be a Rhodes Scholar. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #136,897 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 2:13:31 PM Reply	Yes. Rhodes scholar Noun 1. Rhodes scholar - a student who holds one of the scholarships endowed by the will of Cecil J. Rhodes that enables the student to study at Oxford University scholar - a student who holds a scholarship [link\|http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Rhodes%20scholar\|http://www.thefreedi.../Rhodes%20scholar] bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,900 by drewk 1/21/04 2:16:25 PM Reply	No Rhodes scholar Noun 1. Rhodes scholar - a student who holds one of the scholarships endowed by the will of Cecil J. Rhodes that enables the student to study at Oxford University scholar - a student who holds a scholarship Not a former student who held a scholarship. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #136,903 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 2:18:26 PM 1/21/04 2:19:03 PM Reply	Look a couple up - I said "was" Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java. Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 21, 2004, 02:19:03 PM EST Expand All History
Post #136,920 by drewk 1/21/04 2:58:04 PM Reply	Not exactly What you said was: Of course, that was when there was a Rhodes scholar in Seat Number 1 You didn't say Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. You said there was a Rhodes scholar as president. That means that he was a Rhodes scholar while he was president. He wasn't. He was a former Rhodes scholar when he was president. :-P === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #136,926 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 3:27:51 PM Reply	Mea Culpa - should have been "former Rhodes scholar" But, and this is my own ignorance, I always considered the "former" implied. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,039 by Ashton 1/22/04 6:51:17 AM Reply	Much ado about straw- Colossus of Rhodesism All US Presidents are addressed as "Mr. President" - for life. Ditto Judges, many military, oodles of "Doctors", Professori Emeriti yada. Once, ever a "Rhodes Scholar" - as assuredly, a "Rhodes Scholar" in perpetuity. (Did his scholarship / scholarliness cease to exist at the end of some time period?) Pshaw, or as Bill the Cat sez Ack Phhhhbbbbbbtttttt
Post #136,906 by admin 1/21/04 2:25:55 PM Reply	Yep, you're right. So depends on how Clinton was billing himself, as a Rhodes Scholar, or as a former Rhodes Scholar. :-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #136,909 by Simon_Jester 1/21/04 2:27:12 PM Reply	Wouldn't asking Rhodes be the appropriate place regards of what a family server somewhere says, aren't they the owners of Rhodes Scholars? [link\|http://www.rhodesscholar.org/\| Rhodes Scholar]
Post #136,925 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 3:25:59 PM Reply	Huh? <sarcasm> ...aren't they the owners of Rhodes Scholars? They're SLAVES? Gack - who'd want to be one then? :-D bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,063 by Simon_Jester 1/22/04 9:31:08 AM Reply	Chuckle okay, they own the name "Rhodes Scholar". And if you notice, you'll find that they list the recently elected 2003 Rhodes Scholars.
Post #136,919 by deSitter 1/21/04 2:56:26 PM Reply	So what? I can tell you from personal experience that the RS program is about ass-kissing and "maintaining viability within the system". When the Dean of Ga Tech started laying this political BS on me I told him I only wanted to study physics, this was a lot of BS, but if he wanted to pay me to go to Tech I'd be happy with that. He declined. -drl
Post #136,929 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 3:34:56 PM Reply	So what? Indeed. My initial post was about the double-speak in Dubya's speech. The point the author of the article I posted a part of is that Dubya has cast serious doubt on our "offical" word. He lied. They died. And this guy has the balls to get up and say, "No one can now doubt the word of America." What bravado. What utter hubris. But, as is typical of every defense from the Right, "It's Clinton's fault. I hate Clinton, yadda, yadda, yadda." bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,945 by bepatient 1/21/04 4:27:41 PM Reply	Right. He lied. And other members of Congress with the same access to Intel lied. Democrat and Republican. And, of course, the UN Security Council lied..since it was so obviously known that no such weapons existed that they continued the push for inspections. And, of course, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso lied about Clinton believing that WoMD existed up until the fall of the regime. All liars. Every one. Just like Bush knew all the exact flight numbers on Sept 11 but didn't tell so he could pass the Patriot Act and make all his incredible wealthy construction friends richer by getting them the rebuilding contracts. And so on... Its a conspiricy [image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #136,950 by jake123 1/21/04 4:39:58 PM Reply	One misrepresentation The UN didn't think they had them; they figured the programs had been killed by sanctions and the inspection regime. They wanted to continue inspections to make sure it stayed that way. At the very least, that was the UN POV that was reported up here in the run up to the war. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #137,005 by Simon_Jester 1/21/04 9:47:23 PM Reply	Doesn't matter... Because, I'm sad to say it, mmoffit is misrepresenting the issue. The issue isn't whether or not Bush trumped up charges to justify an invasion in which our boys were killed. (That charge is hard to ignore, however, given the Niger documents.) The issue is whether an invasion (for nation building) was justified in the cost of American lives. (This is the same charge used against Clinton for his wars and therefore this question MUST be valid.) Furthermore, did Saddam Hussein pose a real threat to the United States that justified military action (To put this in Clinton terms - was this merely a case of Wag the Dog)
Post #137,011 by boxley 1/21/04 10:11:04 PM Reply	This was typical American Statesmanship If ya cant find the Indian doing the killings, Kill and Indian you can find, been working in the Americas since 1492 thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,061 by Simon_Jester 1/22/04 9:29:35 AM Reply	Certainly, and both sides have been doing it for decades.
Post #137,067 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 9:39:28 AM Reply	Riddle me this. Cite another US President that used deception as a rationalization for "pre-emptive war". This situation is unique. And its not just American lives I'm talking about. How many innocent Iraqis were killed? Afghanis? (Q: How many Afghanis were on the flights of 9/11?) No sir, this is a depth we have never been to in foreign policy. The lies this pResident told were to justify an otherwise completely unjustifable war. If we are ever to recover the prestige we once had around the world, the first thing we need to do is assure the world that the previous policy of lying to rationalize pre-emptive war has been abandoned. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,072 by boxley 1/22/04 9:49:36 AM Reply	Abe Lincoln same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,073 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 9:51:37 AM Reply	And the lie would be????? bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,077 by deSitter 1/22/04 10:13:25 AM Reply	Re: And the lie would be????? That he would not impose desegregation of society or the abolition of slavery on the South - the idea that the overall goal was always the end of slavery, even though this was not the explicitly stated reason. The Yankee creation myth holds that the Emancipation Proclaimation was conceived by Lincoln as a means of transforming the war into a moral crusade after the fact. -drl
Post #137,078 by boxley 1/22/04 10:14:49 AM Reply	that the South was not entitled to secede same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,154 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 2:29:08 PM Reply	That's not what I was ever taught. Of course, born in North Carolina and raised in Southern California, my experience may be different from most. I was taught in grade school (and later in college) that the only stated mission was the preservation of the Union - at any and all costs. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,163 by deSitter 1/22/04 2:39:08 PM Reply	Re: That's not what I was ever taught. Yes, and he just happened to wait for the first decisive Yankee strategic victory and for the blockade to sink in to announce the EP (after Antietam, late 1862). However it is known that he had been making drafts for some time. -drl
Post #137,102 by Simon_Jester 1/22/04 11:45:22 AM 1/22/04 11:48:15 AM Reply	Remember the Maine? and I won't touch Vietnam or Korea. (Lots of lies in both) Edited by Simon_Jester Jan. 22, 2004, 11:48:15 AM EST Expand All History
Post #137,106 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 11:56:25 AM Reply	A few Nits. (Aside to Box) First, everyone knows "The first casualty of war is the truth." Second, the Maine was more about Hearst than the President. [link\|http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html\|See here for example] Third, in Viet Nam and Korea, whatever position you hold, we were not the first to attack. This notion of "pre-emptive" war is strictly a Neocon construction. Aside: Hey box, who fired the first shot? bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,140 by boxley 1/22/04 2:00:40 PM Reply	Alexander Hamilton same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,231 by boxley 1/22/04 10:13:10 PM Reply	still waiting if you are thinking the fort sumpter incident that was state property illegally occupied by federal troops disobeying pussy communist rules. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,294 by mmoffitt 1/23/04 9:25:26 AM Reply	Imminent domain dude ;-) bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,299 by deSitter 1/23/04 9:37:06 AM Reply	any minute domain? or did you mean eminent? -drl
Post #137,311 by mmoffitt 1/23/04 10:08:42 AM Reply	AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. I leave it, sheesh. What a dumb-ass, sheesh. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,318 by Arkadiy 1/23/04 10:25:19 AM Reply	Eminem domain -- Select [link\|http://www.glumbert.com/pictures/Default.asp?index=30\|here].
Post #137,323 by boxley 1/23/04 10:39:44 AM Reply	minimum dolman (who really started hostilities) [link\|http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundForts.html\|http://www.tulane.ed...kgroundForts.html] With public sentiment pressing for action, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate the transfer of the forts to the state, and requested immediate control of Fort Sumter. Like Slemmer, Anderson considered his situation increasingly precarious, indeed untenable if South Carolina occupied Sumter. After nightfall, on the evening of December 26, Anderson moved his small force from Moultrie to the more defensible Sumter. Despite South Carolina's insistence that Anderson's action was a hostile act and must be repudiated, President Buchanan refused to order Anderson to return. South Carolina then proceeded to occupy federal property in Charleston, including the military posts surrounding Sumter. By January 1, only Sumter remained a Union outpost in the midst of secessionist South Carolina. so negotiations were refused and hostile acts taken by the Union. Sounds rather clear cut, the North Started this shit. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #137,164 by deSitter 1/22/04 2:39:44 PM Reply	How 'bout Vera Cruz? -drl
Post #137,165 by deSitter 1/22/04 2:40:26 PM Reply	"See no evil" before Pearl? -drl
Post #137,186 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 4:42:47 PM Reply	Again - Not Pre-Emptive War. If the conspiracy theorists are right about FDR sacrificing Pearl Harbor to be able to "get into WW II", then you've made my argument for me. For, it was so vile a notion that the US would enter a war *when it had not been attacked* that it couldn't be done until we were attacked. Am I not making this clear? The point is that Dubya went to war with Iraq on the basis that we were "under imminent threat" - NOT that we had been attacked. That makes his lies worse because it is the first time that a sitting president has lied to get us into a pre-emptive war without the thinnest veiled argument that we had been attacked first. We attacked first (and now it should be clear to all) *without provocation.* bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,273 by Ashton 1/23/04 5:38:23 AM Reply	Such a simple, clear notion So hard.. to get a 0-RPM reply. Yep: the Neocons were headed there, No Matter What; lied in their teeth about the certainty of attack by Iraq on the US (!) any old coming weekend.. Unless We Act Now!\ufffd. Steadfastly ignored the (now apparent) success of the slow-old UN inspections, in keeping this monster toothless - and still today! maintain the same utter BS (as in the SOTU pabulum as recently as Tues.) And still: that's debatable !? Suuure it is: because this be the land of the tiny-brain folks, where F=MA is debatable, even after the train hits your SUV. Pshaw.
Post #137,275 by deSitter 1/23/04 5:53:14 AM Reply	Re: Again - Not Pre-Emptive War. To show you how twisted American society had become even in 1940, I recently saw a short film in which Miguel de Notredame is invoked quatrain by quatrain to show how the German-Jap oppression was forseen, and the American response required. I sumbit that our current problems are the logical outcome of the radical reconstruction of 1861, when the real Country was sacrificed on the altar of an imagined Nobility of Spirit on both sides - and that the problems will worsen until the Spirit of '76 is found again - meaning, an actually involved citizenry with a vested interest in preserving Liberty - but of course that will never happen, and we are streaking toward an increasingly authoritarian future. The torch has been extinguised little by little by each succeeding generation, and now barely flickers only in a loosely united Europe. One can forsee a climatic war with them, and throw in a strong and opportunistic China in the east. The Irish don't like us any more, and that tells the entire story. -drl
Post #137,284 by hnick 1/23/04 7:45:54 AM Reply	You keep saying the Irish don't like us any more Where did this come from? When did they particularly like us in the first place? Does this mean that the IRA won't be raising funds in the US any more? Color me confused...
Post #137,285 by deSitter 1/23/04 8:03:48 AM Reply	Re: You keep saying the Irish don't like us any more Ireland has benefitted enormously from the EU, and in only 25 or so years has gone from being traditionally poor to having a thriving economy. Thus the modern Irish are more in line with France and Germany than they are with the US. Bush hatred is virulent in Ireland, who mock him mercilessly (you know how they are :). [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/uttm/main595275.shtml\|http://www.cbsnews.c.../main595275.shtml] [link\|http://www.geocities.com/irelandvus911/main.htm\|http://www.geocities...ndvus911/main.htm] Although I don't have any information, I would not be surprised if the Irish were ticked at us for not backing their desire for union with Northwest Britain. -drl
Post #137,084 by jake123 1/22/04 10:31:02 AM Reply	About these replies How very US-centric. It underlines why there's a major image problem for the US around the world. The point is not whether one side or another of the debate uses misrepresentations... the point is that if you actually go to the source (the people in the UN that were working on the folio) they thought the programs were basically dead, and wanted to keep inspections going to make sure they stayed dead. Evidence is bearing out the UN's position on the whole issue, and making the US position look more and more like living in fantasy land. Don't think the rest of the world is not noticing. The big thing I hear from the various folks I talk to (esp. in Europe) is about the next election. They don't think that the current positions taken by the current administration really represent the POV of the US citizenry; for one thing, the last election was dodgy, and two they think that a lot of what's going on is a naked executive power grab using 9/11 as the pretext. In other words, they're applying the principle of charity. If however, the US citizenry elects Bush again, then the perspective is going to change a lot. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #137,103 by mmoffitt 1/22/04 11:46:29 AM Reply	You and I (at least I think it was you) have said that before. We (in the US) are being given the benefit of the doubt because the current occupant of the White House was not elected (USSC aside). I fear that he will be this time though. Which, as depressing a notion as that might be across the pond and to our north, is not nearly as depressing as it is to a lot of us here. Who could dispute your post? (Except for this nit) ...the US citizenry elects Bush again... Should read ...the US citizenry elects Bush this time... they think that a lot of what's going on is a naked executive power grab using 9/11 as the pretext. I only wish that more than 45-50% of the US populace could see that with the clarity I believe the rest of the world sees it with. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #137,124 by jake123 1/22/04 1:16:08 PM Reply	It would do if congress and the senate saw it as a power grab. The election this year is going to be very closely watched all over the world, far more so than usual. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #137,276 by Ashton 1/23/04 6:05:30 AM Reply	That is my sense of an attitude towards US persons, thus far also. I do think 'abeyance' is the word for a certain remaining charity towards 'the Murican Peepul': but IF we retain these madmen, in the face of the nascent chaos in Iraq; amidst Cheney's lugubrious counterpoint to Shrub's baby talk ("we must be prepared for indefinite awfulness.." cha cha cha) -- there will be no more free passes for 'accidental events', just shame: we shall have Deliberately prolonged a period of unprecedented bellicosity towards the whole planet. No More Excuses. If this cabal is able to cement their usurped power, via whatever Stupid combination of infighting among the Opposition + the willful ignorance of the rarely-voting populace - I see myself as fighting the inertia, and beginning liquidation.. Hell, with some real work on my miniscule French, I could coexist with even feisty Quebecois - though I anticipate that the Canadian border will not remain very passable.. not long after.. a second 4-year agenda of these Psalm-singing hypocrites seems assured. There's really no place to 'hide' from maddogs with the nuke football, of course; still, one can choose which barricades to man / which group to endure with - with a bit of luck and cajoling. More honorable death than just hanging around and consuming. Gonna be an ugly and suspenseful next 10 months - for the entire world. We can only hope that: a Lot Does Happen to reveal the face of the PNAC droids, by their Actions. And... in time. Ashton it's too dreary to be a farce, anymore
Post #136,854 by boxley 1/21/04 12:19:15 PM Reply	did you watch cheney/lieberman during the last go round? the boy aint stupid, now as much as you wish we could all live in the brechnev era, lets find someone who can lead, not berate. Too many of the democrats are pulling a newt, thats fine for backbenchers but leadership it aint. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #136,870 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 1:02:42 PM Reply	Not Breshnev era, Trotsky ;-) I'll Cheney is not as stoopid as Dubya. And I'm no fan of Lieberman. But do actually believe Cheney is as smart as, say, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Dean or Kucinich? Not a chance. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,885 by boxley 1/21/04 2:00:39 PM Reply	If you watched the VP debates last go round you would admit you are wrong. Not saying the man is right but he is smart. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #136,889 by mmoffitt 1/21/04 2:06:10 PM Reply	Cheney is not stupid. He is absolutely corrupt. If he were stupid, I'd feel better. He is probably the most sinister person to ever hold elective office. He makes Nixon look like a choir boy. But I won't say he is without intellectual equal among the Democrats. It's just plain not true. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #136,828 by deSitter 1/21/04 10:22:43 AM Reply	Re: Bring it on... Not so. The country is evenly split between people who identify themselves as D vs. R, with a lot of floaters. All the Ds have to do is ask - "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" and state "We will get rid of the IRS and tax manipulation." -drl
Post #136,853 by danreck 1/21/04 12:16:08 PM Reply	It the 50 percent of the people who don't vote that you really have to worry about. I found Bush's speech to about par for the course. I was not inspired. But, I hate politics. Politicians are liars by definition... They all suck. The key is to figure out which one sucks less. Gebhardt sucked the least of all the current crop IMO. He's gone. He's not "electable". So, we either go for a known sheister or an unknown sheister... Do you feel lucky, punk? Do you? Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #136,856 by boxley 1/21/04 12:22:15 PM Reply	settle for an amiable rogue? same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #136,859 by danreck 1/21/04 12:32:54 PM Reply	A sucklessful candidate? Just a few thoughts, Danno

Welcome to IWETHEY!