Fred Hansen
New member
Dave. if you don't mind getting your political butt kicked every day by "the most ignorant man ever to occupy the White House", then I guess I don't mind you shouting it from the cyber rooftops. LMAO 
Oh my goodness. They weren't lying after all. They're just stupid.
- Thread starter Dave B
- Start date
- Status
I don't recall Bush ever boasting about not reading. I do remember him responding to a question about reading the papers by saying he didn't.
So he doesn't read the New York Times. Big deal. I realize that if you're the news editor for NBC or CBS, it's difficult to imagine a day without reading the NYT. How could you possibly know which news story you're supposed to run that night if you don't read the instruction sheet that morning?
It's not the President's job to brown-nose the NYT, however, so I don't mind if he skips it and goes for the briefings from real experts. Were I to be asked my opinion, I'd say Bush doesn't make a big deal out of his reading habits because he doesn't want to do what Clinton did. Nobody cared that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, but people still put that title with his name in scornful fashion because he thought he could beat people over the head with his scholarly credentials.
So he doesn't read the New York Times. Big deal. I realize that if you're the news editor for NBC or CBS, it's difficult to imagine a day without reading the NYT. How could you possibly know which news story you're supposed to run that night if you don't read the instruction sheet that morning?
It's not the President's job to brown-nose the NYT, however, so I don't mind if he skips it and goes for the briefings from real experts. Were I to be asked my opinion, I'd say Bush doesn't make a big deal out of his reading habits because he doesn't want to do what Clinton did. Nobody cared that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, but people still put that title with his name in scornful fashion because he thought he could beat people over the head with his scholarly credentials.
Dave - it's important to realize that the conservative definition of "the average man" extends to those who grow up surrounded by wealth and privilege. When a liberal like Kerry is rich, or avoids going to war, he's a spoiled brat and a coward, but when its a Republican, he's suddenly a salt-of-the-earth man of the people. The same people that were outraged by Clinton's efforts to avoid service are now content to re-elect a man who spent most of HIS time snorting cocaine and asking daddy to help him avoid reporting for duty ... the same man who has no problem sending OTHER soldiers to die in his $200 billion re-election campaign now.
-- so Clinton is now responsible for how OTHER people attach titles scornfully to his name? I hope you don't hold any advanced degrees lest YOU be accused of trying to credential me to death, don !!
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
All - Please use caution when posting to this thread. I won't allow it to turn into an Idiot (R-Tex.) vs. Wonk (D-Mass.) argument that just gets more and more mean-spirited. There are too many divisive issues among gun owners and we don't need to focus on them here.
The first post of this thread was about Iran duping the U.S. into attacking Iraq as posted on an admittedly left-leaning website. Let's try to keep the discussion there. If the thread veers further toward Bush vs. Kerry, it will be closed.
Feel free to email or PM me if you have questions.
-Dave
The first post of this thread was about Iran duping the U.S. into attacking Iraq as posted on an admittedly left-leaning website. Let's try to keep the discussion there. If the thread veers further toward Bush vs. Kerry, it will be closed.
Feel free to email or PM me if you have questions.
-Dave
Seems that some foks here won't be satisfied until there is a repeat of 9/11, only 10 times over. Perhaps nerve gas in the NY subway system, or maybe an airliner out of Canadian airspace takes out the Sears Tower or a small nuke in a maritime container incinerates New Orleans or Mobile or Charleston or Houston or you pick the seaport.
Chalabi is a red herring in all of this. Anyone who thinks that we went to war with Sadaam soley on Chalabi's word is also naive enough to believe that there were no WMD's and that we won't be attacked again. We used Chalabi to the extent that we were able and it is no coincidence that he is being taken out before the runup to transfer of power in June.
Chalabi is a red herring in all of this. Anyone who thinks that we went to war with Sadaam soley on Chalabi's word is also naive enough to believe that there were no WMD's and that we won't be attacked again. We used Chalabi to the extent that we were able and it is no coincidence that he is being taken out before the runup to transfer of power in June.
Seems that some foks here won't be satisfied until there is a repeat of 9/11, only 10 times over. Perhaps nerve gas in the NY subway system, or maybe an airliner out of Canadian airspace takes out the Sears Tower or a small nuke in a maritime container incinerates New Orleans or Mobile or Charleston or Houston or you pick the seaport.
Chalabi is a red herring in all of this. Anyone who thinks that we went to war with Sadaam soley on Chalabi's word is also naive enough to believe that there were no WMD's and that we won't be attacked again. We used Chalabi to the extent that we were able and it is no coincidence that he is being taken out before the runup to transfer of power in June.
What you write is true (except for the inferral that Iraq and SH's fantasy WMDs had some role in 9/11): we're still in danger.
That's why some of us think that spending time, money, lives, and international cooperation in Iraq, instead of where the BGs demonstrably are, was silly.
db
Chalabi is a red herring in all of this. Anyone who thinks that we went to war with Sadaam soley on Chalabi's word is also naive enough to believe that there were no WMD's and that we won't be attacked again. We used Chalabi to the extent that we were able and it is no coincidence that he is being taken out before the runup to transfer of power in June.
What you write is true (except for the inferral that Iraq and SH's fantasy WMDs had some role in 9/11): we're still in danger.
That's why some of us think that spending time, money, lives, and international cooperation in Iraq, instead of where the BGs demonstrably are, was silly.
db
Destructo6
New member
Facts and reality never bother the left and would never keep them from repeating what they know is false. For instance:
Fantasy WMDs? Is it the left's fantasy that killed several thousand Kurds? It can not be denied that Iraq made and used WMDs and could not/would not account for them. Now, they have reappeared in the form of components for roadside bombs. Maybe a big sniff of that "fantasy" will convince you.
'fantasy WMD's'
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Jordanians in Amman who were going to be the victims of a hellbroth of chem/bio/nerve agents that were going to be aerosolized
over that city. If they were 'fantasy', maybe a genie made them appear out of nowhere. Sorry, Ali Baba is for kids. We're playin' for keeps.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Jordanians in Amman who were going to be the victims of a hellbroth of chem/bio/nerve agents that were going to be aerosolized
over that city. If they were 'fantasy', maybe a genie made them appear out of nowhere. Sorry, Ali Baba is for kids. We're playin' for keeps.
For Clarification
gburner -- you're right, all liberals unconditionally want evil things to happen to America. We actually have to swear an oath to that effect when we vote in the primaries.
Given that America won't occupy Iraq forever, it seems reasonable to conclude that getting rid of the dictator who had a tendency to keep attacking them would be to Iran's advantage in the long-run. We'll eventually leave, and Iraq will fall back apart again ... the difference is THIS time they won't have the resources to harass Iran on the same scale for another 5-10 years. Besides, the more money we dump into Iraq, the less we'll have left to spend when we decide to invade Iran next!
cactus - sorry, i am just an average misguided sheep-of-an-american, not a DU troll. I've actually visited THIS site many more times than theirs -- I find the conversation here to be way more interesting. Believe it or not, there are actually a few of us liberals in America who are NOT hit-men for the far left.
Destructo6
New member
That's no given. Not now and certainly not a year ago. Try again.
We didn't need you to tell us. It's all clearly spelled out in the closing paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto and in the Catechism of the Revolutionary (1868). The Catechism describes the US left rather well.
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/russia/sp000116.txt
xer
The book about GWs cocaine use was thouroughly discredited to the point that the publisher pulled them all from the shelves and sent them to the dump. If he was actually doing Cocaine, don't you bnelieve that one -- JUST ONE -- of his Cocaine snorting buddies would have come out with an expose? Look at Clinton. He couldn't get anyone he knew to shut up about his activities -- including his own brother.
Bush has shown proof that he was on duty and present at his station. He has produced paystubs, witnesses, photographs, etc, and you guys still tell that lie.
I will give you the last one as a slip of the brain stem. You mean $200 Million, don't you? When the campaigns for president start costing two-tenths of a TRILLION dollars don't you think people would start to take notice?
Wow! That may be a record on the number of lies told in a single sentence since the reopening of THR.
The book about GWs cocaine use was thouroughly discredited to the point that the publisher pulled them all from the shelves and sent them to the dump. If he was actually doing Cocaine, don't you bnelieve that one -- JUST ONE -- of his Cocaine snorting buddies would have come out with an expose? Look at Clinton. He couldn't get anyone he knew to shut up about his activities -- including his own brother.
Bush has shown proof that he was on duty and present at his station. He has produced paystubs, witnesses, photographs, etc, and you guys still tell that lie.
I will give you the last one as a slip of the brain stem. You mean $200 Million, don't you? When the campaigns for president start costing two-tenths of a TRILLION dollars don't you think people would start to take notice?
OK, I'll definitely give ya' that one. However, given our self-inflicted dependency on their oil, I'm not sure exactly how we address the problem. SA has for all intents and purposes two societies - the ruling family, and the ruled - and while the ruled seem to be the greater threat, I'm not sure the rulers wouldn't roll over if that's what it took to stay in power...
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
This thread has gone on long enough. Too many members are tiptoeing right up to the "personal attack" line and then stopping just short.
This is The Firing Line; we encourage and expect a higher standard of discussion.
Please note that I have not singled anyone out. This thread is closed for a general lack of civility.
As always, PM or email me if you have any questions.
-Dave
This is The Firing Line; we encourage and expect a higher standard of discussion.
Please note that I have not singled anyone out. This thread is closed for a general lack of civility.
As always, PM or email me if you have any questions.
-Dave
- Status