0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 04:13 pm
I don't think #3 belongs on the list.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 04:18 pm
Indeed. Bin-Laden had frequently called for the overthrow of Hussein.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 05:05 pm
"Again, what was the purpose of 911?"

The stated reasons were:
1) US troops in Saudi Arabia
2) US support of corrupt Middle Eastern regimes.
3) US support of sanctions against Iraq.
4) US support of Israel to the detriment of the Palestinans.


Minus 3) and including 4) the pernicious influence of the US on Muslim society, according to the fundamentalists.

Hobit -- as for creating anarchy, I'd wouldn't dispute that for a minute. That's the aim of most fundamentalists. It's not impossible to imagine (from the results of his presidency to date) that George W is in the same creative mode.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 05:42 pm
In the first place, it has been already well established that Al Queda didn't fly the planes into the WTC - it was the Saudis. If you are still subscribing to that notion, you may represent a help out of this nations's economic woes. Still lots of big bridges for sle. Ample evidence has been reluctantly shown. And more than ample evidence has been shown that we - the US - created a haven fo Al Queda aafterwards.. That, sofia, was and is a justifable excuse to sell to as much of the Americans as they could. You bought into thiswithout examining it too closely or really studying the facts. Easy way out.

But it's done, now, rightly or wrongly. Obviosly we'e not going to get out of this without help. and, at the moment, it looks like he democratc contendrs will be our help.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:06 pm
Mamajuana--
I didn't suggest al-Quaida flew 911 planes. I was responding to a Hobitbob comment. You post to me at 6:41 was based on a misconception.

All--

These...

The stated reasons were:
1) US troops in Saudi Arabia
2) US support of corrupt Middle Eastern regimes.
3) US support of sanctions against Iraq.
4) US support of Israel to the detriment of the Palestinans.

....aren't purposes. What was the purpose?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:12 pm
The purpose was to drive the reasons home.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:29 pm
Al Queda recruited, trained, funded, acknowledged, claimed, and lauded the mostly-Saudi hijackers. Al Queda is a stateless entity, the membership of which comprises citizens of a wide variety of countries. Not even The Nine Also-Rans and their most egregiously hysterical followers can negate those facts.

It would not be beyond Al Queda's perfidy specifically to have employed a preponderence of Saudis in the attack by way of calculated effort to exacerbate US/Saudi tensions.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:35 pm
What Timber said.

Quote:
It would not be beyond Al Queda's perfidy specifically to have employed a preponderence of Saudis in the attack by way of calculated effort to exacerbate US/Saudi tensions.


There are a couple of books out stating Timber's assertion-- Saudis were trained and used for the purpose Timber outlines.

I haven't read any of them yet, so I'll reserve judgement.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 11:46 pm
Perhaps until you read some, you should reserve judgment.

Conspiracy therories? JfK in Dalls - nobody really know?, do they?

But it seems that an understanding of eastern philosophies, and of Islam is too far reaching to be lightly dismissed here One very big lack of this admins has been of interpretaors, readers in and studiers of history. all leading to what has been a disastrous misreading. Think we're ahead of this game? Take a look aat the rising prison enrollmnent in radical islam studies.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 11:51 pm
Marxism was popular among a large subgroup of the prison population in the Vietnam era, and on college campuses. So were Che Guevarra posters.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 11:57 pm
MJ--
Your statement that it has been well-established that al-Quaida didn't fly the planes into the WTC... Link please? Mohammad Atta has been linked to al-Quaida. Don't think he's the only one.

I had reserved judgement--but since you cite well established facts, prove it.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 12:13 am
Mr. Blatham:

Again, I must ask you to be much more specific.

You say that President Bush is incompetent and under-educated.

Incompetent- "lacking ability"

Ability to do what?

Can you define Bush's incompetence?

If a major league player is batting .333 does that mean he is incompetent since he is not batting 1.000?

If a right wing Republican brands Bill Clinton as an "incompetent" since the Democratic Party lost control of the House and Senate after two years of his tenure as President and then again in 1996 and 1998?

Is President Bush under-educated because he graduated with an MBA degree from the school which was, at the time, considered the best Business School in the USA, namely Harvard Business School?

In short, Mr. Blatham, would you be so good as to "PROVE" your charges of "incompetence" and "Undereducation" on President Bush's part?

Or would you, as the guidelines tell us, if you cannot give evidence, relate that your statements are only your opinion.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 09:16 am
italgato

I personally know the fellow who wrote those guidelines. He's a drunk. And a failed Kirby vacuum cleaner salesman. Not the sort of person to place your trust in. And why do I suspect that it wouldn't matter what I respond with in any case?

Just take your suggestion that an MBA might be sufficient intellectual accomplishment for the presidency. Would a bachelor degree in business be suitable for each of the department heads?

Competency, or 'educated enough' or even 'smart enough' are all relative matters, not susceptible to true/false, fact/not fact analyses. But we make such judgements all the time, we must. And you have a president so egregiously dumb (this would be a judgement) that he publicly uses the term 'crusade', or so personally fearless that he dares 'bring 'em on!'
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 09:22 am
blatham, You know that I agree with you the great majority of times on your opinions. Unfortunately, italgato has you/us over the barrel when we consider that the majority of Americans still think GWBush is doing a good job - especially where it concerns our security. When we pit our opinion against the majority in a democracy, we are seen as the 'fools.' I guess some people still think the earth is flat.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 09:38 am
I don't think we know that the majority of Americans still think Bush is doing a good job, CI. I won't bore you by repeating my brief experience as poll taker -- the purpose of which was to show how questions which demand yes or no answers do not tell the story. The outcome showed that this kind of thing happens:

Do you believe Bush is doing a good job?

Yes.

..............................................................

Then:

How would you rate his job on a scale of one to ten:

Oh gee, I guess I'd put him at, oh, maybe six, maybe seven. Sometimes five, I guess.

So you think in some areas he's not doing such a good job?

Well, lately the Iraq mess.

And domestically?

Well, daddy and me we are against that Patriot Act.

The economy?

You can't blame that all on him.

So you do think Bush is doing a good job?

Pretty good. I guess. Except, well, you know...

And you'd vote for him in the next election against a Democrat?

Well, I'd have to see who the Democrats put up first, wouldn't I? But I've almost always voted Republican. I guess you'd call me an Independent...

etc. etc.


In other words, yes/no questions tend to get very incomplete answers. After my experience, I'm really, really wary of poll results!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 01:28 pm
Well then, c.i., sign me up as a "fool" as well. As you can see, I'm already going to hell. George Bush is a big, stupid idiot. And if he had any good sense at all, I'll call him a cheater too, but I save that label for GW's handlers. And we could add liars and stubborn misanthropes as well. GW is just a stupid puppet. And that is my opinion. No proof required.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 01:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
blatham, You know that I agree with you the great majority of times on your opinions. Unfortunately, italgato has you/us over the barrel when we consider that the majority of Americans still think GWBush is doing a good job - especially where it concerns our security. When we pit our opinion against the majority in a democracy, we are seen as the 'fools.' I guess some people still think the earth is flat.


Nice point!

HERE'S A QUOTE FROM JAMES MADISON .....

..... but most people still won't get it.

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in thier deaths." James Madison.

Isn't it somewhat remarkable that we can go back a a few hundred years and find no shortage of quotations from our founding fathers warning us against the dangers of democracy, yet today teachers and politicians use the word as if it were an offering of gold.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 02:35 pm
Lola wrote:
Well then, c.i., sign me up as a "fool" as well. As you can see, I'm already going to hell. George Bush is a big, stupid idiot. And if he had any good sense at all, I'll call him a cheater too, but I save that label for GW's handlers. And we could add liars and stubborn misanthropes as well. GW is just a stupid puppet. And that is my opinion. No proof required.




Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 02:51 pm
Lets be fair here, huh? Just because you think some faction's wrong doesn't necessarily mean they're fools, nor are fools wrong all the time. What is foolish is to label as foolish that which fails to conform to your own agenda, and to blame on deciet, treachery, and impropriety any hinderance of that agenda.

It is refreshing to note, however, someone concede they feel no need for proof in the formation of their opinions ... mighty open of ya there, Lola Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 03:01 pm
Italgato wrote:
If a major league player is batting .333 does that mean he is incompetent since he is not batting 1.000?


Not much of an analogy. No one has hit .400 in decades. Is the implication that Bush is doing a good job 1/3 of the time, and that's satisfactory?

And even that would be a stretch...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.64 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 03:07:30