Well that's pretty rich coming from German students.
Perhaps they would do us all a favour and take the Saxe-Coburg Gothas home with them.
You're stuck with 'em, Steve, nobody else wants 'em. In a malicious sort of way, i can't wait to see how y'all take to Charles III.
Just a thought here; GWB is, at least nominally, our very own George III. Prolly shouldn't forget either that our Executive Branch once consisted of Ford and Rockefeller, a name pairing in that office that would have horrified many a bit less than a century ago. The Ford might have been just an accident of name, but the Rockefeller sprang from the stock of the nightmares of The Left.
Can't see Charlie boy getting the big hat job. Might be William V though.
Personally I don't mind, either one spells the end of the House of Windsor within 5 years of the death of the Queen.
The people won't have Charles. William is chronically shy and probably won't want to see his life ruined.
Alternatively we could have James Hewitt's son, Harry. That would be nice, a hereditary monarchy where the monarch hasn't got a drop of royal blood in him.
"He who rules through genes should have his genes screened as a rule"..copyright Steve41oo
That's really reaching into left field.
Ahnolds being swarn in and it's being widely broadcast all over the world. What does this tell you about our society?
Nope. The real panic about the Rockefellers takes place on the far right -- the Christian Right -- as I can tell you from tuning into their radio broadcasts. Many of us lefties actually know a Rockefeller or two, are aware of the background and the way III and IV have supported art, community organizations, medical research (and on and on). The Right spends lonely nights tracing participants in Bilderberger meetings, relationships with folks like "new world order" globalists like Henry K, speeches at the Council on Foreign Relations. Admittedly there have been Rockefellers and Rockefellers (I bet there have been Timbers and Timbers, too), but I know many on the Left who know the difference, up close and personal!!
I ain't had many lonely nights ... or days, or paranoia ... or at least paranoia that didn't dissolve once the drugs wore off. I'll go along with there having been Timbers and then there having been Timbers, though, just as with the Fords and the Rockefellers. The only time I ever mingle with the Democrat Power Elite any more is marryin's and buryin's. There seem to be enough of the former to ensure a continuing schedule of the latter. I s'pose I shouldn't bitch too much; after all, I don't have to respond to the invites and announcements, and I could always trim my greeting card mailing list in hope the gesture might be reciprocated. Then again, that'd prolly only pique their curiosity.
Bush visits families at LeJuene.
They don't have to die to get a visit from Bush. He pays homage to the families of all who serve.
Will find another.
The point of this exercise was to examine your statement tht Bush had done 'fuckall' to comfort the families... I know it feeds a certain segment to envision Bush madly sending people into harm's way, rubbing his hands maniacly and laughing at the death statistics... but if you're interested in the reality of this issue--he visits with military families pretty frequently, and hardly misses an opportunity to thank their families for their sacrifice.
Sofia, If your article doesn't degrade the administration, it simply can't be true.
Thanks for the link, Sofia!
However, besides in the headlines, there's nowhere mentioned that Bush visited actually the families.
The cavilling (or should that be "Carvilling") over this non-issue seems to me a championing of style opposed to substance.
The families were satisfied. I know some opt for the slicker photo ops...
It was a comforting, uplifting message, IMO. I hate it when dignitaries (R or D) show up at the scene of the tragedy and bite their lower lip for the cameras. Really hate it. Bush has said he hates it, and he doesn't do it. One of the things I like about him.
Sofia wrote: Bush has said he hates it, and he doesn't do it. One of the things I like about him.
So he really does something in the UK, he hates?
All the interviews are lies?
Quote:
It's part of my duty as the leader of this country to comfort those who have sacrificed.
Walter-
What are you talking about? You can "comfort" someone in many different ways. Some seem fake, some sincere, ... Photo ops are a part of the job-- Using a tragedy as a photo op, to me, is smarmy and disgusting. Its politics' answer to an ambulance chaser.
Are we talking about the guy that lands a jet on an aircraft carrier for a photo op???
He has to be aware of the negative press re: his not visiting the graves or family of the war dead. This person would hang glide into the cemetary with a flare in each hand, one in his mouth and one up the exaust with all the known news organizations cameras rolling. Anything to win in 2004!!!
Well it's the economy, lies, war dead, broken campaign promises, 2000 election theft, patriot act ...... well hell, you get the idea stupid!
I read the last three pages of this thread - one I had long ago given up - and found that those who oppose President Bush and our policy in Iraq appear inclined to find fault with the details of his forthcoming trip to the UK and suspect the motives behind the various scheduled events there. Alternatively those (fewer) who have been inclined to see some merit in the administration and its policies appear less inclined to find fault with these motives. Must be coincidence.
Well, George, that doesn't surprise me at all.
And it's not surprising as well that a YouGov poll ahead of the trip showed just what poor regard Bush is held in by Britons. He was branded a threat to world peace by 60 percent while 37 percent said he was "stupid."
An EU survey showed 59% think Isreal is the biggest threat to world peace.
Of course it is no surprise. Interpretations on both sides of this hot issue are colored by the prejudices of the observers.
The poll results you cite could as well have applied to Churchill in 1936. I'm not suggesting Bush is a Churchill, but rather that popular views can change very fast in a changing situation.
We have separately discussed the different viewpoints of Europeans and Americans on these and related issues. Again I would much rather have our future prospects than those of Europe.
