THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

McTag wrote:

The right-wingers have been uncharacteristically subdued of late. Maybe some of the truth of the enormity of the crime, without even a good outcome in sight yet, has begun to sink in.

Maybe it's the left's preference for shadow boxing that bores them silly. For me it was the volley of compliments showered upon Joe Nation for this well written as always, but no less idiotic for it, display of utter paranoia. How exactly does one reconcile the FACT that in this, the single longest running internet discussion in history, the repeated charges of criminality towards our current President hasn't resulted in a single contact, let alone suppression of anyone's freedom of speech?

This screed had no basis in fact whatsoever, but was nonetheless greeted as a valuable submission by the usual suspects, for what reason other than it's obviously anti-American basis? How hypocritical is it to deride your nation for some imagined lack of freedom while exercising that very freedom?

You probably all recognized the mistake when Australia (the poster) made a similar error here:

australia wrote:

Watch what you say Fox. Anyone who doesn't completely agree with theories brought forward by people from the left will be deemed to be a nazi and possibly suspended from a2k.

While you may be labeled Nazi, my continued presence along with McG's, Fox's and half the moderators for crying out loud would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one should fear being suspended from A2K for disagreeing with the left. Australia's fairly new here, so his error is understandable. What's your excuse Joe?

Meanwhile, hate mongers like Michael Moore and Maurine Dowd make a living implying the leader of our land is guilty of everything from draft-dodging to being a party to the crimes of September 11th, and they do so with obvious impunity. So, unless you like America-bashing for it's own sake, what exactly was there to applaud in Joe's post?
When he wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

That said, well, that's really all I can say. I'm in America.

Joe (They are handing out the gags on Inauguration Day) Nation

Joe should have wrote:

That said, with impunity, because I can say any damn thing I want. I'm in America.

OCCOM (who's grateful we're still free to say, any damn thing we want to say in the US) BILL

0 Replies

Well said Obill, and along those same lines

Revel posted

Quote:

It seems to me that most are saying that while bush and his pals flubbed up we got to stay the course because Iraq can't take any upheavals in changing leadership because things are such a mess. A stupid opinion in my opinion. Also I don't like Lottt in the first place and place little in anything he says. However, the fact that conservative republicans are critical of Bush and company over Iraq says that it is not just a partisan or "trendy" thing.

This above all should lay to rest any fears or accusations of any 'gag order' perpetuated by the president or his administration. One by one by one, we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it. While I am not one to condemn the entire Clinton administration out of hand, that was not a trait of the Clinton administration and you won't find anybody in any of the books saying that it was. But the anti-Bush crowd tends to see it as a weakness of the Bush adminsitration rather than a strength that some of his top people actually openly disagree with him. I see it as a strength and as reassurance that we indeed do live in one of the most free societies on earth.

0 Replies

O'Bill

"Meanwhile, hate mongers like Michael Moore and Maurine Dowd ...."

Objection.

Hate mongers are Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The two you have mentioned are reasonableness mongers.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well said Obill, and along those same lines

Revel posted

Quote:
It seems to me that most are saying that while bush and his pals flubbed up we got to stay the course because Iraq can't take any upheavals in changing leadership because things are such a mess. A stupid opinion in my opinion. Also I don't like Lottt in the first place and place little in anything he says. However, the fact that conservative republicans are critical of Bush and company over Iraq says that it is not just a partisan or "trendy" thing.

This above all should lay to rest any fears or accusations of any 'gag order' perpetuated by the president or his administration. One by one by one, we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it. While I am not one to condemn the entire Clinton administration out of hand, that was not a trait of the Clinton administration and you won't find anybody in any of the books saying that it was. But the anti-Bush crowd tends to see it as a weakness of the Bush adminsitration rather than a strength that some of his top people actually openly disagree with him. I see it as a strength and as reassurance that we indeed do live in one of the most free societies on earth.

Oh come on foxfrye, these people are just coming out on their own to critize bush it is has nothing to with Bush inviting testimony. They are not in the Bush administratin but in congress.

It was weird in the first term the way they picked such diverse people to serve in the administration, I think they did it to show how moderate they were. But Powell and others didn't have an impact on any of the decisions and they were just window dressing.

0 Replies

I accept that as your opinion Revel. Most very learned people who have actually analyzed the sitatuion with open minds--Sammons, Franks, and numerous others--would strongly disagree with you.

And McTag, I'll give you Ann Coulter gets very close to acid journalism and inappropriately so at times. But Rush Limbaugh, a hate monger? Conservative yes. Opinionated yes. Sometimes in poor taste, yes. But a hate monger? No.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

O'Bill

"Meanwhile, hate mongers like Michael Moore and Maurine Dowd ...."

Objection.

Hate mongers are Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The two you have mentioned are reasonableness mongers.

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Huh. reasonable and Michael Moore in the same post. Who would have figured for that to happen?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

... we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it.

With respect, that is the exact opposite of what I have read- that GWB and his lieutenants will brook no opposition whatever, will not discuss or debate issues (indeed in the Pres' case, can not), and will squash any dissent.

Wherein lies the truth, I wonder?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well said Obill, and along those same lines

Revel posted

Quote:
It seems to me that most are saying that while bush and his pals flubbed up we got to stay the course because Iraq can't take any upheavals in changing leadership because things are such a mess. A stupid opinion in my opinion. Also I don't like Lottt in the first place and place little in anything he says. However, the fact that conservative republicans are critical of Bush and company over Iraq says that it is not just a partisan or "trendy" thing.

This above all should lay to rest any fears or accusations of any 'gag order' perpetuated by the president or his administration. One by one by one, we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it. While I am not one to condemn the entire Clinton administration out of hand, that was not a trait of the Clinton administration and you won't find anybody in any of the books saying that it was. But the anti-Bush crowd tends to see it as a weakness of the Bush adminsitration rather than a strength that some of his top people actually openly disagree with him. I see it as a strength and as reassurance that we indeed do live in one of the most free societies on earth.

Oh come on foxfrye, these people are just coming out on their own to critize bush it is has nothing to with Bush inviting testimony.

Oh, come on, Revel. You are screwing up a perfectly good strawman, rationalization, kneejerk justification on Fox's part by using facts and reason.

Have you no sense of decency?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

O'Bill

"Meanwhile, hate mongers like Michael Moore and Maurine Dowd ...."

Objection.

Hate mongers are Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The two you have mentioned are reasonableness mongers.

Opposite sides of the same coin, McTag... both enjoying their unabated, inalienable right to free speech. Ohhhhh say can you see?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
... we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it.

With respect, that is the exact opposite of what I have read- that GWB and his lieutenants will brook no opposition whatever, will not discuss or debate issues (indeed in the Pres' case, can not), and will squash any dissent.

Wherein lies the truth, I wonder?

And now you, McTag....ruining a perfectly fine examle of fantasy over-riding the obvious.

Jeez...you guys have no heart at all.

0 Replies

foxfyre said

Quote:

This above all should lay to rest any fears or accusations of any 'gag order' perpetuated by the president or his administration. One by one by one, we are seeing testimony that the president invites, encourages, requires honest opinions from his staff, cabinet, and others and weighs his decisions based on the total of all of it. While I am not one to condemn the entire Clinton administration out of hand, that was not a trait of the Clinton administration and you won't find anybody in any of the books saying that it was. But the anti-Bush crowd tends to see it as a weakness of the Bush adminsitration rather than a strength that some of his top people actually openly disagree with him. I see it as a strength and as reassurance that we indeed do live in one of the most free societies on earth.

Have we ever met anyone more averse to facts, evidence, reality, intellectual integrity, or logic than this poster?

There is no claim made above which is true, and each is demonstrably false. Those individuals who have worked in or close to the adminstration but who are not members of it, or no longer members of it, have all remarked on the administration's insularity, its arrogance towards and dismissal of contrarian views and advices, its punishment of public diversity, and its obsessive and institutional secrecy (DiIulio, Clarke, Woodward, O'Neil, etc etc).

As to the comparison made between Bush as eager listener/learner and Clinton as closed-off from advices...could a more counter-factual claim be advanced? What 'books' does the lady refer to above that support her claim? What books has the lady read? What does this lady read?

0 Replies

The difference is that McTag is pipedreaming as the evidence presented by numerous writers who have researched the issue extensively testifies. Of course it is the tendency of many liberals to approve any nonsense said so long as it sounds good and bashes Bush or some other conservative.

0 Replies

Well Blatham you don't have to have facts to have an opinion, everyone knows that.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, somebody please quote me a writer who says that Bush brooks no opposition? I want to get that book or whatever to balance my own education here.

0 Replies

hi dys...best of the season

foxfyre...previously sent your way have been more quotes and references than can apparently be comfortably accomodated by your memory.

0 Replies

One of the reasons we don't see the US flag draped coffins....

Another reason we don't see soldiers returning from Iraq missing their limbs...

Sanitation anybody?

0 Replies

Of Foxfire's last post....

blatham wrote:

Have we ever met anyone more averse to facts, evidence, reality, intellectual integrity, or logic than this poster?

There is no claim made above which is true, and each is demonstrably false. Those individuals who have worked in or close to the adminstration but who are not members of it, or no longer members of it, have all remarked on the administration's insularity, its arrogance towards and dismissal of contrarian views and advices, its punishment of public diversity, and its obsessive and institutional secrecy (DiIulio, Clarke, Woodward, O'Neil, etc etc).

As to the comparison made between Bush as eager listener/learner and Clinton as closed-off from advices...could a more counter-factual claim be advanced? What 'books' does the lady refer to above that support her claim? What books has the lady read? What does this lady read?

BINGO!

Ya done good, Bernie!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And McTag, I'll give you Ann Coulter gets very close to acid journalism and inappropriately so at times. But Rush Limbaugh, a hate monger? Conservative yes. Opinionated yes. Sometimes in poor taste, yes. But a hate monger? No.

Disagree. Here's Rushie-

A window into one possible future was opened by Republican spokesman and unofficial Bush campaign advisor, Rush Limbaugh. On October 28th, Limbaugh discussed the future of the Iraq occupation on his widely-broadcast radio show with a caller. In that conversation, Limbaugh made the following observation about the continued violence in that country:
"At some point, dealing with these people is going to require taking steps that the American people are going to have to be prepared for, and they're not going to be easy steps. They're going to be brutal. I'm talking about we are going to have to exercise some very, very brutal, take some very, very brutal military steps. We're going to have to maybe use more than just conventional weapons on these people. You know, it's like trying to wipe out cockroaches with Raid. That's not strong enough. You know, you're not going to call the pest control guy and get rid of them...That's kind of like who these terrorists are. They're all over the place, and it's going to take massive, massive use of force at some point to deal with this, wherever these people are, and I think a second term for George W. Bush where there is no concern for being reelected and so forth might offer a little bit more flexibility and freedom in dealing with this as it happens."

These are opinions which would not be out of place in the most rabid Nazi think-tank. And I'm thinking, if he says that in public...what must he be capable of saying in private? Nice, nice fella.

0 Replies

He's way too busy being stoned on painkillers in private to opine about, well, anything...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know