0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:17 pm
george wrote:
Quote:
There are many forms of hypocrisy, and all are more or less equally offensive. Lola has gone on at some length about Bill Bennett's
hypocrisy with respect to gambling. There is also an element of hypocrisy in the willingness of the legislators and women's advocacy groups who were so willing to hound and persecute some good friends of mine who attended the infamous Las Vegas 'Tailhook' party, to readily excuse Bill Clinton for equivalent or worse actions done in the government workplace, and with a subordinate worker - in gross violation of laws these same legislators and advocacy groups had promoted.


george,

On this I agree with you. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter whose it is. I've never been to a Tailhook party. So I can't speak with certainty......so I'll speak in general, leaving, for now, the specific example and getting down to the basic principle. Sometimes, we blame others for our own desires, especially when we don't want to admit we are desiring something. This is a common defense mechanism..... avoiding determinatly motivated childhood guilt and anxiety associated with internal conflict due to sexual and aggressive wishes. And I think we see it especially, but by all means not only, in some feminist's claims about rape and molestation. I think we women are often our own worst enemies in this way.

I've always felt............ and I believe some of my friends here disagree with me, so since I anticipate disagreement, I'll just say it as directly as I can. I've always felt that if a person, in this case a woman, doesn't want to be groped or forced to perform certain sexual acts, she should be thoughtful, cautious and wise about where she goes and with whom. This doesn't mean it's ok for the man or molester to molest, but simply that in many of these cases, the men and women share the responsibility. And it's unreasonable to hold a man more responsible than the woman. It's not only unreasonable, it's actually, IMO, disrespectful to women to claim they need some sort of special protection.

And to clarify, I'm speaking only of situations in which the woman places herself in harm's way, voluntarily. Obviously, violent rape and murder don't count here. If a woman finds she's made a mistake and she doesn't want it to happen again, she can learn her lesson and not go there again. Making a big deal out of it is destructive to everyone. If one knows a party will be a drunken brawl, for instance, and there will be aggressive men with therefore reduced inhibitions, then it's a place to be avoided by anyone not wanting to be groped, or more. In the Tailhook situation, from what little I know of it, I believe if anyone was going to be arrested and prosecuted, they should have both or all been arrested for disturbing the peace.

That said, however, I agree with Tartarin in that the Clinton situation and the Tailhook situation are not comparable in an important way. Clinton and Monica were having fun and it was clearly consentual. No one doubts this. So what they did was their business, and none of Ken Starr's or ours for that matter (although it was fun to hear of it.) In situations like Tailhook, there was more a shared responsibility for something that shouldn't have happened. Although, I'll bet there were plenty of women at that party who were there for the express purpose of finding someone to grope with. It's not, IMO, an unreasonable thing to be looking for.

The problem with hypocrisy, or any such symptom, for that matter, is that it allows a us to avoid looking at ourselves. This is not a crime. But it does mitigate against any improvement of a situation. I truly hate to see people chasing their tails.......and we all do it, but does it get us anywhere in the long run, other than the exercise?

And this, to apply all this to the subject of this thread, is why I think we should get rid of George Bush as our president as soon as we can. His methods do not make anything better. His methods are so destructive that he is bringing about tragedy upon tragedy.......ill will and hatred that will take decades to clear up. We should, as responsible citizens, vote him out.

(Edited once for spell check.)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:26 pm
Tart - Yes, the flaws of the right are sins and the flaws of the left are "character".

And you are about as full of character as anyone I've ever run across.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:29 pm
That's a weird thing to say, Scrat! How do you know?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:37 pm
Scrat wrote:
Quote:
Yes, the flaws of the right are sins and the flaws of the left are "character".


Scrat,

Both sides here are sometimes guilty of this, just interchange "left" and "right" with the inclination of the speaker and it's often the same. It's amazing to me that behavior such as Bennett's or Rush Limbaugh's are spun by extreme religious right wingers as, "isn't it good they've confessed and decided to correct their problems." This is at best, and I think often, naive. Neither Bennett nor Limbaugh voluntarily admitted anything. And I strongly doubt that they would had they not been caught. And I doubt George Bush admitted his cocaine and alcohol abuse either until he was forced to by others.

But I don't think of these things as sins......but rather mistaken attempts to get along. I hope we'll be able to look at these tendencies in ourselves and try to understand, evaluating the benefit we derive from them. And hopefully, this willingness to look at ourselves will result in a better method for deciding what should be done about the world's problems.

How's that for a task?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:57 pm
Yes, both sides are guilty. It's interesting that one side of the issue always favors it, and the other side debunks it. Such is life in all matters human.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 07:45 pm
Check bow tie in mirror, lick hand and shine up the male-pattern baldspot, wink, step into elevator, press 'down'.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 11:33 pm
ohhh, Mr. Blatham! Aren't we supposed to be talking about getting rid of GW?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 09:07 am
A lot of us are concerned about the concentration of major media ownership in the hands of a very few corporate entities.

Some, such as Murdoch's companies, or Conrad Black's Hollinger Corp, or Clear Channel (radio) are not apolitical, but markedly partisan in voice.

Further, as in the cases of Hollinger and Murdoch, these corporations and the people who sit on their boards, have other interests and subsidiary activities which might, or do, benefit from influence on government such that certain policies are forwarded and other policies inhibited (eg Richard Perle and Kissinger of Trireme Partners sit on Hollinger's board).

To appreciate how such media concentration is likely to play out, one can look at Italy presently.

Please note in particular where Berlusconi does allow satire and criticism - also where Franco had earlier - and how the claims such as 'look at all the free speech on the internet' are effectively hollow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1094598,00.html
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 11:20 am
This should get the republicans panties all twisted up:Glad to see Bush spending time with the troops, remembering Afghanistan...
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 11:45 am
Well, hey -- Look who Hillary scared into action:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3244620.stm
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 11:55 am
Yup. Two whole hours inside a hangar at the Baghdad airport. ooooh...what a bwave...bwave wittle man! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 12:07 pm
Bet he even had a bomber jacket on. Wink
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 12:22 pm
I imagine the Junior Senator from New York is fuming at having been upstaged. Sheesh ... you'd think The Dems would be getting used to that by now. Then again, all that really remains to them is denial.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 01:29 pm
couple of thoughts here, the Bush trip to Bagdad will indeed be good for troop morale as was the Bush elders trip in 1990. It may or may not translate as a political coop. He did not parlay this into another "Mission Accomplished" (good thinking there George) as far as upstaging the jr senator, she is not running for president. I am inclined to think this is a bold and daring move on the part of Rove and will not harm the sitting President. On the other hand, it could also be taken by some Iraqi's as affirming "occupation over emanicpation" which would probably not be the best thing to happen. On a scale of 1 to to 10, it's probably a 7.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 01:58 pm
Especially considering the text of the speech given by Bush. More of the "You are fighting for freedom in the US, by killing Iraqis."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 02:00 pm
The "real" terrorists are in Afghanistan, but that's okay.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 02:05 pm
Great minds think alike, Dys! Just what I figured while listening to the news, doing the dishes...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 03:32 pm
Gotta pretty much agree with you, Dys ... and Tart Shocked :wink: ; as stunts go, it was reasonably effective ... apparently well worth the effort. Bottom line, though, is that both trips are just stunts. I can only assume the one was a rather spontaneous response to the other.

Bush the Younger's much celebrated recent junket has had a drastic negative impact on the Return on Investment Hillary expected from her jaunt to Afghanistan.

google wrote:
Searched news for Clinton +visit +Afghanistan. Results 1 - 25 of about 194. Search took 0.09 seconds

The 194 hits span the period back to Oct 30, and many have nothing to do with Hillary's visit.

google wrote:
Searched news for Bush +visit +Iraq. Results 1 - 25 of about 12,300. Search took 0.29 seconds


Nearly 500 hits have gone up in the last three hours for the Irag visit. Also, over the past three hours, every page linked to the Afghan visit, in either search, prominently featured the Iraq visit, most leading with news of the Presidential Upstaging. All the major news mainpages lead with it; it has become THE NEWS. TV is saturated with it. As opposed to being news, Hillary's trip is now part of the news about Bush's stunt. She must be furious. A woman scorned is one thing, but a politician co-opted is another Laughing

In the war of column inches and airtime, she's come up way short this time. Oh, well. Another critic of The Current Administration overtaken by the course of events. Stuff like this drives 'em nuts. Poor critters, they're so frequently inconvenienced ya almost gotta feel sorry for 'em. Still, they're doin' it to themselves.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:12 pm
What a great measurement, Timber! So accurate! So telling! (Actually, it tells me more about you than about Bush!)
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 04:35 pm
Indeed. I guess being "right" is more important than anything eles. Sad
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/01/2024 at 12:29:12