3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 03:00 pm
snood wrote:
Yeah - "Young Hybrid", now...


Doubtful at best.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 04:08 pm
blatham wrote:
hi stradee

First of all, let me speak to something foxfyre said in response to your post... it is utterly idiotic to forward or entertain the proposition that western civilization is in danger of being overrun or destroyed by Islam. If there is a stupider idea floating about in the minds of foolish people, I don't know what it might be. The PTA in Akron Ohio and the Rotary Club in Saskatoon Saskatchewan and the school boards in Swiss hamlets and lawn-bowling clubs in Brazil and tinsmith unions of Spain and the parliament of England are going to be infiltrated or squashed by Islamists?!

That there is a dream amongst some to establish a worldwide caliphate is as relevant (relevant to any real danger) as the American Dominionist's desire to achieve something similar for their faith/political ideas.


The real dangers are as the founders suggested, along with Lincoln and Eisenhower... we'll do ourselves in from within through quest for empire, militarization, and authoritarian governance to bolster those two dynamics.

As to the piece you pasted... large migrations of peoples always produce cultural problems and stresses, that's simply unavoidable. Equally certain is that some segment of the resident cultural group will respond with fear and bigotry and hatred regardless of whether such responses are warranted. They almost never are warranted. Somewhat ironically, the cases I can think of where resident groups really were in danger of being destroyed by immigration of another cultural group are the native north and south americans when Europeans arrived.

But this particular cultural group (violent fundamentalist Islam) now seems clearly to present an acute problem for a number of European nations and for America (I'll leave aside the historical genesis of the problem which we in the west have much to account for). The threat is violence, of course. But it really isn't a great threat. Even Israel, with far more acute demographic and geographical problems manages to carry on voting and shopping and dating etc. Religious and nationalist groups here frequently also demand the censorship of images/words/ideas that they find profane.

I think we (and those affected European communities) ought to push for maximal freedom of expression, though I'm not absolutist about this.


Thanks Bernie.

Appreciate your commenting.
0 Replies
 
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:38 am
Blotham wrote:

First of all, let me speak to something foxfyre said in response to your post... it is utterly idiotic to forward or entertain the proposition that western civilization is in danger of being overrun or destroyed by Islam. If there is a stupider idea floating about in the minds of foolish people, I don't know what it might be. The PTA in Akron Ohio and the Rotary Club in Saskatoon Saskatchewan and the school boards in Swiss hamlets and lawn-bowling clubs in Brazil and tinsmith unions of Spain and the parliament of England are going to be infiltrated or squashed by Islamists?!

*************************************************************
Idiotic? When the Democrats take over the House next month and Nancy Pelosi cuts funds to our soldiers in Iraq so that the gays in her district in San Francisco can get more aids cocktails, and Conyers decides to shift monies from the perusal of the millions of containers that come into New York City, then Al Quada may indeed trigger a nuclear explosion that will blow the hell out of Manhattan.

It will be then that Blotham will have another heart attack!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 04:30 am
Quagmire!? How dare anyone compare Iraq to VietNam.

You know it's getting really really bad when...
Quote:
Bush links Iraq to Vietnam as operation to halt violence fails

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 20 October 2006

As President Bush drew parallels between Iraq and Vietnam for the first time, American commanders publicly admitted yesterday that a two-month campaign by US and Iraqi forces to end the violence in Baghdad had to all intents and purposes failed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1904952.ece
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:16 am
MarionT wrote:
Idiotic? When the Democrats take over the House next month and Nancy Pelosi cuts funds to our soldiers in Iraq so that the gays in her district in San Francisco can get more aids cocktails, and Conyers decides to shift monies from the perusal of the millions of containers that come into New York City, then Al Quada may indeed trigger a nuclear explosion that will blow the hell out of Manhattan.

It will be then that Blotham will have another heart attack!


WOW!

This is more idiotic than Foxy's response.

Is there another conservative out there that can top this?

Perhaps the conservatives should be called the Chicken Littles as they love to spread panic and fear.

http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/chick2.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:31 am
xingu

Ignore the fellow completely. Don't read his posts (why bother?) and don't provide any responses.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:20 am
blatham wrote:
xingu

Ignore the fellow completely. Don't read his posts (why bother?) and don't provide any responses.


Ya, your right on this. His stupidity got to me.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:34 am
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:22 am
Just once I wish Blatham would quote me or represent me even remotely accurately. I have given up that this will ever be the case, but his dishonesty in characterizing me and reporting what I say is quite tedious, not that he seems to mind being tedious (and wrong) when he furthers his own apparently skewed vision of the world.

The latest in his misrepresentations of my point of view is saying I think the world is in danger of being overrun by Islam when I have never even suggested that even in theory. I would like for him to retract that, but I know he won't.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:04 am
Speaker Pelosi? Thanks, but no thanks


11 hours ago

More than any other group, conservatives are disillusioned with Republicans these days. There was talk a few weeks ago that it would be better for the conservative movement if Republicans lost the House of Representatives. Evidently a lot of conservatives have forgotten their 40 years in the political wilderness.

Lately Republican leadership in Washington has been a contradiction in terms. But the problem is not with Republican principles. It is with leaders who have lost sight of those principles.

If any conservatives - fiscal, religious or otherwise - believe that their interests would best be advanced by making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, they are deluding themselves.

Many, many conservatives are fed up with a Republican Congress that has become a victim of its own success. The leadership in Congress has lost touch with the American people. But the leadership of the opposition party is even more out of touch.

Can anyone imagine a Democratic House passing a tough border control bill? The Republican House did that this year. Can anyone imagine a Democratic House passing tax cuts? The Republican House has done that year after year. Can anyone imagine a Democratic House approving legislation allowing U.S. forces to be more aggressive in the War on Terror? The Republican House did that this year.

Yes, Republicans have become profligate spenders. Yes, the leadership has lost its way. But nobody who favors limited government and strong foreign policy should be fooled into thinking that the party of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Kerry will provide either.

In 1954 Republicans lost the House. It took them four decades to regain it. If conservatives stay home on Nov. 7, they might just cast themselves back into the wilderness for decades to come. Why would anyone take that chance?
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:09 am
Alan Rusbridger, senior editor of the Guardian, addressed an audience of journalists at Harvard.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Newspapers

From a speech given at Harvard on October 14, 2006.

I'm very honoured to be giving this lunchtime talk to such a distinguished group of American journalists and academics.

Alex Jones wrote me a very nice letter back in August inviting me to speak about how the Guardian ran itself and wondering whether there were any lessons for the more commercial environment in which most American media work.


I was reminded of the centenary history of the Manchester Guardian, published in 1921, which extended to an American edition. The great editor CP Scott - who had been at the helm since 1875 but I don't think ever made it to these shores - wrote an introduction to this edition in which he wrote.


"It seems such a friendly thing to have an American Edition and that it should be taken for granted that quite an appreciable number of American citizens should be interested in the life and development of a single English newspaper."

I feel rather the same today - pleasantly surprised that there should be a modest amount of friendly interest in what we get up to at the Guardian. I hope some of the themes I'm going to talk about today - which are about accountability, transparency and opening an editorial process up to a certain amount of independent challenge - have some wider resonances.

At the heart of what I want to explore today is what it means to run a newspaper on the sort of ethical lines we urge everyone else to abide by in public and corporate life. What does "corporate social responsibility" mean in terms of a media organisation? How would you measure it, and why does it matter? And is any of this important given the other issues we're discussing this weekend?

I should begin by explaining a bit about the Guardian - the story of how we do things doesn't mean much without understanding how we got here.

The paper is now in its 185th year: it currently sells just under 400k copies a day in the UK and is the biggest British newspaper on the web, with nearly 13million unique users a month.

In the past two years it's twice been voted the best newspaper website in the world and, somewhat to our surprise, has at least as many, if not more, web readers in the USA than the LA Times.

That more than four million Americans should have stumbled on us without us spending a cent in advertising is rather intriguing, which is why we recently appointed Mike Kinsley as our American Editor with a view to seeing if he can find another four million.

The paper's origins lie in the Peterloo massacre of August 1819, when troops rode into a peaceful crowd of Manchester protestors who had been demanding an extension of the vote, By the end of the day 11 members of the crowd had been killed and 560 unarmed civilians injured, a great many of them seriously, Among those locked up that evening was the sole reporter who witnessed the savagery, a certain Mr Tyas of the London Times.

There was a great fear that, with the only independent journalist out of circulation, the first version of events would be the official one - written by the very magistrates who had unleashed the murder on the crowd. But a man called John Edward Taylor wrote his own account, which he sent to London by the night coach and which appeared within 48 hours - and which was never overtaken by the so-called official version.

Inspired by what he'd done, Taylor decided to found a newspaper in Manchester. He called it the Manchester Guardian. The first issue appeared in 1821

(and, incidentally, included a short announcement of the death of Napoleon.) Shortly afterwards Taylor married a woman called Sophia Russell Scott. Sophia's nephew was CP Scott, who at the age of 25 became editor and remained in charge of - and owner of - the paper for an astonishing 57 years, dying in 1932.

Scott's son, Edward, took over as editor, but in his first year was tragically killed in a boating accident while on Lake Windermere with his son Richard, who is still alive today. The threat of a double set of death duties placed the newspaper in some jeopardy and, in an act of supreme selflessness, the Scott family set up a trust to own the Manchester Guardian, to ensure its independence and to enable it to live on in perpetuity.

And so we move to the present day.

continued:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-rusbridger/corporate-social-responsi_b_32081.html
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:14 am
The Guardian, God bless her and all who sail in her.

Incidentally, all the news in that paper today, and for the last several days, about the Republians in the USA and the progress of the occupation of Iraq, has been unremittingly bleak.
Let's hope that translates into votes against GWB and his accursed minions on 7th November.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:21 am
xingu wrote:

Is there another conservative out there that can top this?

Perhaps the conservatives should be called the Chicken Littles as they love to spread panic and fear.

http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/chick2.jpg


The Doonesbury cartoon strip has been amusing, on this topic, for a few days.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:33 am
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:07 am
"eek" says gwb and the GOP

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats in her fondest wish win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.


Good stuff.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:20 am
I see the Lefties on the forum have picked up the latest Democrat 'Chicken Little' talking point that was issued to the party faithful recently. (Wouldn't it be great if they didn't have to depend on party rhetoric to have anything at all to talk about?)

But on the Chicken Little theme, let's review:

Which party is predicting imminent global disaster if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced in the near future?

Which party is predicting imminent failure in Iraq and in the War on Terror generally?

Which party is claiming a failing economy and the dire straights faced by the American people despite near historic low unemployment, record stock market highs, increased personal wealth across the board, and mostly favorable earning reports from just about everybody?

Which party is trumpeting violations of civil rights if the Patriot Act and the President's surveillance program is not stopped?

Which party predicts increased terrorist attacks if we continue to make the terrorists mad at us?

I could keep going, but you get my drift I'm sure. Seems to me the Chicken Little label is a whole lot of empty air at least when put on the GOP.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:20 am
I see the Lefties on the forum have picked up the latest Democrat 'Chicken Little' talking point that was issued to the party faithful recently. (Wouldn't it be great if they didn't have to depend on party rhetoric to have anything at all to talk about?)

But on the Chicken Little theme, let's review:

Which party is predicting imminent global disaster if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced in the near future?

Which party is predicting imminent failure in Iraq and in the War on Terror generally?

Which party is claiming a failing economy and the dire straights faced by the American people despite near historic low unemployment, record stock market highs, increased personal wealth across the board, and mostly favorable earning reports from just about everybody?

Which party is trumpeting violations of civil rights if the Patriot Act and the President's surveillance program is not stopped?

Which party predicts increased terrorist attacks if we continue to make the terrorists mad at us?

I could keep going, but you get my drift I'm sure. Seems to me the Chicken Little label is a whole lot of empty air at least when put on the GOP.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:20 am
I see the Lefties on the forum have picked up the latest Democrat 'Chicken Little' talking point that was issued to the party faithful recently. (Wouldn't it be great if they didn't have to depend on party rhetoric to have anything at all to talk about?)

But on the Chicken Little theme, let's review:

Which party is predicting imminent global disaster if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced in the near future?

Which party is predicting imminent failure in Iraq and in the War on Terror generally?

Which party is claiming a failing economy and the dire straights faced by the American people despite near historic low unemployment, record stock market highs, increased personal wealth across the board, and mostly favorable earning reports from just about everybody?

Which party is trumpeting violations of civil rights if the Patriot Act and the President's surveillance program is not stopped?

Which party predicts increased terrorist attacks if we continue to make the terrorists mad at us?

I could keep going, but you get my drift I'm sure. Seems to me the Chicken Little label is a whole lot the pot calling the kettle chicken.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:23 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Just once I wish Blatham would quote me or represent me even remotely accurately. I have given up that this will ever be the case, but his dishonesty in characterizing me and reporting what I say is quite tedious, not that he seems to mind being tedious (and wrong) when he furthers his own apparently skewed vision of the world.

The latest in his misrepresentations of my point of view is saying I think the world is in danger of being overrun by Islam when I have never even suggested that even in theory. I would like for him to retract that, but I know he won't.


Quote:
The Islamofacist terrorists have one goal in mind and that is to put the world under the authority of Allah and Sharia.

Then why did you write this sentence?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:28 am
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Just once I wish Blatham would quote me or represent me even remotely accurately. I have given up that this will ever be the case, but his dishonesty in characterizing me and reporting what I say is quite tedious, not that he seems to mind being tedious (and wrong) when he furthers his own apparently skewed vision of the world.

The latest in his misrepresentations of my point of view is saying I think the world is in danger of being overrun by Islam when I have never even suggested that even in theory. I would like for him to retract that, but I know he won't.


Quote:
The Islamofacist terrorists have one goal in mind and that is to put the world under the authority of Allah and Sharia.

Then why did you write this sentence?


Because it is true and it was in direct response to Stradee's question. But you extrapolated that into a complete distortion, and I am due an apology.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/04/2025 at 04:42:12