4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
snookered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.


It seems that I need to understand better: the post came to me the same as above
Foxfyre wrote:
. So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....
0 Replies
 
snookered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

BUT,when Nancy and the dems were sworn in,they made apoint of saying that they would work a full week every week.
They havent done so yet,andI am wondering why not?


But, MM, your link is to what appears to be a meeting schedule. Are you drawing a conclusion that the House members are not working if they are not meeting on the floor?

I have only two meetings this week, too, both on Thursday, but I come to work every day.


No,that wasnt my conclusion at all.

BUT,with a little bit of research,I could find the comments from some on the left on here complaining that the previous congress was a "do nothing" congress,with the least amount of sessions and the least amount of actual "floor time" of any congress in history.
Then it was congress was not working,now its "they are working,just not having sessions on the house floor".

So,using that same logic,the previous congress,whether they were meeting with constituents,having committee meetings,or meeting on the house floor,were still working,werent they?

Why is it now OK to not have sessions in the house,but it wasnt ok for the repubs to do the same thing?


Oh, it's not just the 'floor time'; the 109 was the do-nothing congress b/c they didn't get anything done.

Cycloptichorn



The difference is that the old republican controlled congress weren't even in Washinton. Takes a genius to raise you.
0 Replies
 
snookered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 07:01 pm
snookered wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
From The Times
March 02, 2007

Oh George, what will we do when you're gone?
Our columnist on an easy target for America-bashers - Gerard Baker

Somewhere, deep down, tucked away underneath their loathing for George Bush, in a secret place where the lights of smart dinner-party conversation and clever debating-society repartee never shine, the growing hordes of America-bashers must dread the moment he leaves office.

When President Bush goes into the Texas sunset, and especially if he is replaced by an enlightened, world-embracing Democrat, their one excuse, their sole explanation for all human suffering in the world will disappear too. And they may just find that the world is not as simple as they thought it was.
Even as some future Democratic president proclaims his commitment to renewing alliances, he is sure to be greeted with all kinds of explanations as to why the Europeans are just not quite ready to make that a joint ownership. When that moment comes, everyone will be urgently wishing they still had George Bush to blame.
SOURCE


For a minute I actually thought that you had an original thought. Didn't see the Tribute to the Times. Since you did post anothers thoughts and words, you must believe them. Anyone can cut and paste. But you disgust me! A person playing intelligent but in actuality so so much. What's worst is that you believe everything you read, especially a fishwrapper.
Let's see what about the past six years that's so great (why not include the past seven to include when the real religious terrorists zealots flew planes into The Twin World Towers. That is a great start to the nest seven years.
There are reasons for labels put on people, racial profiles, and it's interesting how many rumors turn out to be true. It it act's like a moron, talks like one, dismisses suggestions requested, goes to war then tells congress, then this is MORON BUSH.
The President in office usually does take blame sometimes unduely. However, not before Bush has the United States lost respect with so many nations. He is a joke around the world. It's not by happenstance that Bush gets labeled. It's because many of our problems are directly derived by his inadequate understanding of world relations and human relations for that matter.
Reputations are not a fluke. By far reputations are earned and true, wether you like it or not.
Bush and bush alone decided to invade Iraq. He owns this tragedy. I knew and know that this war cannot be won. I have said it before. So why would Bush get into a unwinable war? Because he has traits of a FASCIST PEOPLE! The consequences of his actions, American Troops getting blown apart, innocent Iraquis getting killed by the thousands. Kidnappings, beheadings, terrible bombs tearing heavily armoured tanks and blowing our soldiers apart.
This is Bushs' stupidity and is why HE GETS BLAMED.
I suppose Haliburton and Cheney rings no bell in you mind? There is a reason people get reputations good or bad.

What I find most disgusting in this article, is not one single mention about all the American soldiers killed and maimed.

If your not shamed you might be a Fascist.


Foxfyre, sorry about the "you disgust me" it was uncaleed for and untrue.
Peace
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 08:19 pm
No harm no foul, Snookered. But note that this is the Bush Supporters thread, and those who see more to the current administration than dead soldiers and fodder for hateful trolls, idiots, and spammers, do use this thread to post material, thoughts, concepts, etc. of what we can find positive and pertinent to post.

No writer can put every thought and every pertinent issue into a single column. To decide whether the writer 'is disgusting', one must evaluate the information provided outside of a tunnel visioned ideology and perhaps also know what else the writer has written..

This writer was making a particular point and did it quite eloquently. And it is pertinent to this thread and that is why I posted it here.

Bush supporters do not champion anybody when the person is clearly wrong and I don't know a one of us who mindlessly follows the party line or the talking points of the day. But we can understand that both good and bad stuff can exist in the same box.

I highly recommend consideration of that kind of ideology. To do otherwise could turn you into a troll, spammer, or idiot that do indeed seem to not have an original thought of their own.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 08:24 pm
snookered wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.


It seems that I need to understand better: the post came to me the same as above quote="Foxfyre". So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....


Again no harm no foul Snookered. The quote within a quote and especially when you have quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes, it can be confusing.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 02:10 am
Foxfyre wrote:
snookered wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.


It seems that I need to understand better: the post came to me the same as above quote="Foxfyre". So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....


Again no harm no foul Snookered. The quote within a quote and especially when you have quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes, it can be confusing.


Morning all.

Snookered, Foxy (an honourable and steadfast lady, though somewhat deluded) will not usually reply to me because I have earned for myself the soubriquet of "troll" or "idiot".
And also because she can't think of a suitable reply to many of my posts, I assume. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 07:51 am
Snookered, please don't confuse what others want you to see with what is. Those whose only purpose on this thread is to post hateful posts re our President and those who aren't rabid liberals are indeed trolls and/or spammers often of the most rude, unkind, and ignorant species. And that I prefer to have conversations with people who can debate and wrestle with issues without calling other members liars or worse is just me. Not to worry.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 07:57 am
Only to adjust the above a bit:

spam is a violation of the "Terms of Use" here. There's a buttom on right top where you can report such, snookered.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:06 am
While it's not unusual for some posters to accuse others of the use of spam (Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, which are almost universally undesired. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, mobile phone messaging spam and junk fax transmissions.) I should be noted that those who accuse others of spamming are most often simply attacking those with whom they disagree. The same could be said of those that consistently regard any opposition to their position as (idiots and psychos/liberals).
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:08 am
My late grandfather was an iron worker. (a faithful union member too) Every so often he would come home from a hard days labor cussing about the men around him cussing. My late grandmother would just shake her head and chuckle at the irony. Foxfrye, you put me in mind of my grandfather when you say hateful things about those of us trolls saying hateful things.

In any event, you made an interesting comment. Rather than paraphrasing, as I know you will say I am saying something you didn't say, I will just copy the particular comment I had in mind.

Quote:
Bush supporters do not champion anybody when the person is clearly wrong and I don't know a one of us who mindlessly follows the party line or the talking points of the day. But we can understand that both good and bad stuff can exist in the same box.


Bearing this in mind, what do you make of the following:

Quote:


(for a link at the video where you can hear her words for yourself
Go Here )
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:25 am
There is some history behind that comment, Revel--an inside joke-- and while I do not at all approve of that kind of humor, it was intended as a humorous remark when placed within that history. But I'll also thump Coulter. She shouldn't have used the word at CPAC even if it didn't have the meaning one might think if it was taken at face value.

I wish, however, that there was the same kind of indignation aimed at ALL people who use such unkind or inappropriate humor. The indignation, outrage, and judgmentalism seems to be aimed only at conservatives who make unkind remarks. Probably folks would take it more to heart if the criticism was uniformly applied.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 08:31 am
When I see a rejection by a republican presidential candidate of Coulters faggot remarks, I will probably support that candidate (not likely I'm guessing)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:13 am
Foxfyre wrote:
There is some history behind that comment, Revel--an inside joke-- and while I do not at all approve of that kind of humor, it was intended as a humorous remark when placed within that history. But I'll also thump Coulter. She shouldn't have used the word at CPAC even if it didn't have the meaning one might think if it was taken at face value.

I wish, however, that there was the same kind of indignation aimed at ALL people who use such unkind or inappropriate humor. The indignation, outrage, and judgmentalism seems to be aimed only at conservatives who make unkind remarks. Probably folks would take it more to heart if the criticism was uniformly applied.


Is this the history?

Taken at face value, Ok.

Quote:


She was going to talk about Edwards but since she didn't want to go into rehab for using the word "faggot" (which btw-she used it) she couldn't really talk about Edwards. In other words the face value of her comments is she thinks Edwards is gay but she was going to use the slur word "faggot". I guess because he combs his hair.

John Edwards Feeling Pretty
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:24 am
revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
There is some history behind that comment, Revel--an inside joke-- and while I do not at all approve of that kind of humor, it was intended as a humorous remark when placed within that history. But I'll also thump Coulter. She shouldn't have used the word at CPAC even if it didn't have the meaning one might think if it was taken at face value.

I wish, however, that there was the same kind of indignation aimed at ALL people who use such unkind or inappropriate humor. The indignation, outrage, and judgmentalism seems to be aimed only at conservatives who make unkind remarks. Probably folks would take it more to heart if the criticism was uniformly applied.


Is this the history?

Taken at face value, Ok.

Quote:


She was going to talk about Edwards but since she didn't want to go into rehab for using the word "faggot" (which btw-she used it) she couldn't really talk about Edwards. In other words the face value of her comments is she thinks Edwards is gay but she was going to use the slur word "faggot". I guess because he combs his hair. I agree with one of the other commenters, Obama is hotter.

John Edwards Feeling Pretty


The 'faggot' comment was of course related to the Washington comment. The history also goes all the way back to the Kerry/Edwards campaign and a particular discussion that happened related to photos of Kerry and Edwards that looked like a gay relationship but which was just teasing as nobody thinks either guy is gay. I won't state it specifically because I don't remember all the details or even who was involved, but I do remember the incident. I'm thinking it was on Saturday Night Live but I can't remember for sure.

"Faggot" in the manner Coulter used it as CPAC was not intended to be complimentary, however, as she has not pulled any punches in her contempt for Edwards in some legal defense he did before he went into politics. But that is another story entirely.

Coulter should not have used the term at CPAC. It was coarse and unkind and unnecessary and we have way too much of that in our modern society.

But again, the criticism of this kind of stuff is not applied equitably and that also creates a more coarse and rankorous dialogue in America. And Coulter will be condemned ad nauseum for her inappropriate humor and, in the minds of some, that wipes out all the really funny stuff she does. Of course such blanket condemnation is not applied when somebody of the 'other party' commits an inappropriate or unobjectionable gaffe.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:26 am
I noticed that I forgot the provide a link for this post for the quoted Satan's Chambermaid Strikes Again article.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:35 am
Yeah, the Left Coaster is one that we conservatives affectionately refer to as one of the more radical left wing wacko blogs. Of course they're on Lieberman's case because he dared buck the party line. I really REALLY hope they keep it up until he is finally so disgusted that he does come over the GOP side where he belongs.

And they are WAY behind the curve on Walter Reed. When President Bush was advised of the problems there, he fired the ones in charge and gave orders to the replacement to fix the problem. And that was done before yesterday's post on that. But don't expect the President to get any credit on a blog like that.

But the criticism of Coulter on this one is valid. I can't defend her remarks re Edwards other than trying to be sure she is hung for the right crime.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:49 am
Yea, he fired the ones in charge but hired Kiley, a guy who fully aware of the army's troubles but ignored it.

Hospital Officials Knew of Neglect

Quote:
Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, said he ran into Kiley in the foyer of the command headquarters at Walter Reed shortly after the Iraq war began and told him that "there are people in the barracks who are drinking themselves to death and people who are sharing drugs and people not getting the care they need."

"I met guys who weren't going to appointments because the hospital didn't even know they were there," Robinson said. Kiley told him to speak to a sergeant major, a top enlisted officer.

A recent Washington Post series detailed conditions at Walter Reed, including those at Building 18, a dingy former hotel on Georgia Avenue where the wounded were housed among mice, mold, rot and cockroaches.

Kiley lives across the street from Building 18. From his quarters, he can see the scrappy building and busy traffic the soldiers must cross to get to the 113-acre post. At a news conference last week, Kiley, who declined several requests for interviews for this article, said that the problems of Building 18 "weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them." He also said they were not "emblematic of a process of Walter Reed that has abandoned soldiers and their families."

But according to interviews, Kiley, his successive commanders at Walter Reed and various top noncommissioned officers in charge of soldiers' lives have heard a stream of complaints about outpatient treatment over the past several years. The complaints have surfaced at town hall meetings for staff and soldiers, at commanders' "sensing sessions" in which soldiers or officers are encouraged to speak freely, and in several inspector general's reports detailing building conditions, safety issues and other matters.

Retired Maj. Gen. Kenneth L. Farmer Jr., who commanded Walter Reed for two years until last August, said that he was aware of outpatient problems and that there were "ongoing reviews and discussions" about how to fix them when he left. He said he shared many of those issues with Kiley, his immediate commander. Last summer when he turned over command to Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, Farmer said, "there were a variety of things we identified as opportunities for continued improvement."

In 2004, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his wife stopped visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders over troubling incidents he witnessed but was rebuffed or ignored. "When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities of Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable," said Young, who began visiting the wounded recuperating at other facilities.

Beverly Young said she complained to Kiley several times. She once visited a soldier who was lying in urine on his mattress pad in the hospital. When a nurse ignored her, Young said, "I went flying down to Kevin Kiley's office again, and got nowhere. He has skirted this stuff for five years and blamed everyone else."

Quote:
Young said that even after Kiley left Walter Reed to become the Army's surgeon general, "if anything could have been done to correct problems, he could have done it."


Soldiers and family members say their complaints have been ignored by commanders at many levels.

More than a year ago, Chief Warrant Officer Jayson Kendrick, an outpatient, attended a sensing session, the Army's version of a town hall meeting where concerns are raised in front of the chain of command. Kendrick spoke about the deterioration and crowded conditions of the outpatient administrative building, which had secondhand computers and office furniture shoved into cubicles, creating chaos for family members. An inspector general attending the meeting "chuckled and said, 'What do you want, pool tables and Ping-Pong tables in there?' " Kendrick recalled.

Army officials have been at other meetings in which outpatient problems were detailed.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Kiley sat in a congressional hearing room as Sgt. 1st Class John Allen, injured in Afghanistan in 2002, described what he called a "dysfunctional system" at Walter Reed in which "soldiers go months without pay, nowhere to live, their medical appointments canceled." Allen added: "The result is a massive stress and mental pain causing further harm. It would be very easy to correct the situation if the command element climate supported it. The command staff at Walter Reed needs to show their care."

In 2006, Joe Wilson, a clinical social worker in the department of psychiatry, briefed several colonels at Walter Reed about problems and steps that could be taken to improve living conditions at Building 18. Last March, he also shared the findings of a survey his department had conducted.

It found that 75 percent of outpatients said their experience at Walter Reed had been "stressful" and that there was a "significant population of unsatisfied, frustrated, disenfranchised patients." Military commanders played down the findings.

"These people knew about it," Wilson said. "The bottom line is, people knew about it but the culture of the Army didn't allow it to be addressed."

Last October, Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was taken to Walter Reed by a friend concerned about outpatient treatment. She attended a weekly meeting, called Girls Time Out, at which wives, girlfriends and mothers of soldiers exchange stories and offer support.

According to three people who attended the gathering, Rumsfeld listened quietly. Some of the women did not know who she was. At the end of the meeting, Rumsfeld asked one of the staff members whether she thought that the soldiers her husband was meeting on his visits had been handpicked to paint a rosy picture of their time there. The answer was yes.

When Walter Reed officials found out that Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her -- a woman who had volunteered there many times -- that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.

Last week, the Army relieved of duty several low-ranking soldiers who managed outpatients. This week, in a move that some soldiers viewed as reprisal for speaking to the media, the wounded troops were told that early-morning room inspections would be held and that further contact with reporters is prohibited.

Yesterday, Walter Reed received an unscheduled inspection by a hospital accreditation agency. Members of the Joint Commission, formerly the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, began a two-day visit "for cause" to examine discharge practices that have allowed soldiers to go missing or unaccounted for after they are released from the hospital.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:53 am
I'm sure you want to believe two Washington Post writers who are writing pure personal opinion in a quite biased manner, Revel, even aside from your own--can we say biased?--interpretation of what was written. I prefer to wait to see if they clean up their act instead of condemning them before they even start.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:54 am
Ann Coulter.... isn't that the horse faced transexual who had it's 15 minutes last year?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:57 am
15 minutes this year too Bear.
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 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2024 at 07:26:23