posted
Also, since when did there have to be hearings for something to be McCarthy like?
If you'll look at republican behavior (particularly of Orrin Hatch) during recent judicial nominations, you'll see the most reprehensible public conduct i've ever seen during my 21 years.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah... but it was bound to be taken that way... Texans are a prideful (sensitive bunch).
I actually empathize with them on that count as I have a habit of saying devastatingly rude or insulting things without meaning to. The reason I don't feel sorry ofr them is their lack of humility in response, preferring (for whatever reason) to play the oppressed artist speaking out against tyrrany rather than simply saying "I'm sorry... I really didn't mean to insult y'all. My bad."
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of all the bad things that have happened in the United States of America, George W. Bush is not responsible for any of them.
Much like Kenneth Lay wasn't responsible for any of the bad stuff that happened at Enron. __________________________________________________
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Dixie Chicks made innapropriate comments in an innapropriate place for an attempted monetary gain. Their gamble failed and they suffered the consequences, I pity them not. Why do you think people associate anti-war with anti-soldier? Maybe its because of all the Vietnam War protesters screaming, "Baby Killers!!!" World War II vets had victory parades, Korean vets were ignored, and Vietnam vets were spit on. Bush and the Republican Party had nothing to do with that sentiment, the protesters did it to themselves.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to know if those IQ scores were accurate? What are guys with 160, 170, 180+ IQs doing in politics? Shouldn't they be philosophers or scientists or mathematicians or, well, anything important? Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My stereotype of Texans is that they are rugged individualists who take pride in their independence. How can Bush, who rode his daddy's coat tails all the way to the presidency, be representative of Texans?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Texans are individualists, but they also have more state pride than any other state I've been to. So because of this it makes sense for them to react that way. Being a Texan means more to Texans than being a Virginian means to Virginians or Floridians to Floridians.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Dixie Chicks made innapropriate comments in an innapropriate place for an attempted monetary gain."
Why were they inappropriate comments in an inappropriate place? It seems to me that the comments were both appropriate to the place AND the topic at hand.
Moreover, why do you think they criticized the president for attempted monetary gain?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "topic" was a concert, not a political discussion. The comment was innapropriate for the place it was given because it was done in front of a foreign audience condemning the American president. My point wasn't that they were condemning Bush because he was trying to get a monetary gain, but that they were attempting to make money by those comments. Their intention was to gain support from a crowd they assumed was anti-Bush. Notice how they backed off their comments afterward when they saw the economic backlash. Bush on the other hand has not tried to make money off of this war. It would be completely illogical to do so. It would be a lot easier to just open Iraq to American investment by lifting the sanctions. That way he could have skipped the whole inevitable "chaos" period.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I really don't want to harp on this, but let's ask a few questions:
1) Do you really believe that the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush -- on behalf of their state -- because they thought it would make more Brits buy their albums?
2) Do you really believe that it is inappropriate for citizens of the United States to criticize our president in the presence of foreigners?
3) Do you really believe that the Dixie Chicks "backed off" of their earlier statement on their own initiative, and not because Sony whapped them hard in the back of their heads with their contract?
4) Do you really believe that Bush, his friends, and his business partners have not tried to make money off this war?
posted
Screw the Dixie Chicks, who really cares what they say about politics except for some disappointed fans?
TomD, for my views on criticizing the president see below. Question 4) Of course they have tried to make money, they are rich businessmen. Seeking profits is one thing, but all of those "no-bid" contracts awarded before,during and after the Iraq war would make even Huey Long blush in shame.
Concerning the original "resume": it's a little stunning to see all of that in one long post. While some of it is either not true, half-true, or coincidental, enough of it sticks to Dubya that if he is re-elected, it will be the biggest election triumph since Nixon's re-election in 74, after Watergate. There were plenty of mistakes and exaggerations in that "resume," but there is plenty of sheer incompetence and corruption as well. The sad thing is, newfoundlogic is right: many Americans think Bush has done a bang-up job.
quote: As far as I and many other Americans are concerned Bush has been successful in his presidency especially concerning foreign policy.
Personally, I don't give a damn about alienating the world [etc.]
nfl. So a country can have a successful foreign policy while alienating the world? HUH??
Bush has made unilateralism his mantra: pulling us out of the Kyoto Accords for global warming, refusing to subscribe to any international courts, pulling out of the ABM treaty with Russia, defying the UN by invading Iraq, etc.
And does anybody remember when the Republican "Contract with America" in 1994 called for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution (I think it was #1 one on the contract)? Good thing that never passed, because after the huge Bush tax cut rammed through Congress, the yearly deficit went from projected surpluses in the near future to a record-breaking $480 billion++ deficit this fiscal year, with more incredible deficits to come.
Nfl, to say "Its ridiculous to say Bush has squashed criticism when you're still talking now" is not good logic. Just because we are not in a totalitarian state does not mean the administration did not make idiotic and inflammatory remarks intended to discourage all dissent to the Iraq war. While I believe Bush never said it directly, ranking members of his administration have said more than once (Ashcroft while testifying to Congress) that it is unpatriotic to criticize the president, a sentiment I as well as many other Americans find apalling in an open democracy. Republicans certainly didn't practice this during the Clinton years.
Just so nfl doesn't think I'm picking on just him, I think Pod is right to disagree with R. Hart about history's judgement; I don't think historians will be kind to Bush.
posted
I'm surprised that, besides Godric, no one has commented on that ridiculous IQ statement. Was no one surprised that the Democratic presidents were all supposedly smarter than the Republicans (except Nixon)? Was no one surprised that several of those presidents would have been super geniuses capable of calculating stellar navigation in their heads while holding a conversation and balancing the federal budget?
posted
hmmm, you forgot "i saved an entire nation of people from the rule of a heinous, evil dictator." (Iraq) and "I rooted out a controlling organization that had been ruthlessly running a country and disbanded countless terrorist cells as well as killed countless would-be terrorist murdering slime." (Afganistan)
and as far as the people revolting again, do you honestly think that ANY person would EVER have been able to truly change anything over there? it's not bush, it's EVERYONE. all that matters is that there are less of them than there were. people are better off over there whether they know it or not.
oh, and dont forget about the part where he got the country through the most terrible tragety in its history better than anyone would have imagined possible...
and what about the fact that he also held the highest presidential satisfaction rating in history for quite a while. quite a reminder of "fairweather friends" no? love him when he does what you want and then trash him when he doesn't.
people like you make me sick. get your facts straight and use your brain. you're as bad as the friggin iraqis. sing bushes praises one day and curse him the next. get the hell out of the country if you dont like it. just keep your two faced self out of the political world in any case.
posted
heh, i was in the middle of editing my post when you replied w/ that.... go me for proof reading
Posts: 27 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"all that matters is that there are less of them than there were."
Elektron, many of the things you said were staggeringly ignorant. This one, however, was the ignorantest. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
eleKtron, you know, I think the biggest problems I have with posts like that (your first one) is the contrast between the moral superiority complex and the seemingly complete lack of educational superiority. When did the schools stop teaching Capital letters? And History, apparently. Love it or leave it? Isn't the First Amendment the right to free speech? Maybe you are the one who should leave since you obviously don't agree with the very essence of the country's being.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, and know what i find interesting? remember when clinton did his littler tantrum in iraq? bombed them for a few days and such... no one seemed to find a problem with that.... the interesting thing about that whole deal was that it accomplished NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. but no one hated on him for that. even thr republicans (myself included) had his back... it was the ideals behind it that mattered.
now bush takes that 5 levels up and actually gets SOMETHING done over there and people do nothing but trash him and crap...
i dont know about you, but that makes no sense to me...
posted
kayla- hmmmmm, so you cut me down because i dont capitalize letters.... looks like you have more important issues to work out than i do... this is the internet, not my english term paper. and you're definatley not my professor.
quote:Isn't the First Amendment the right to free speech?
you said it not me... you basically cut me down because of something i said/the way i said it and then threw this out there. lol, way to contradict yourself...
Posts: 27 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to the forum, elektron. Now Ryan Hart will have some competition for "most reactionary."
people like you make me sick. get your facts straight and use your brain.--elektron Ditto--Morbo
you're as bad as the friggin iraqis. sing bushes praises one day and curse him the next. get the hell out of the country if you dont like it.--elektron Perhaps you just don't get the concept of free speech--it's in the Bill of Rights. I missed the part about arbitrary exile by blowhards. The right to bitch about our rulers is as American as apple pie.--Morbo
just keep your two faced self out of the political world in any case--elektron
Who specifically was two-faced? The author of the original e-mailed resume? A hatrack poster? Someone else --Morbo
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have the right to free speech. So do I. What part of that do you not understand?
If you want to sound ignorant/uneducated, or just want to give the impression that your time is too valuable to waste on the common courtesy of making your post readable, that's fine. However, it is my right to make fun of you and dismiss you out of hand for doing so. It's not a contradiction. If I told you to shut the hell up, that would be a contradiction.
You know what? I don't have the time to deal with you today.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
morbo- About the clinton question: only that it's odd that people supported him an a pretty pointless show of force back then and wont support bush now when he actually did something. just says something pretty lousy about america....
About the two faced question: maybe two faced was the wrong term... my meaning is that people dont know or care what they believe. they will follow the crowd and media and trash bush at the lightest whim despite the incredible good he;s done for the country. why is it come election time people don't think about all the good the previous president did, only the bad...
kayla- lol, i DID make my post readable. as you recall i edited it to get rid of the couple typo's. is my lack of capitaization causing you to have trouble reading reading my post? how long have you actually been around on the internet? 95% of the the conversations that go on over the internet have no capitalization and/or incorrect punctuation. get used to it. if this were a term paper as i said before i would certainly spend the time to make sure all the grammatical errors were fixed. this, however, is not.... sorry to disappoint, but i dont plan on publishing any of this...
-------------------------------------------------
Let me throw in something else i find interesting. It's really kinda funny that all the democratic presidential candidates are smashing on bush over iraq... Bill Clinton came out about a month ago and said he totally backs all that bush did in iraq... kinda weird how that happens. i still wish i could have an explanation for such a huge gaping hole here. i think the democrats running for election probably dont even believe what they themselves are saying about iraq. they're just trying to light the emotions of the voters to score some votes... but that pure speculation/theory...
quote:you forgot "i saved an entire nation of people from the rule of a heinous, evil dictator." (Iraq)
Elektron, if only Bush and his people had emphasized that before the war, it might have some credability. Unfortunately, the reason given was mainly "an imminent threat to America from Iraq," pretty funny considering they couldn't shoot down a single US plane flying in their own airspace.
quote:and "I rooted out a controlling organization that had been ruthlessly running a country and disbanded countless terrorist cells as well as killed countless would-be terrorist murdering slime." (Afganistan)
I was for the war in Afghan., because I thought it necessary after 9/11. It was the foundation of al-Quada strength. I was against Iraq II because I don't think it was in the best interests of America. Of course the early military campaign went well (as almost anyone would have predicted), but what now? I fear a quagmire with no end-game in sight.
quote: and as far as the people revolting again, do you honestly think that ANY person would EVER have been able to truly change anything over there?
A crucial reason revolt was impossible was Bush Sr. f***ed up the treaty negotiations after Gulf I, allowing Saddam to crush the Shi'ia and Kurds with helicopter gunships. A classic example how half-measures are often the worst course, and of losing a war at the treaty table--we kicked him out of Kuwait but left him with his totalitarian forces intact. And we encouraged the Shi'ia and Kurds to revolt, then turned our backs on them when they needed our support, a blunder we are still feeling in relations with those groups today. Just like Cubans were abandoned by Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs.
posted
I love the "this isn't a term paper argument". I love it in the same way I love bull crap. Which is to say, I don't love it all. Now, I realize when you're talking to Joe 12-year old gamer on Battle.net you don't use caps and you don't bother with grammar, and that's fine for that community. This is a different community. Different community, different expectations. People here *are* going to be bothered if you don't use proper grammar.
Granted, porcelein girl doesn't use caps either. But there's a difference between the two of you. She's nice. You're being a wanker.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could care less if you capitolize or what ever. But many on this forum do, so they'll mock you or ignore you if your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. Just FYI.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
eleKtron - While I'm not quite the Nazi some people around here are, capitalization and proper grammar/punctuation is a sign that you take other people into consideration. Because we've been raised reading books, the mind automatically reads much easier and faster if the written language is correct.
It's a courtesy.
The reason why this may be something that you should take into consideration is that you're sharing ideas with people here. You're trying to communicate your concepts, opinions and ideologies and, at the same time, have others share theirs with you. Because that is your goal, by showing common courtesy you are going to have a much more willing audience - they will know you at least care that much about them, and so will be far more persuaded by your words. Love stimulates interest, and interest stimulates learning. Think of it as a mild form of agape.
Oh, and chill a little before you hit the "add reply" button. Flaming anyone around here won't do any good but get yourself ignored by reasonable people who don't appreciate ad hominems and flame-worthy language. Hatrack is a good place, and it deserves respect. If you don't see that yet, you will. And when you do and reread your earliest posts, you'll feel like SUCH a punk.
posted
So, the longer I've been online, the less often I'll use capital letters? I bet Tom Davidson would disagree with that.
quote:sorry to disappoint, but i dont plan on publishing any of this...
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when you hit submit, that is exactly what you are doing.
quote: if this were a term paper as i said before i would certainly spend the time to make sure all the grammatical errors were fixed.
Why would you do that for a term paper, but not us? Do you normally treat your friends with less courtesy and respect than you do your teachers?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Ralphie always says everything so much better than I do. When I'm tired I get feisty. When she's tired she somehow seems to get more eloquent. There is no justice
[ September 05, 2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Elektron, if only Bush and his people had emphasized that before the war, it might have some credability. Unfortunately, the reason given was mainly "an imminent threat to America from Iraq," pretty funny considering they couldn't shoot down a single US plane flying in their own airspace
well, al-quada(sp?) certainly couldn't shoot down a figher jet, but they sure did kill a lot of americans... it's called terrorism and harboring it.
as far as the quagmire goes, sadly i would have to agree with you...
half measures? wow i would totally agree with you there. Gulf war one, bay of pigs, vietnam, you name it. even clintons attacks in iraq... it IS kinda funny how yaknow, 1000 years ago when a coutry conquired another they WIPED it out. the problem was gone... now we are more worried about other things and the problem remains. not that i want us to nuke iraq or anything and wipe it out, but i think a more focused approach to WIPE OUT the powers at be would be better. my poitions concerning bush still stand but there's obviosly ALWAYS room for improvment. he didnt get the job completely done but he sure did a heckuva lot more than anyone else.
The thing that pisses me off about people vs bush is that they trash EVERYTHING he's done. he did a TON of good for this country that people either ignore or twist so it's now bad... and that's just sickening...
Posts: 27 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, what did I tell ya? The GrammatikFurer ( a real member name) and the Editor-in-chief haven't even shown up. Yet.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
This isn't 95% of the internet. I'm not saying we are special, or anything. I'm just saying, that if you read this forum, you will find people capitalizing even silly fluff.
It is a convention of this particular internet community.
It is harder to see where sentences begin when you don't use capitals. Even with the period showing where the previous sentence ended, the brain may feel like something is missing. Is that where the sentence really begins, or is it a fragment?
Most people capitalize without even thinking about it. It isn't hard to get into the habit of hitting that shift button at the appropriate time. So when it seems like such a small thing to do, to follow style conventions that you learned in kindergarten, or first grade, it feels to the rest of us more a problem of being lazy than a problem of education. The laziness appears to us to show a lack of desire to actually contribute. We feel you just want to stir the pot, and tend to downgrade our perceptions of your posts to 'troll'.
Is this true for every internet community? No. To Hatrack? Yes. That tiny bit of effort will gain you a bit more respect.
Also, don't make assumptions about how people have felt about Bush when you haven't even been here for the whole administration. For the most part, I don't think I've seen one fairweather Bush friend here. They've pretty much always disagreed him.
I'm irritated because a lot of our problems now don't stem from Bush, but from the previous administration dropping the ball with both Iraq AND with our economy. There were lots of indications that the economy would slump way before Bush ever took office. The funny thing about it, is the Clinton administration probably actually couldn't have done a thing about it. It arose from a technology gold rush that became over inflated. Presidents really have very little control over the economy.
posted
And here I thought publishing something meant entering something into the public domain. Just because nobody pays you to press "post" doesn't mean it hasn't been published. But now you're going to yell at me for arguing semantics.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, there really is NO need to be this vehement. People around here do not require a bashing over the head. They're REASONABLE people.
I've been to a lot of forums where flaming is the norm, but it's the exception to the rule here. It's not required and, actually, will do more harm than good for your argument.
quote: 1000 years ago when a country conquired another they WIPED it out. the problem was gone.
elektron
One weird but chillingly logical idea I've read in recent years is that slavery was actually a good thing when first invented, what, 5,000 years ago? Because after that at least some of a conquered tribe or nation lived on, instead of the whole population being put to the sword (or club.)
Mind you, I AM NOT PRO-SLAVERY. But it is an interesting idea.
posted
for thsoe who have a problem with my "writing" techniques:
sorry you have issues with it. consider it my own personal literary style if you must. I've been around on the internet for a long time and it's just the way i've developed my communication. among certain communities it may rub people the wrong way, but it's the way i type. sorry if it offends but it's not changing. gosh, instead of concentrationg that something as stupid as that, stick to the topic at hand and start a new topic about poor grammar in the internet if it tickes your fancy. but doing that here is doing nothing but looking for another argument within the argument....
Posts: 27 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is interesting, Morbo. Growth of civiliation. Some behaviors are worse than others, and as we have grown up through the list, behaviors that were once considered benevolent and more moral are now barbaric.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo- now THAT'S a chilling idea right there... it's kinda a "Xenocide" kinda thought. Do you wipe them out to keep the Descolada from spreading or do you spare them at the possible expense of the universe...
its not right in-line with that but if you could go back and change it, would ya, yaknow?
I could care less about your spelling or punctuation. Your text is at least comprehensible -- unlike the product of MANY of the really egregiously bad communicators we occasionally get on this forum -- so it's no biggie (although you should probably expect to get teased about it by some of our resident Grammar Nazis.)
But your actual ARGUMENTS are, well, stupid. It's fairly clear that you haven't read the dozens of conversations we've had on this board over the last year on exactly this topic, because you're bringing up tired, jingoistic cliches instead of some new and interesting perspective.
I would address you point by point, but first I'll refer you to our search engine, which you can use to find the many OTHER debates on this issue that have, quite frankly, been far more coherent than this one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
--Morbo
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Yet.
