|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 12:31:23 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is that why it is such a farce now ? I thought it had been like that for a long time... |
Gesundheit |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:59:53 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think it was Bush Sr. who surprised all his top military people, including Colin Powell when during the first Gulf war decided to pull out before landing Saadam. Not that I'm defending Clinton...they are all the same to me...but why so much looking back at the Clinton years? There are many presidents who have screwed things up.
|
that's exactly my point...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:36:41 PM · #53 |
i see so many people complaining that there is not enough proof, not enough facts, not enough information being given to back up the claims being made against GW Bush (though every time I look, there's oodles of it), and yet these same people are willing to believe whatever they are told about the leaders and activities of other countries, and subsequently what needs to be done about it, as long as it comes from someone in the oval office or trickles down and out of one of the massive media conglomerates.
the one thing i seem to see in common with everyone here is that they love their freedom. what i'm not seeing everyone realize is that freedom is not something that you can just kick back and relax with. the more relaxed you get with it, the more likely it is to slip out of your grasp. and i'm not just talking about terrorist attacks or weapons of mass distraction. i'm talking about internal threats.
absolute power corrupts absolutely. this expression and the truth behind it is true for all races and all forms of government. the less we question those who we put in power, the more powerful they become over us and the more corrupt they become against us.
ultimately, we are responsible for getting the best information about our leaders and for holding them accountable for their actions. typically, in a free society, the legwork of that responsibility is handled by the media who then put it in the hands of the people to decide, but the problem in the US now seems that the media are pandering more and more to the governments will. they are not asking questions so much as repeating what was said to them. rather than digging deeper, sometimes they opt to bury information that might be too controversial or upsetting to what has become their own agenda.
this is a serious problem.
i live in canada and i get about 75% american television, and i see some major differences in the media coverage of government here and in the US. here, politicians live in fear (figuratively, of course) of the media. any decision that is made is met with a lot of questions and expectations of a lot of answers, and those answers are then typically explored by the media from many different angles, calling on experts from various fields, getting opinions from people, opposing interest groups, etc. the people then are left to decide for themselves if the actions of the government in this scenario are good, bad, beneficial, negligent, responsible, etc.
and even here in canada there are many people, including myself, who complain about and question the media here. why? because its our responsibility, our civic duty, to do so, to keep the media on their toes so they can keep the government on their toes so no one ever thinks they can get away with trying to fool anyone.
because freedom isn't freedom if its only an illusion.
sometimes i wonder if the matrix is just a metaphor for what its like to be an american.
now, if anyone cares to comment on what i've written, i ask that you refrain from using more than one exclamation mark or question mark per sentence - see if you can tell me how crazy you think i am with words instead of just raw punctuation.
i truly beleive freedom and democracy are great - when they're real.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:44:46 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think it was Bush Sr. who surprised all his top military people, including Colin Powell when during the first Gulf war decided to pull out before landing Saadam. Not that I'm defending Clinton...they are all the same to me...but why so much looking back at the Clinton years? There are many presidents who have screwed things up.
|
that's exactly my point... |
No they weren't suprised, get your history right. They WERE NEVER going to get saddam... Thats the ONLY way they could get internation/UN support was to say "We won't go after Saddam". This was not new news to anyone with privy to top secret stuff at the time...
Also, I'm going to go drudge up the screw ups and pathetic attempts at leadership by past presidents for as long as you keep trying to pin things on a current president that shouldn't.
I got a lot of beef with President Bush. 9/11, the bubble burst and the war in Iraq are not on that list.
Also, the dems got more than they bargained for. Bush is doing a full investigation into intelligence that went into making us go into Iraq (for WMDs). BUT; he is also doing a full scale investigation into the clinton years, seeing as how the intelligence under Clinton was exactly the same.
If I posted some speach excerpts from Clinton and said that Bush said them, most of you liberals would call him a lying dirtbag. You "Peoeple", and yes I'm generalizing my comments, are so blinded by your hatred its beyond funny.
ALSO: Without WMDs of any kind, we were still warrented LEGALLY to attack Iraq and remove saddam, 100%!!!! But on a related note: If I was a pathetic form of government/control (the UN) and I told you to do something, but delayed punishment by 4 months (no including previous 6 years), don't you think you could hide your small in physical size WMDs in your own country the size of California and not worry about them being found? Much less in a nearby country.
Don't forget, his entire suspected stockpile of his main chemical agent (can't remember which one), once converted from gas to powder, would only take up something like 12 large suitcases. Talk about a needle in a hay-field.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:23:13 PM · #55 |
this topic has gone far from its original subject. maybe we should start a new topic under rant about bush and the war and WMD since there is obviously alot of ppl who want to talk about :)
but since we are talking about it ;), ill link everyone to a documentary film explaining details on the whole WMD "mix up". highly recomend everyone watch
if needed, codec can be found here |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:46:04 PM · #56 |
Better yet, those with conservative viewpoints or those who appreciate intelligent debate, head on over to //www.rightnation.us - there's lots to talk about there rather than trying to turn this site into a political forum.
Those who're died in the wool leftists (the term liberal really doesn't apply!) can check out //www.democraticunderground.com - but a warning here - ya better be just about as far left as you can go - otherwise these censorship-crying, "peace"-loving folks will toss you out on your ear in about 5 minutes and you'll find yourself banned!
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 17:46:45.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:06:10 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
ya better be just about as far left as you can go - otherwise these censorship-crying, "peace"-loving folks will toss you out on your ear in about 5 minutes and you'll find yourself banned! |
I always found it amazing how fast these so called more tolarant people are to boot someone from a forum or yell hate speech. I thought I was stereo typed as the hate mongore (sp?).
I've never even been able to fake being left, mention 1 or 2 things that they don't like or say something like "I don't think Bush is a lying scumbag" (anything right of extremist) and you'll find your IP banned for life... Funny how instead on right-winged forums they are included and while they are always yelled yet and having re-education attempts made on them, they are never banned unless they suffer from misconduct!
I should really stop picking on Liberals
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:08:51 PM · #58 |
accually, was just thinking it may be better off that they didnt spend 1.6 M on the superbowl commercial. as its a great idea to make 130M ppl see it, most everyone was too drunk and too blasted by humerous beer commercials to notice a real one.
so instead, take that 1.6M and make a ton of commercials durring prime time durring the week on major channels. i would like to see all of the top 10 commercials from the bush30seconds competition on primetime TV. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:03:19 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by kaycee:
ya better be just about as far left as you can go - otherwise these censorship-crying, "peace"-loving folks will toss you out on your ear in about 5 minutes and you'll find yourself banned! |
I always found it amazing how fast these so called more tolarant people are to boot someone from a forum or yell hate speech. I thought I was stereo typed as the hate mongore (sp?).
I've never even been able to fake being left, mention 1 or 2 things that they don't like or say something like "I don't think Bush is a lying scumbag" (anything right of extremist) and you'll find your IP banned for life... Funny how instead on right-winged forums they are included and while they are always yelled yet and having re-education attempts made on them, they are never banned unless they suffer from misconduct!
I should really stop picking on Liberals |
"When liberals make up a firing squad they form a circle, facing inwards."
Just one of many reasons I haven't considered myself a "liberal" for quite some time.
BTW: It's spelled "monger" (pronounced with a hard "g") meaning a purveyor or peddler of, as in fish-monger. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:21:29 PM · #60 |
Usually I hate rebates ....
======================
I just wanted to send you a quick note to let you know what happened to "Child's Pay" during the Super Bowl last night.
Hundreds of thousands of us switched over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" at exactly 8:10 and 8:35pm EST ΓΆ€“- the precise times CNN had promised us. The ad actually ran at 8:19 and 8:39pm, still during half-time but not at the exact times promised.
CNN's going to refund a big chunk of the cost for running the ad last night, and that money will be put into running "Child's Pay" in our target states. Despite the hurdles from CBS and CNN, "Child's Pay" will continue to air. Thanks again for being a part of this nation-wide campaign.
Sincerely,
--Eli Pariser
MoveOn.org Voter Fund
February 2nd, 2004
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 07:58:20 PM · #61 |
Please do drudge up the screw ups and pathetic attempts at leadership of past presidents...and don't forget to include the Octomber Surprise.
But that's a whole other matter, so just forget I even said anything.
Like I said before, I don't like the Dems either, but it certainly wasn't this bad under Clinton and our constitutional rights were not being infringed upon.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think it was Bush Sr. who surprised all his top military people, including Colin Powell when during the first Gulf war decided to pull out before landing Saadam. Not that I'm defending Clinton...they are all the same to me...but why so much looking back at the Clinton years? There are many presidents who have screwed things up.
|
that's exactly my point... |
No they weren't suprised, get your history right. They WERE NEVER going to get saddam... Thats the ONLY way they could get internation/UN support was to say "We won't go after Saddam". This was not new news to anyone with privy to top secret stuff at the time...
Also, I'm going to go drudge up the screw ups and pathetic attempts at leadership by past presidents for as long as you keep trying to pin things on a current president that shouldn't.
I got a lot of beef with President Bush. 9/11, the bubble burst and the war in Iraq are not on that list.
Also, the dems got more than they bargained for. Bush is doing a full investigation into intelligence that went into making us go into Iraq (for WMDs). BUT; he is also doing a full scale investigation into the clinton years, seeing as how the intelligence under Clinton was exactly the same.
If I posted some speach excerpts from Clinton and said that Bush said them, most of you liberals would call him a lying dirtbag. You "Peoeple", and yes I'm generalizing my comments, are so blinded by your hatred its beyond funny.
ALSO: Without WMDs of any kind, we were still warrented LEGALLY to attack Iraq and remove saddam, 100%!!!! But on a related note: If I was a pathetic form of government/control (the UN) and I told you to do something, but delayed punishment by 4 months (no including previous 6 years), don't you think you could hide your small in physical size WMDs in your own country the size of California and not worry about them being found? Much less in a nearby country.
Don't forget, his entire suspected stockpile of his main chemical agent (can't remember which one), once converted from gas to powder, would only take up something like 12 large suitcases. Talk about a needle in a hay-field. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-12 09:21:09. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:14:48 PM · #62 |
a few great quotes i wanted to share:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
"Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose." -- C. Wright Mills
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
"Fear is the path to the Dark Side... Fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate... hate leads to suffering..." -- Yoda, Star Wars
"There's enough on this planet for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed" -- Mahatma Gandhi
"Except for religious conflicts and the petty wars of feudal lords, wars are primarily fought over resources and trade. President Woodrow Wilson recognized that this was the cause of World War I: 'Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?'" -- J.W. Smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle for the Twenty-First Century
"Those with power are frequently least aware of - or least willing to acknowledge - its existence [and] those with less power are often most aware of its existence" -- Delpit
"Live life simply so that others may simply live" -- Gandhi
"The first casualty when war comes is Truth" -- U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason. But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines, and live their lives governed not by rules but by reason." -- James McGuigan
and my favorite:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:31:32 PM · #63 |
Bush team defends his military service
WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 04, 2004
The White House mounted a rare, election-year counterattack Tuesday at opposition Democrats accusing US President George W. Bush of skirting National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.
"It is outrageous and baseless. I think it represents the worst of election-year politics, and everyone should condemn this baseless attack," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declared.
Military experience has emerged at the heart of the 2004 race for the White House amid violence in Iraq and the global war on terrorism, with candidates playing up their time in uniform as a barometer of their leadership qualities.
Two Democrats -- Senator John Kerry and retired general Wesley Clark -- have campaigned with veterans at their sides, and described in detail how they were wounded in Vietnam War gun battles.
Bush, 57, avoided combat in Vietnam by serving as a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard, but some Democrats seeking his ouster have revived questions about his attendance record.
The issue drew media scrutiny in 2000, when a Boston Globe investigation found no evidence Bush performed Guard duties between May 1972 and October 1973, when he received an honorable discharge from service.
But renewed charges by Bush opponents that the president was either a "deserter" or at least "absent without leave" (AWOL) forced the White House to abandon its official policy of staying out of the Democratic fray.
Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore, a Clark backer, accused Bush of being a "deserter." Clark, who commanded NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, has not echoed that charge.
Kerry, who went from decorated veteran to Vietnam war protestor, has cautiously said: "If it's true, it's a legitimate question, but I don't know whether it's true."
"Obviously, it ought to be answered. The person who can answer it is the military and George Bush."
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe on Sunday said that if Kerry wins the party's nomination, he will have no trouble defending his national security bona fides from an "AWOL" Bush.
"I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard," he told ABC television.
On Tuesday, his Republican counterpart, Ed Gillespie, angrily accused McAuliffe of "presidential character assassination" and said "there is no ambiguity" about Bush's time in the Guard.
"The president was honorably discharged from the National Guard. He served his time," Gillespie told CNN television. "And he fought -- he served in a very dangerous area, which is fighter jets."
Bush has drawn fierce criticism from Democrats for a May 1 photo-opportunity in which he landed a jet on a homebound aircraft carrier, from which he declared "major combat" over in Iraq.
Bush's Republican rival in the 2000 election, Senator John McCain, also defended the president, saying Bush "has a record of honorable service during the Vietnam War in the National Guard where he also went through pilot training and flew a rather difficult airplane to fly and did well."
"Everything I know is that President Bush served honorably in the National Guard, and if you're going to make an allegation that somebody didn't, you better have some pretty good proof besides just throwing it out there," McCain told MSNBC.
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 23:47:35. |
|
|
|
02/04/2004 10:19:02 AM · #64 |
hot cofee, hot coffee... coming through, coming through...
|
|
|
|
02/23/2004 03:47:35 PM · #65 |
why haven't all you "caring" people been up in arms about this?
seems the door only swings one way with you people. my personal stance is that networks should be allowed to accept whatever advertising they think fits their target audience. but i guess since moveon.org isn't involved here it just doesn't seem to matter, does it?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:31:12 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:31:12 PM EDT.
|
