|
Oh Shut Up! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| discojoe |
Ya i just saw a report on it.
1. Apparently alot of the stuff has been financed through vocal Bush campaign supporters, and the group itself has been given financial gifts by these supporters. Since its not financed by the campaign itself, i guess they have every right to express themselves. But it does show a definite incentive for deceit.
2. A couple the members have gone on record very recently (i think one sworn under owth in court) applauding Kerry his war efforts and confirmed his merit for the medals. Some of the comments took a serious beating on the credibility of the group.
3. Taking a page out of Michael Moore's F911, the group completely takes comments made by Kerry after the war out of context. He says something along the line of: "they claimed they tortured, raped and mutilated people", quoting some of the veterans and their admitions during the war and using it for his anti-war agenda. However in the commercials to come out next week they omit the first part of the quote "they said" to make it seem like he was making the accusations himself and was criticising his own officers.
While i will no doubt admit Kerry has whined alot about this I do understand his position. The man risked his life in the war for his country, fought through horrors and attrocities, and continued to fight for his country despite his convictions against the cause.
Kids like us growing up sitting in front of our computers 5 hours a day in such unprecidented peace, prosperity and freedom have absolutely no idea of the brutal horrors and attrocities of war. We think we know, but we dont know. I know it sounds like a mushy liberal platitude, but its the absolute truth. My grandfather still to this day has not spoken a word to his wife children or grandchildren about his experience in the second world war. His experience was so brutally psychologically damaging he he just cant do it. And he is the farthest thing from a weak man. But I know, that someone spitting on his service, his sacrifices given all the horrifying things he saw and had to do, is the worst insult I can immagine. Worse than any racial slur, worse than any insult against his family.
While I think its absolutely recidulous he has taken his service in the Army as part of his campaign to the lengths he has, and while there really isnt much else in ways of substance in his campaign to attack or address, I think his service in war, as with any persons service, should be handled with far more caution, care and dignity than what these liars have done. Especially given Bush's record.
Yes farenheit 911 was a bad movie. It was boring, chalk full of nothing important, deceitful and in many ways wrong. But at least it focused primarily on Bush's political face (aside from a few references to his miserably failed business attempts). I think attacking and lying about someone's service in war is very different, and my personal opinion Kerry has every right to be enraged. Just like it would be wrong for people to lie and invent stories about young Israeli soldiers in their years in service for left wing political gains. Thats my opinion though, an opinion from the outside looking in. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
If Bush can take a few punches, grow the balls to absorb a few yourselves.
|
are you so sure that he can?
Bush Using Anti-Depressants
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs were ordered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician. Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a Bush walked off stage on July 7, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
Bush’s emotional stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad.”
Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.
“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”
Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
The exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President’s annual physical, details of the President’s health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artm...icle_4921.shtml |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| Unfortunately I think CHB is probably a rag only useful for fishrap like Newsmax or the NY Post. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Can you specify one good thing in particular that Clinton did for the USA?
|
Clinton was a two term president during, arguably, the most prosperous time in the country's history.
BTW the word liberal is a pretty varied term around the world. I have spoken to a number of liberals in europe who say they use it there to describe the right. I dont know if thats what you are arguing, as a matter of fact i have no idea what you are arguing about. Im not sure how anyone could be arguing so ferociously about symantics. :conf: :conf: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
Clinton was a two term president during, arguably, the most prosperous time in the country's history. |
You didn't answer the question. What did Clinton do that contributed to that?
The economy only feels the real effects of a presidency years afterwards. That's why it's impossible to evaluate the quality of a president during his term - it has to be looked at in hindsight to see where those policies led. One might well argue that the so-called prosperity of the USA during Clinton's terms were merely the result of past policies taking effect - now the country is feeling the effects of Clinton's policies, and the economy is going downhill. Democratic economies also follow regular patterns of peaks and valleys independent of economic policy.
Unless, of course, you can provide some specific examples of what Clinton did to improve the USA's economy (aside from the fact that he was president during an economic upturn which doesn't really prove much :p). |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
BTW the word liberal is a pretty varied term around the world. I have spoken to a number of liberals in europe who say they use it there to describe the right. I dont know if thats what you are arguing, as a matter of fact i have no idea what you are arguing about. Im not sure how anyone could be arguing so ferociously about symantics. :conf: :conf: |
Right.
The word in the European sense refers to deregulation and privatization (think Thatcher).
In Australia, the RW party is also called the "Liberal Party."
It can also mean "free" as well.
That's why I don't usually like using the word because it's confusing depending on what part of the world you are from, or even the context of the discussion.
Perhaps the libertarians have a point when they say they advocate true freedom in that “liberals” tend to favor expanding civil liberties and the right of privacy, but regulating markets, while “conservatives” tend to favor the government peeping into the bedroom and doctor’s office by advocating archaic sodomy laws and outlawing abortions - while deregulating markets. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
Clinton was a two term president during, arguably, the most prosperous time in the country's history.
BTW the word liberal is a pretty varied term around the world. I have spoken to a number of liberals in europe who say they use it there to describe the right. I dont know if thats what you are arguing, as a matter of fact i have no idea what you are arguing about. Im not sure how anyone could be arguing so ferociously about symantics. :conf: :conf: |
The current right is truly much further left than one could ever imagine.
| quote: | Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree. |
| quote: | There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” |
| quote: | | Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled. |
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/c...03/cr071003.htm |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I prefer not to even recognize "necons" as a conservative group. When I say conservatives I mean right-wing, and when I say liberals I mean left-wing; I can see why that wouldn't be the terminology in Europe though.
Dave, sounds like you're very emotional about the right wing. I respect your views on political issues but I have to contend that your description of conservatives is bull. Deregulating the market, sure, but the rest of that stuff you mentioned is extreme right, which basically plays right into what I said earlier about Liberals characterizing anything right of center as extreme.
To me, anti-capitalism is no less ridiculous than anti-sodomy. Many Liberals (in the "American" sense of the word) are biased further left than they realize. I never put much stock in political tests, but I've taken numerous ones and always come out as central - more often slightly to the left than to the right - and yet I can't even count the number of people that have referred to me as some sort of extreme right-wing nut. I believe the main reason for that is that I am not "PC".
Anyway, not meaning to start a semantic battle but just thought I'd clear that up. Right wing does not equal bible belt. |
|
|
| discojoe |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You didn't answer the question. What did Clinton do that contributed to that?
The economy only feels the real effects of a presidency years afterwards. That's why it's impossible to evaluate the quality of a president during his term - it has to be looked at in hindsight to see where those policies led. One might well argue that the so-called prosperity of the USA during Clinton's terms were merely the result of past policies taking effect - now the country is feeling the effects of Clinton's policies, and the economy is going downhill. Democratic economies also follow regular patterns of peaks and valleys independent of economic policy.
Unless, of course, you can provide some specific examples of what Clinton did to improve the USA's economy (aside from the fact that he was president during an economic upturn which doesn't really prove much ).
|
1. Finding specific cause and effect relationships between policy and economic output is impossible so from an economic perspective, traditionally the most important factor for american voters, your question is impossible to answer. One day it may be but not now. I can try and theorize but the reality is nobody knows. All we have to go on is the results in each of the terms.
2. For the sake of arguement i will try. In my opinion, Clinton was a more fiscally responsible president than Bush. There's little doubt the economic boom helped his case, however, in the end Clinton was better able to keep his costs and income in check than Bush II (who is pushing the American deficit to record heights), Bush I and certainly Reagan who all spent incredible amounts of money on (in my opinion) conceived and immagined threats to the country to further their own causes. Higher deficits and debts mean higher interest income that has to be paid by taxes at some point in the future. Just as it is impossible to derive the specific economic causes and effects of public policy, it is impossible to predict how a right wing republican guvernment would have handled the boom. I believe however given the track records of the other three mentioned republican governments its hard for me to think it would be any different. And given the fact that I dont believe the economy actually dipped into a recession, i dont think Bushes resources (his tax income) were actually less than Clinton's.
Second I believe the current high price of oil is one of the few things preventing the continent from another economic boom. Current supply and demand relationships suggest oil prices should be hovering around 32 dollars. Prices are currently pushing 48-49 dollars a barel. Most economists agree the premium is caused by recent political instability in Venezuela and a complete failre in Iraq. I beleive much of the foreign policy of the current Bush and past republican governments foreign policy is to blame for this premium and high oil prices. He has supposedly invested millions into anti Chavez campaigns that cause the political instability and caused a number of strikes oil shutdowns throughout the country. I believe it was Clinton's (relatively!) moderate approach to foreign relations that helped created lower oil prices than the other three governments mentioned.
So are two ways i believe he helped his country, although I think Q5uecho's facts are about as convincing evidence as you need for his success as president and the respect he had within the country.
3.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The economy only feels the real effects of a presidency years afterwards.
|
Define 'real'. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
2. A couple the members have gone on record very recently (i think one sworn under owth in court) applauding Kerry his war efforts and confirmed his merit for the medals. Some of the comments took a serious beating on the credibility of the group. |
I'm not trying to discuss the merits of this group, whether they are truth tellers or not. The maze of counter-information on this issue is overwhelmingly large, I don't even dare shed a light in there.... And its not the issue I started this thread in regards.
| quote: |
While i will no doubt admit Kerry has whined alot about this I do understand his position. The man risked his life in the war for his country, fought through horrors and attrocities, and continued to fight for his country despite his convictions against the cause. |
The a similar argument can be made for Bush (I won't get into that though, as again its not the poitn).
Regardless. Kerry has been the one that brought is military 'experience' as the foundation of his campaign against Bush. He uses his medals as a premise to challenge Bush that he is a better military leader (since when do the amount of medals that decorate a man demonstrate his leadership?). It is than naive to think and expect that the opposition will not try and deconstruct the foundation Kerry has built himself on - his military medals. If Kerry would not have so blantantly used his military service as a political toy, he would not have to face the consequence of the opposition using it as a political toy.
| quote: |
Kids like us growing up sitting in front of our computers 5 hours a day in such unprecidented peace, prosperity and freedom have absolutely no idea of the brutal horrors and attrocities of war. We think we know, but we dont know. I know it sounds like a mushy liberal platitude, but its the absolute truth. |
Again not the point. I will remind you however that it is his fellow men in arms that serviced just like him during Vietnam that are making this claims. Not kids like us that sit in front of computers 5 hours a day.
| quote: |
While I think its absolutely recidulous he has taken his service in the Army as part of his campaign to the lengths he has, and while there really isnt much else in ways of substance in his campaign to attack or address, I think his service in war, as with any persons service, should be handled with far more caution, care and dignity than what these liars have done. Especially given Bush's record. |
What is dishonorable about Bush's record? If you are to believe that the swift boat veterans are liars, why are you so eager to believe the case against Bush?
Again this is not a campaign that Bush launch. Nor the republican party. This is an indepndent, self-financed group with obvious Republican leanings but not supported or endorsed by them. Bush hasn't condemned them, but he has neither condoned them.
How about Kerry attacking MoveOn.Org for making a mockery of Bush's military record?
If Kar-Baby wants a denounciating from Bush that SwiftBoat is attacking his military record, shouldn't he at least have the balls to condemn what MoveOn has done with Bush's?
| quote: | | Just like it would be wrong for people to lie and invent stories about young Israeli soldiers in their years in service for left wing political gains. Thats my opinion though, an opinion from the outside looking in. |
It is wrong, and there are legal consequence for libel and slander. If SwiftBoat is lying, get them for lying. But stop crying over the damn thing.
They are fortunate they can do such a thing - an encumbant president can get attacked with blatant lies from all angels with no legal recourse. Kerry, has legal recourse and is still crying. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Geez guys, why you trying to analyize the word "liberal"?!
I used it in an expression "liberal " and "liberal cry-baby" to describe Kerry. These expressions are quiet popular in our modern culture. I believe the usage of the expression in my op-ed piece facilitate the reader with either humor or anger to allow them to easily digest the lenght of the piece and recact.
So analyize that if you want. But don't pick and chose a single word our of an expression.
And why the hell are we talking about Clinton? :conf: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by discojoe
Second I believe the current high price of oil is one of the few things preventing the continent from another economic boom. Current supply and demand relationships suggest oil prices should be hovering around 32 dollars. Prices are currently pushing 48-49 dollars a barel. Most economists agree the premium is caused by recent political instability in Venezuela and a complete failre in Iraq. I beleive much of the foreign policy of the current Bush and past republican governments foreign policy is to blame for this premium and high oil prices. He has supposedly invested millions into anti Chavez campaigns that cause the political instability and caused a number of strikes oil shutdowns throughout the country. I believe it was Clinton's (relatively!) moderate approach to foreign relations that helped created lower oil prices than the other three governments mentioned. |
i agree that Clinton was a more fiscally conservative (true meaning not political) towards domectic economics but one has to admit the world climate then (non EU, relative peace, pre-Chinese boom, burgeoning worldwide tech-trade). noone doubts Clinton's domestic policy but his lackluster reaction to worldwide competition on all fronts contributed to the recession he turned over IMO.
as far as the oil situation, i also agree that energy prices have a substantial effect on speculation of the impending boom. the reality is that adjusted for inflation, crude oil prices are still far below their repective amounts of the late eighties and early nineties. i think i've heard like $90 bbl. back then. don't you think its a little shortsided to put blame on Bush for $47-$49 bbl. oil prices? you don't think demand has anything to do with the price of something in a free market?
do you know how much oil we import from the people that dictate that price?
and even if we could negotiate that price we would be negotiating on behalf of the rest of the world. if you think my country is arrogant now, if we tryed to do that when we pay 1/3 the gas prices that Europeans do? there would be a firestorm of hate. |
|
|
|
|
