Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 712131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 419
  1. #321  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sarcasm Warning - sarcasm even based on misunderstanding.

    She said "oust", which basically means "impeach". She does not want to oust Bush, which is not the same as "not re-elect". It was also clear that she meant IF Clinton would have ran for another term after Lewinsky (which he didn't because he couldn't for reasons obvious to anybody. You did not seriously think Eurokitty didn't know? Next time you question someone's credibility, make sure it doesn't backfire.

    Spare me. Clearly the statement should have been "if Clinton had been able to run for re-election". I didnt make the mistake, she did.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #322  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    OK MAJOR RED FLAG!!!!! The above statement really brings into question the credibility of the poster here. If Clinton had run for re-election? He did run again when he had the chance and obviously counldnt run again after two terms. Did you miss it or are you less than up to speed on the presidential election and term limit situation?

    If you are voting for Kerry then you are in effect demanding Bush be removed from office. If not why then vote against him?
    OK, Woof, calm down my friend. EuroKitty supports Kerry and wants to vote him into office. Of course that means she would like to see GW voted out of office. This is what an election is all about. Don't attack her for taking a position, that is her duty as a citizen. No one here has demanded anyone be removed from office.

    Woof, when you lose your cool, you start beating up on the person you are arguing with, at which point you start losing your credibility. Just a freindly reminder...
  3. #323  
    <warning to return to civil discourse or thread will be locked>

    Thank you.
  4. #324  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    OK, Woof, calm down my friend. EuroKitty supports Kerry and wants to vote him into office. Of course that means she would like to see GW voted out of office. This is what an election is all about. Don't attack her for taking a position, that is her duty as a citizen. No one here has demanded anyone be removed from office.

    Woof, when you lose your cool, you start beating up on the person you are arguing with, at which point you start losing your credibility. Just a freindly reminder...
    Point taken John. I am however quite calm. I am a tad annoyed by the fact that party in question will not respond to specifics and continues to do an end around on the conversation. She clearly mispoke about the re-election thing, why cant she just admit it? I didnt say anything about unconditionally trusting elected officials. She claims I did, and yet when asked cant show me where. Why all the sleight of hand?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #325  
    "Excuse me? did I miss one of "Bush and Co."'s decisions? In fact the Bush administration shortly after taking office initiated a study of how to best meet the Al Queda threat. That plan had been scheduled to be put onthe table only days after 9/11. You could say they were a day late and a dollar short, but if you do, that moniker has to be shared by every administration since Jimmy Carter." - johnbdh

    I like just about all of what you've posted in this thread, John, but I have to disagree with you here. Bush and Co really did drop the ball on 9/11. Brushing it off as "a day late, a dollar too short," as if it could have happened to any president just as easily is unfair to say.

    Bush didn't initiate the study. He had a suggested plan of action handed to him that was commissioned for him by Clinton's administration (I think Richard Clarke was in charge of that), which made it abundantly clear that some sort of attack was coming; he had CIA and other intelligence operators begging someone in the administration to take them seriously. All the signs were in place, and he chose to place his priorities elsewhere.

    Is hindsight 20/20? Absolutely. Would 9/11 have happened anyway, even if Bush had begun to implement some of the suggestions made by his intelligence officials right after he got elected? Maybe. There wasn't a whole lot of time there. But he hadn't even started looking at the reports. He hadn't had his first meeting, after several months of being in office. And for Bush to turn around and try to convince us that terror was a priority prior to 9/11, when he barely mentioned it in his first addresses to the public, and for the Republicans to try and blame Clinton (who had thwarted several attacks during his presidency, including an attempt to blow up the George Washington Bridge) for "not paying enough attention," even if that is partially true, is just classic political blame shifting. They also, meanwhile, painted Clarke as a disgruntled partisan and fool, when in fact he had voted for McCain in the recent primary, and had an incredibly positive reputation during Clinton's term. I would have a lot more respect for Bush if he just said, "Hey, there are threats coming into this office every day. I can't follow them all, but I probably should have paid a little more attention to this one. At the time, I put it low on my agenda, because the economy had started falling apart just before I took office, and I thought the country had bigger problems. I was wrong, and I'm never going to get caught sleeping on the job again."

    Instead, three years later we still haven't changed a thing (unless you think airport security has actually improved), and a terrorist strike is just as likely, or more likely, to take place. And he's still not even planning on fully implementing the findings of the 9/11 commission. A commission which he fought tooth and nail, I might add. Just has he opposed Homeland security prior to 9/11 as well. (And people call Kerry a flip-flopper.)

    As far as Terrorist warnings and their political motivations go, I, too, hate to think that Bush would raise the alert just to scare people. But the fact that some people think that isn't really what bothers me. What really bothers me is an administration that tries to convince us we're safer than we were before thanks to Bush, and then in the same sentence tells us an attack is coming any minute. That's the source of the mistrust, at least for me. It's confusing.

    And no, Woof, I don't believe in giving him "one more time" to earn my trust. Four years is long enough to show what you're worth. That's why we don't have 8-year terms. So we can vote in someone new if we see fit.

    And whatever happened to the age-old national security policy of not releasing any information until absolutely necessary? Administrations of the past, whether democratic or republican, always thought it best NOT to incite fear in the general population by releasing information about "possible" threats. We don't need to know, unless we need to take action. That's why we never got the whole story on JFK, the confederate conspiricies against Lincoln, these recent attempts during Clinton and Bush I, etc. Why tell the public that an attack may be coming, but you can't say when, or why you even think that, or what we can do to protect ourselves? What good comes out of that? What could the motivation be, other than 1) making people afraid on purpose so that you can control them better (and I hate to think that could be the case) or 2) covering your a$$ in case there is an attack and you don't want to look like an ***** again (which, isn't quite as bad, but is still selfishly motivated).

    Either way, terrorist alerts are starting to have the "Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" Effect. Maybe that's the reason why Americans are becoming so cynical.

    As far as Bush at the Ranch goes, sure, he's not really on vacation the way you and I go on vacation, but spending all that time at the Ranch signifies to people that he's trying to create distance from congress. He has his little meetings with Cheney and his tight-knit little crew, and he leaves a lot of people out of the loop. It also helps him keep away from the Washington press. Now, some people have no problem with that, but I can see how others may take that as a very small step towards avoiding his checks and balances. All those quiet little meetings out with the guys on the golf course have the ring of crooked politics. Not saying that I believe he's up to no good, but it certainly could appear that way. Which breeds more mistrust.

    Oh, and in the interest of fairness and bipartisanship, since so many of the Bush supporters here insist that the Kerry fans attack Bush because they hate him, you can't make fun of Kerry for not knowing his name isn't Bob, and then not be willing to make fun of the many quotes posted by Eurokitty from Bush outlining just a few of his many public speaking blunders. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when they're under the gun. But Bush is the ultimate king of the mispoken word. Does that mean he's stupid? Of course not. But I woulnd't be jumping on Kerry for a mistake on a web site which was probably made by some junior-level HTML coder, and which was corrected very quickly, if I wasn't expecting to get REAMED with dozens of Bush quotes immediately thereafter.

    Kerry was on that committee, by the way. He just wasn't the chairman, or anything. A perfectly honest mistake, interpreted through false logic by some as another example of his vanity and Self-promotion.

    There are unfair portrayals happening on both sides of this arguement, is all I'm saying. And that's fine, as long as we keep our senses of humor about it.
    Last edited by mrjoec; 08/24/2004 at 05:38 PM.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  6. #326  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    OK, Woof, calm down my friend. EuroKitty supports Kerry and wants to vote him into office. Of course that means she would like to see GW voted out of office. This is what an election is all about. Don't attack her for taking a position, that is her duty as a citizen. No one here has demanded anyone be removed from office.

    Woof, when you lose your cool, you start beating up on the person you are arguing with, at which point you start losing your credibility. Just a freindly reminder...
    Hey Johnbdh, you're a stand up guy for trying to keep the discussion civil, but then a few 'democrats' here have already stated as much. I was more into the stem cell portion of this thread, but wanted to comment on your respectful discussion stance.
  7. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #327  
    "She clearly mispoke about the re-election thing, why cant she just admit it? " - Woof

    She didn't clearly mis-speak. You didn't like the fact that she had a good answer for your original question (Would you have wanted Clinton ousted?) and so chose to take her literally, instead of rhetorically. You were looking for a way to attack her, because she didn't fall for your original trap. And, like John says, that makes you look less credible than you otherwise are.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  8. #328  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    "She clearly mispoke about the re-election thing, why cant she just admit it? " - Woof

    She didn't clearly mis-speak. You didn't like the fact that she had a good answer for your original question (Would you have wanted Clinton ousted?) and so chose to take her literally, instead of rhetorically. You were looking for a way to attack her, because she didn't fall for your original trap. And, like John says, that makes you look less credible than you otherwise are.
    Trap? I asked her if she was as against Clinton being president because of his mistakes. Simple question, simple answer. But of course the evil conservative must be setting a trap. Joe youre reading a bit more into the discussion than is there.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    ...

    And no, Woof, I don't believe in giving him "one more time" to earn my trust. Four years is long enough to show what you're worth. That's why we don't have 8-year terms. So we can vote in someone new if we see fit.

    ...
    It was not my suggestion that we give anyone one more time. Quite the opposite in fact. My point was we dont elect people to give them time to earn our trust as Eurokitty suggested. We elect them because we trsut them to represent us. If they dont...
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #329  
    Fair enough. I misread you, then. Sorry.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  10. #330  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Clearly not the best college in the land if an A in Political Science leads you to make statements like If Clinton had run for re-election when clearly he didnt have the option to do so. Hope you didnt get there on grants. Shudder to think my tax dollars contributed to that lesson.
    Your tax dollars DID fund my education woof. I studied on the GI bill after my four years in the Marine Corps, at two Universities. I just completed my Doctorate in Psychology (prior to that I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology and a Master's Degree in Social Work). I am currently a Psychiatric Social Worker with the Veteran's Administration, specializing in Post Traumatic Stress and Anxiety Disorders. I work with current and former military and often travel overseas to Europe to work on bases there as well. I've had several papers published and presented a paper at Yale/New Haven Medical Center last spring.

    ED: I also spent a little over a month in Iraq last fall, but I think I already mentioned that in a prior post.
    Last edited by Eurokitty; 08/24/2004 at 06:20 PM.
  11. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #331  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I don't think the DNC can afford to have Kerry win. It would be a definite problem running Hillary against a Democrat incumbent.
    I think they'd run Barack Obama before they'd run Hillary.

    And neither for at least another 8 or 12 years. Which really puts Hillary out of the equation.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  12. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #332  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    While I want Bush to be the perceived winner of the debates, I think he will have a hard time at lowering expectations of his debating skills like he did against Gore. The way it was spun against Gore (thank you Karl Rove), Bush wouldn't stand a chance against Gore in the debates. However, Bush far exceeded the (rock bottom) expectations and came out on top based upon people's perceptions.

    That trick only works once.

    However, the Saturday Night Live debate skits were priceless.
    Again, I completely agree with you, on all counts. Especially the SNL skits.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  13. #333  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Your tax dollars DID fund my education woof. I studied on the GI bill after my four years in the Marine Corps, at two Universities. I just completed my Doctorate in Psychology (prior to that I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology and a Master's Degree in Social Work). I am currently a Psychiatric Social Worker with the Veteran's Administration, specializing in Post Traumatic Stress and Anxiety Disorders. I work with current and former military and often travel overseas to Europe to work on bases there as well. I've had several papers published and presented a paper at Yale/New Haven Medical Center last spring.

    ED: I also spent a little over a month in Iraq last fall, but I think I already mentioned that in a prior post.

    Doctorate in psych, That expalins a lot Always loved psych.

    I'll be in Seattle in Oct for a seachicken game. I'll stop by the VA and say hi.

    No hard feelings about all this discussion. It's certainly not personal. I just enjoy the swordplay, er word play.

    Are there links to your published works?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #334  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I think they'd run Barack Obama before they'd run Hillary.

    And neither for at least another 8 or 12 years. Which really puts Hillary out of the equation.

    No sweat about the misread. Like I've never done that.

    You think it'll be Obama? I dont know that most of the American public would swallow that. His name isnt quite 'American" enough for most folks I'd guess. He is a heck of a speaker thiough so I can see why you'd say that.

    And it will only be 4 years before they have to find a candidate
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #335  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I think they'd run Barack Obama before they'd run Hillary.

    And neither for at least another 8 or 12 years. Which really puts Hillary out of the equation.
    If you really believe that, you are going to be suprised. The Clintons "own" the DNC.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #336  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    No sweat about the misread. Like I've never done that.

    You think it'll be Obama? I dont know that most of the American public would swallow that. His name isnt quite 'American" enough for most folks I'd guess. He is a heck of a speaker thiough so I can see why you'd say that.

    And it will only be 4 years before they have to find a candidate

    Funny. Could be. Could be.


    I worry the voting public wouldn't swallow either. Are we ready for a female or non-white president? I certainly am, if it's the right female or person of color. But MLK's dream is still a few steps away from becoming reality, on a National level, I fear. I'd like to think I'm wrong.

    Just speaking from a total political "we want to win the election" standpoint, I think Hillary would give the Republicans far too much ammunition, with all the reminders of her husband's infidelities, not to mention the way she herself has been demonized in the press. People respect a strong man. They fear a strong woman. And to tell you the truth, although she's gotten better over the last four years as Senator, her public speaking skills aren't quite there; she's good, and all, but when compared to Bill's absolute comfort up there at the podium (and she'll be compared more to Bill than to her Republican opponent) she looks stiff and impersonal. Kerry has this same problem.

    Obama, on the other hand, is a tremendous public speaker. The problem with him is that he's young and relatively unknown as yet. That's why I think if he does make a run, he'll be wisely encouraged to wait a few more terms. Get some experience in the Senate. Make a big stir there on key issues. Make speeches at all the national conventions. Maybe even get himself on a vice-presidential ticket. Then, if he stays out of trouble, maybe he'll be ready, and the public will be ready for him.

    But I haven't studied him enough to know where he really stands on policies, so I can't say whether or not I'd vote for him just yet. The Republicans might be running someone really worthwhile by then, and I'll have to vote that way. It's been known to happen before.

    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  17. #337  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    It's been nearly 3 years hasn't it? How many attacks took place on US soil in the three years prior? I don't think it's a 'remarkable' achievement at all. I would have been more impressed if the level of attacks worldwide had gone down, but they've gone up instead.
    i think thats unreasonable to expect. it wouldnt matter who is in office. dem or repub is not going to come up with a solution or a diplomatic approach so immediately as to decrease worldwide attacks. to me, that is simply an impractical goal in the short term.
  18. #338  
    Back to the swift boat story....

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

    Bush campaign lawyer advises swift boat group
    Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Posted: 10:38 PM EDT (0238 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- A lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign disclosed Tuesday that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group that is challenging Democratic Sen. John Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service.

    Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which Kerry accuses of being a front for the Republican incumbent's re-election effort.

    The Bush campaign and the veterans' group say there is no coordination.

    The group "came to me and said, 'We have a point of view we want to get into the First Amendment debate right now. There's a new law. It's very complicated. We want to comply with the law, will you keep us in the bounds of the law?"' Ginsberg said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I said yes, absolutely, as I would do for anyone."

    Ginsberg said he never told the Bush campaign what he discussed with the group, or vice versa, and doesn't advise the group on ad strategies.

    "They have legal questions and when they have legal questions I answer them," Ginsberg said. He said he had not yet decided whether to charge the Swift Boat Veterans a fee for his work.

    Kerry's presidential campaign last week filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of illegally coordinating the group's ads.

    The ads allege Kerry has lied about his decorated Vietnam War service; the group's accounts in a television ad have been disputed by Navy records and veterans who served on Kerry's boat.

    "It's another piece of the mounting evidence of the ties between the Bush campaign and this group," Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said of Ginsberg's admission. "The longer President Bush waits to specifically condemn this smear, the more it looks like his campaign is behind it."

    On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial.

    Kerry, meanwhile, is the subject of complaints by the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee accusing his campaign of illegally coordinating anti-Bush ads with soft-money groups on the Democratic side, allegations he and the groups deny.

    Ginsberg also represented the Bush campaign in 2000 and became a prominent figure during the Florida recount.

    He also served as counsel to the RNC in its unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn the nation's campaign finance law, which banned the national party committees from collecting corporate, union and unlimited donations known as soft money and imposed stricter rules on coordination involving parties, candidates and interest groups.

    Ginsberg contends that by offering legal advice to both the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat group, he has done nothing different than other election lawyers in Washington, including attorneys for Kerry and the Democratic National Committee who have also advised soft-money groups.

    Representing campaigns, parties and outside groups simultaneously is legal and allowed under the law and by the FEC, he said.

    "The truth is there is only a handful of lawyers who live and breathe this law. And so because the coordination rules do not include legal services among the prohibited coordinated activities, we provide legal service," Ginsberg said.

    Larry Noble, head of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics campaign watchdog group and former FEC general counsel, said it's true that serving as a lawyer for both a campaign and a soft-money group isn't considered automatic evidence of coordination under commission rules, but added that it doesn't mean the FEC won't look at it.

    "I think there's a valid question about when you're talking about strictly legal advice and when you're talking about policy issues and strategic issues," Noble said. "It's fair to ask what the advice is about."

    Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

    In addition to the FEC's coordination rules, attorneys are ethically bound to maintain attorney-client confidentiality, Sandler said. They could lose their law license if they violate that, he said.
  19. #339  
    So it sounds like they were looking for legal advice and he gave it.

    The DNC lawyer didnt have any issues as he is doing the same thing.

    So whats the big deal?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #340  
    Report: Abu Ghraib was 'Animal House' at night:
    "Former Republican Rep. Tillie K. Fowler of Florida, a panel member who was once a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee:
    "We found fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon. These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place."
    ....
    "Five detainees died from abuse during interrogations"


    "Died from abuse during interrogations..." that sounds very much like "tortured to death" for me. This used to be what the other side was doing - it is sad that the US as part of the Western world is linked to such events.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions