PDA

View Full Version : McCain



hondo
12-15-2004, 06:56 AM
What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide.

hondo
12-16-2004, 06:22 AM
No comments? If you're scared, say you're scared.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide. <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
12-16-2004, 06:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> No comments? If you're scared, say you're scared.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

It would help if you would post the quote. Not everybody watches Meet The Press.

hondo
12-16-2004, 07:20 AM
Sorry. Basically saying he felt Rumsfield was incompetent.
I assumed eveybody heard this; it was all over the news.



quote=Wally_in_Cincy] <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> No comments? If you're scared, say you're scared.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

It would help if you would post the quote. Not everybody watches Meet The Press. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
12-16-2004, 07:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. Basically saying he felt Rumsfield was incompetent.
<hr /></blockquote> Is that what he said, or is that what came out after the liberal filter was turned on?

I believe he stated he "has no confidence" when asked about Rumsfeld. What sort of comments do you want to hear? We received the opinion of one man. McCain seems to please whoever he is talking to at the time, this is what made Clinton so popular.

eg8r

nAz
12-16-2004, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Sorry. Basically saying he felt Rumsfield was incompetent.
I assumed eveybody heard this; it was all over the news.



quote=Wally_in_Cincy] <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> No comments? If you're scared, say you're scared.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

It would help if you would post the quote. Not everybody watches Meet The Press. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm i thought he was talking about Bush not rummy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

hondo
12-16-2004, 10:09 AM
Same thing. Hmmm. Sounds like you're working up
the disses in case he does bolt to the Dems.
If I recall, you used to like McCain.


I believe he stated he "has no confidence" when asked about Rumsfeld. What sort of comments do you want to hear? We received the opinion of one man. McCain seems to please whoever he is talking to at the time, this is what made Clinton so popular.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
12-16-2004, 10:11 AM
Nope. Rummy. But, is there a difference?


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Sorry. Basically saying he felt Rumsfield was incompetent.
I assumed eveybody heard this; it was all over the news.



quote=Wally_in_Cincy] <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> No comments? If you're scared, say you're scared.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> What's your take on McCain's comments about
Rumsfield yesterday? Either he's bolting to the
Democratic party(I hope) or it's political suicide. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

It would help if you would post the quote. Not everybody watches Meet The Press. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm i thought he was talking about Bush not rummy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
12-16-2004, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Same thing. Hmmm. Sounds like you're working up
the disses in case he does bolt to the Dems.
If I recall, you used to like McCain.
<hr /></blockquote> Working up the disses? Was that a "dis", or is it a mere mention of fact? I am not sure I have ever jumped on the McCain bandwagon, but I don't recall I have ever said I did not like him either.

eg8r

Ross
12-16-2004, 01:31 PM
It's not just McCain. Other Republican Senators (Senators Trent Lott and Susan Collins, the latter on the Senate Armed Services Committee, have been very critical of Rummy. The latest is the discovery that, contrary to what Rummy just claimed, the US was not doing all it could to get properly armored vehicles into the field to protect our soldiers. Apparently, according to press reports, companies that manufacture them were just waiting for the orders which only came a few days ago after the soldier questioned Rummy in public why they were having to make their own armor out of scrap metal. Rummy's response was the usual inneffectual bureaucrats non-response to the effect of "Well, that's just the way it is. Live with it" Or, in this case, die with it.

It IS incompetent (and I would say immoral) when it takes press coverage of a soldiers question this far into the war to get Rummy off his ass to do his job to rectify a problem everyone has known about for a year and a half. The soldiers are doing their jobs - why shouldn't the boss be held accountable for doing his as well?

Ross
12-16-2004, 02:14 PM
And more:

"And retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, interviewed recently on MSNBC-TV's "Hardball," criticized Rumsfeld for his reply in Kuwait regarding the lack of armor on many military vehicles. "I was very, very disappointed -- no, let me put it stronger -- I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn't have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up," said Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections."

And Republican Chuck Hagel:

"I don't like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible," Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said recently on CNN after returning from Iraq. "I don't like the way we went into Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq with enough troops."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/16/rumsfeld_must_go/

SnakebyteXX
12-16-2004, 02:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In "Rumsfeld's War," FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.

This report traces Donald Rumsfeld's career from his time as an adviser to President Nixon to his rise as the oft-seen and well-known face of the George W. Bush administration during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In interviews with key administration officials, military leaders, and reporters from The Washington Post, the documentary examines how a secretary of defense bent on reform became a secretary of war accused of ignoring the advice of his generals.

"He came in determined to reassert civilian control over the Joint Staff and the rest of the military and it was a pretty tough process, a lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, `No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want it this way,'" reporter Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post tells FRONTLINE.

In the early months of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld saw his biggest enemy as the outdated Cold War thinking of the troops he commanded. "Donald Rumsfeld wanted to build a smaller, nimbler, and more networked military that could respond swiftly to threats anywhere in the world. He came into the Defense Department where the forces were heavy and slow, took months to deploy and worked best when used in massive numbers," says Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Former Secretary of the Army Thomas White says that when Rumsfeld tried to push for a reduction in the number of troops in the army, the secretary found himself clashing with General Eric Shinseki, the army's respected Chief of Staff.

"There were very strongly held views, myself and General Shinseki and others in the room, that this was not the right answer," White says of one meeting with Rumsfeld. "The secretary, he just got up and walked out, which was a signal to all of us that he wasn't terribly happy with the results of the meeting."

To the Pentagon generals, Rumsfeld's sharp elbows and strong views on the military came across as insulting. But those who know him best say that Rumsfeld's unorthodox style is hardly a surprise. Robert Ellsworth, longtime friend, former ambassador to the UN and also former deputy to Rumsfeld, says that as a wrestler in college, Rumsfeld learned to always stay on the move.

"He has a very sharp tongue as well as sharp elbows. And he knows how to use salty language. And he didn't hold back even against these senior bureaucrats, senior officers. He let them have it because he was in a hurry," Ellsworth says.

By the eve of September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld's sharp tongue and tough attitude had gotten him into plenty of fights and created a number of enemies.

"Inside the beltway, there are all these discussions about `Well, who's going to be the first cabinet secretary to leave this administration?'" defense analyst Andrew Krepinevich tells FRONTLINE. "And the early betting line is it could be Don Rumsfeld. And of course then 9/11 happens, and as the saying goes `That changes everything.'"

As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces.

"He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.

When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan.

"Rumsfeld thinks you can re-invent [the] war plan," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells FRONTLINE, "And anything that smacks of the old way or something that looks conventional to him, he asks questions about. Doesn't necessarily oppose it, but will ask questions about it, and is looking to make this quicker, with less force and with less casualties."

Now, the secretary's critics allege that Rumsfeld's push for unconventional thinking effectively marginalized advice about troop strength, post-war planning, and the treatment of prisoners.

"I think to a degree, he's stubborn. Being stubborn, holding to your convictions is good to a point, but when the evidence around you indicates your position is not tenable, then you ought to start adapting to the situation," says retired USMC Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.

That stubbornness, some officers say, led Rumsfeld to put the military in the difficult position of fighting in simultaneous conflicts against an unconventional enemy. With mounting casualties in Iraq and without a clear exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, Rumsfeld's critics charge the secretary has pushed too far. The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.

Former CENTCOM Commander-in-Chief General Joseph Hoar (Ret.) tells FRONTLINE, "Today we find over fifty percent of the United States Army, the regular army, ten divisions, committed overseas. It's not sustainable."

Rumsfeld, however, has stood firm in his assessment that U.S. fighting forces are more than capable of handling these or future conflicts, recently telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that with over 2.5 million Americans already enlisted, the military's problem is management of resources, not recruitment.
<hr /></blockquote>

Rumsfeld's War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/)

SnakebyteXX
12-16-2004, 03:41 PM
In some ways the past War in Viet Nam and the current War in Iraq share a common theme - unconventional warfare - no formal exit strategy - increasing concern on the part of the public that we may be getting bogged down - mounting casualties - no clear end in sight.

I find it somewhat ironic that back in the day many Americans also felt that the antidote for the problems we were suffering in Viet Nam was the addition of more troops. However, as more and more troops were sent into combat the situation failed to visibly improve. Ultimately, we stopped escalating and started deescalating until finally we cut and ran.

In hindsight it might be argued that we should never have stopped escalating our troop commitment - that we should have gone all out including the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. It might be argued that we lost the war because of a lack of commitment on our part. On the other hand there are those who believe that we lost the war because our opponents weren't going to quit fighting no matter what we did.

However, I think there may be some faulty reasoning at work here regarding the current situation. Increased troop strength may well have been the answer when addressing conflicts like the Gulf War where we were facing conventional, uniformed troops who were deployed in fixed positions. Obviously superior numbers in men and equipment worked very well for us at that time.

But what about unconventional warfare like we had in Nam and like we now have in Iraq? What about fighting against an invisible enemy that dresses like the rest of the civilian population - like the 'peasant farmers by day and Viet Cong by night' type we had to deal with in Viet Nam? Guerilla warfare is a different cup of tea. They are not likely to stand and fight against a superior military force. Their methods are hit and run - ambush - booby traps - car bombs. ANYTHING that can be done to level the playing field against a vastly superior armed force (us). How do you fight against people who won't show themselves unless they absolutely must? Would doubling or tripling the number of troops on the ground in Iraq defeat this kind of invisible opponent? Or would we just be getting ourselves deeper and deeper in the hole combating an elusive enemy that could possibly carry on the fight for several more years slowly nickel and diming us to death.

IMO: Rumsfeld has made a lot of enemies on his way to changing the way the military does things. Like a Pro Ball coach who comes on board and immediately starts firing people and initiating radical changes in the team's game plan the bottom line is still the same - if the team has a winning season going forward he's a hero - if the team falters or has problems winning its games - he quickly becomes the goat.

Right now I think the American public is beginning to worry about how slowly things seem to be going in Iraq. I imagine that many people thought that the whole thing would be over by now and many of them are disappointed that it is not. Americans love a winner and it doesn't really FEEL like we're winning over there at this point in time. So... Rumsfeld's on the hot seat and his many opponents are clamoring for his head on the basis that he has failed.

My concern runs a little deeper than that. What if both Rumsfeld AND his critics are wrong? What if the answer isn't an escalation of troop commitments? What if we've gotten ourselves into yet another war that we can’t win – a war that may drag on endlessly until it nearly bankrupts us both financially and spiritually?

What then?

Snake

Ross
12-16-2004, 04:18 PM
I think each war is a special case with special circumstances. In Afghanistan, there were ready-made armies (the warlords followers) that shared our interest in overthrowing the fairly recently established Taliban. It was smart to utilize this manpower to oust them, making the victory quick and decisive with few US casualties. On the other hand, I think our lack of follow-through in Afghanistan is going to lead to major problems in the future (drug trade getting re-intrenched, Karzai government having limited reach outside of Kabul, etc.) but that is another story.

It should have been obvious to everyone that Iraq was a different kettle of fish. This was a country with great potential wealth and a history of tension and violence between Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. Now we weren't just displacing some recently established religious zealots as was the case in Afghanistan. A lot of wealth and almost all government power had been funneled to Saddam's favored Sunni's for decades. Moreover the seat of power of the Sunni's was not in the hinterlands (like the warlords in Afghanistan) but in the capital Bagdad and it's surroundings. The chances that this well-established government was going to easily give up it's hopes of retaining its control of the country and its resources were low. And the chances that invading two Muslim countries within a year or so of each other without firing up Islamic terrorists to fight back hard was lower still. So chances of civil war after the iron fist of Saddam was eliminated were high. Add the fact that Iraq was in the mideast -- a place where the US is particularly unpopular because of its funding of Israel's military might, and Rummy should have gotten a clue that a very large (and if possible, multinational) post-invasion security force was the way to go to prevent any groups from seizing hope that they could be successful by staging an insurgency/intafada. Because once an insurgency starts seeing success their hope increases and hence their determination to carry on the battle.

Just like police should never go into a crowd control situation with too few officers, the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq without a firm plan to establish an overwhelming "shock-and-awe" post-invasion security force. If we had done that we could have provided security for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and established the critical mass of law-and-order a government needs to function. The lack of realistic, prepared for worse-case scenario post war planning was a BIG f.u. by our Secretary of Defense.

By the way, Bagdad now averages about 6 hours of electricity a day.

crawdaddio
12-16-2004, 04:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]

By the way, Bagdad now averages about 6 hours of electricity a day. <hr /></blockquote>

"They're lucky to get that, and should be thanking us for it, the dirty towel headed sand monkeys."

-The response of a co-worker after reading your post over my shoulder. I only posted this because I think it reflects a deep seeded hateful and racist viewpoint held by many "average americans" who don't seek alternative information. This is the propoganda machine at work in our daily lives. Very sad........

Peace
~DC

Ross
12-16-2004, 04:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> ...My concern runs a little deeper than that. What if both Rumsfeld AND his critics are wrong? What if the answer isn't an escalation of troop commitments? What if we've gotten ourselves into yet another war that we can’t win – a war that may drag on endlessly until it nearly bankrupts us both financially and spiritually?

What then?

Snake
<hr /></blockquote>

Then Bush/Cheney (and Rummy) should go down in history as having made a collosal military and foreign policy blunder that was enormously costly to the US in dollars, lives, and international standing.

I hope it doesn't come to this, and I don't think it will. I do think more troops are the answer in Iraq. Enough so that once an area (like Falluja) is cleared out, civil control can be maintained. Currently, we have to essentially clean out an area and then abandon it when our limited troops are needed to put down a rebellion in another city.

While there are the similarities you point out between Vietnam and Iraq (guerilla insurgency warfare) there are also differences. Vietnam was jungle warfare which is more difficult for conventional fighters than desert warfare (where targeted airstrikes are feasible.) The North Vietnamese fighters had an ongoing government supplying them that we could not dislodge, including military help from Russia and China (I believe?). The Vietcong were not surrounded like the Sunni insurgents essentially are. Two thirds of the population of Iraq (Shia's and Kurds) are natural allies against the Sunni part (maybe 90%) of the insurgency. Many of the most powerful governments surrounding Iraq (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Israel) would see a re-establishment of Sunni control as a threat to their own security.

It can be done. It is time for Bush to prove he is his own man, to get rid of Rummy, put someone like Colin Powell (who takes the soldiers perspective) in charge, allowing us to have some (small) hope of getting international peacekeeping forces back in large numbers. Believe me - Powell would have been fighting harder for more troops from the beginning. As well as doing everything possible to procure sufficient armored vehicles, etc.

We'll see...

hondo
12-17-2004, 06:24 AM
Good post, Snake. There are certainly no easy answers.
For our kids and my kids sake I want us to declare
victory and run but I'm very uneasy with that. Whoever
takes over could be another Khomeni (sp?). It's a
helluva mess we're in.

eg8r
12-17-2004, 06:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It IS incompetent (and I would say immoral) when it takes press coverage of a soldiers question this far into the war to get Rummy off his ass to do his job to rectify a problem everyone has known about for a year and a half. The soldiers are doing their jobs - why shouldn't the boss be held accountable for doing his as well? <hr /></blockquote> I agree that it is ridiculous to have the soldiers waiting this long for armor (that appears to have been available). However, the quote above reads like the soldier was waiting for Rumsfeld to show up and he had some questions he wanted to ask. It appeared this way in what you refer to as "press coverage" however, it turns out the reporter planted the questions with the soldiers.

This was NOT an example of "press coverage" it was an attack. It is the reporters job to report the events, not start the events and stand back and record. This would be similar to a fireman starting a fire and then racing to put it out.

I have no problem with Rumsfeld being held accountable. If the soldiers are over there fighting unprotected, then those questions need to be asked, but I hardly believe the manner in which it was done could hardly be considered press coverage.

eg8r

eg8r
12-17-2004, 06:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"They're lucky to get that, and should be thanking us for it, the dirty towel headed sand monkeys."

-The response of a co-worker after reading your post over my shoulder. I only posted this because I think it reflects a deep seeded hateful and racist viewpoint held by many "average americans" who don't seek alternative information. This is the propoganda machine at work in our daily lives. Very sad........

<hr /></blockquote> I don't know what it is about your posts but they usually start out sensible and then just get ridiculous. Please explain the "propaganda machine at work" that makes your coworkers call those Iraqis "sand monkeys".

eg8r

hondo
12-17-2004, 06:44 AM
I know that this will fire people up but it saddens
me that so many "average people" rejoice in their
stupidity and bigotry. I'm not all that smart or
religious but I'm capable of realizing that we should
avoid generalizations. I seem to be going further
and further away from the "mainstream" in America
and yet to quote Todd Snyder" I think I'm an alright
guy".


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

By the way, Bagdad now averages about 6 hours of electricity a day. <hr /></blockquote>

"They're lucky to get that, and should be thanking us for it, the dirty towel headed sand monkeys."

-The response of a co-worker after reading your post over my shoulder. I only posted this because I think it reflects a deep seeded hateful and racist viewpoint held by many "average americans" who don't seek alternative information. This is the propoganda machine at work in our daily lives. Very sad........

Peace
~DC <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
12-17-2004, 06:47 AM
Shame on that reporter! Bad reporter! Bad, bad reporter!


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It IS incompetent (and I would say immoral) when it takes press coverage of a soldiers question this far into the war to get Rummy off his ass to do his job to rectify a problem everyone has known about for a year and a half. The soldiers are doing their jobs - why shouldn't the boss be held accountable for doing his as well? <hr /></blockquote> I agree that it is ridiculous to have the soldiers waiting this long for armor (that appears to have been available). However, the quote above reads like the soldier was waiting for Rumsfeld to show up and he had some questions he wanted to ask. It appeared this way in what you refer to as "press coverage" however, it turns out the reporter planted the questions with the soldiers.

This was NOT an example of "press coverage" it was an attack. It is the reporters job to report the events, not start the events and stand back and record. This would be similar to a fireman starting a fire and then racing to put it out.

I have no problem with Rumsfeld being held accountable. If the soldiers are over there fighting unprotected, then those questions need to be asked, but I hardly believe the manner in which it was done could hardly be considered press coverage.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
12-17-2004, 06:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Then Bush/Cheney (and Rummy) should go down in history as having made a collosal military and foreign policy blunder that was enormously costly to the US in dollars, lives, and international standing. <hr /></blockquote> However, that shortsightedness (sp?) probably won't make it into our history books, thank God. What probably will be remembered is the way Bush handled the events directly after 9/11, the destruction of the Taliban, the destruction of a large portion of Al Qaeda, the liberation of Afghanis and Iraqis. On top of that, he will be remembered as the President that brought us out of the recession that was handed to him, lowered taxes to all taxpayers and also gave more money to those who don't pay taxes, etc.

It is a bit ironic that your quote above lists a lowered international standing, however you purposely leave out all the "international lives" that will be saved because of our actions. I don't think the US is hurting to much now that France and Germany are a little more upset than they already were.

I have said it plenty of times before, all you post is doom and gloom. You mention how bad things are, low % of electicity, blah blah blah. Never do you mention the things that have gone well. Oh well, if you keep up the doom and gloom mantra some people might actually believe it. It is comforting to know, that the majority of the voting public does not agree.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-17-2004, 07:14 AM
[Then Bush/Cheney {And Rummy} should go down in history as having made a collosal military and foreign policy blunder that was enormously costly to the US in dollars, lives and international standing.]

Unfortunatly, change the should to will, and the sentense makes more sense. Everything in the article addressed regarding Rumsfeld is true of Bush. Rumsfeld handled his warnings exactly the same way as Bush did. He is only a puppet of the Presidents after all. Particularly the statement regarding their stubborn refusal to listen to those more knowlegable in middle east affairs. Anyone who has a different and more accurate opinion of what to expect is either pushed out of the loop, rendered impotent, or encouraged by the president to resign.

Everyone in this country should read Woodward's book and Richard Clark's book. If they did, they wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that Condoleza Rice is where she is now.

Rumsfeld will soon be gone, as that is and always has been the Bush way. Their figureheads are used until the public is aware of the idiocy being perpetrated, then Bush gets rid of them and jumps back with his hands up crying "I didn't do it" This is also how he runs his smear campaigns, somebody else does all the dirty work. When it comes to being a teflon president, he makes Reagen look like a scratched up old aluminumm fry pan, LOL.

The two biggest mistake Bush made were not listening to Powell and Clark.

What does the president do? Weeks after the invasion, he's in a flight suit touting "Mission Accomplished"

This guy is nuts!

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
12-17-2004, 07:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This was NOT an example of "press coverage" it was an attack. It is the reporters job to report the events, not start the events and stand back and record. This would be similar to a fireman starting a fire and then racing to put it out.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

The reporter you mention didn't start the fire. That fire was already burning. It's the politicians who are now racing to put it out.

In this case, the questions that were asked stood on their own merit regardless of who framed them in the first place. To allude otherwise represents an attempt to discredit what was said.

The real problem from a government information control standpoint is that the question and the immediate response it triggered (cheers and applause from his fellow soldiers in the audience) represented a form of unwelcome and highly public battlefield dissent.

Dissent, particularly from soldiers in combat is rarely welcomed by politicians whose job at least in part is to maintain the appearance that the war effort is going well and that people back home needn't worry about how things are being handled.

It appears from where I sit that the absence of sufficient armor on their vehicles has been a real and ongoing problem for our troops in Iraq. Furthermore it would appear that their needs in this regard were not being addressed in a timely manner. Perhaps this was due to budgetary constraints and/or a failure to appreciate the true extent of the problem by those in charge of meeting that need?

Whatever the reason - a frustrated soldier asking the boss why something that's broke still hasn't been fixed, particularly if the fixing could help save lives is not a question that should either be ignored or discredited.

Particularly if the end result is that the situation is addressed and the problem is resolved.

Qtec
12-17-2004, 08:33 AM
Great post Snake.

[ QUOTE ]
“You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up,” Rumsfeld said.

Apparently the fact that the troops in the tank are more likely to die without armour is besides the point to Rumsfeld, armour or troops, its all just collateral damage to him. Its unbelieveable that he feels so little compassion that he is able to stand before the troops who are risking their lives and declare his complete indifference to their welfare. I bet that did wonders for their morale.

<hr /></blockquote>


Q

crawdaddio
12-17-2004, 10:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Please explain the "propaganda machine at work" that makes your coworkers call those Iraqis "sand monkeys".

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

It's always semantics with you Ed. It gets a little tiring.
ABC, CNN, NBC, FOX. The only news you get from the maintsream is the quoted lies, misdirections, and cover-ups from our politicians. The majority of people that I talk politics with only see "the terrorists", they don't see the innocent life being lost. They hear "another car bomb has killed 16". They don't hear or see "american troops are using cluster bombs, killing hundreds". They don't see the deep historical culture of the people that are being killed. It is much easier, with the info they have, to lump them all together, and decide that if they're killing our boys, then they ALL deserve to die. There you go, another post for you to pick apart. Enjoy.

Man, I wish this forum had an "ignore" function like AZB.

Peace
DC

eg8r
12-17-2004, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's always semantics with you Ed. It gets a little tiring. <font color="red"> Great, so then don't answer when you are not being questioned. </font color>
ABC, CNN, NBC, FOX. The only news you get from the maintsream is the quoted lies, misdirections, and cover-ups from our politicians. The majority of people that I talk politics with only see "the terrorists", they don't see the innocent life being lost. They hear "another car bomb has killed 16". They don't hear or see "american troops are using cluster bombs, killing hundreds". They don't see the deep historical culture of the people that are being killed. It is much easier, with the info they have, to lump them all together, and decide that if they're killing our boys, then they ALL deserve to die. There you go, another post for you to pick apart. Enjoy. <font color="red"> After all that you were unable to answer the question directly. If the propaganda machine is the mainstream media, please show some examples of when they referred to Iraqis as sand monkeys. Why even bother, I have seen very little of your posts where you address the question directly. This question was not even asked of you and still dodge the answer. Let hondo speak for himself next time, I am sure he will address the question that was asked. </font color>

Man, I wish this forum had an "ignore" function like AZB. <font color="red"> Because you are physically unable to control yourself to not respond to a post of mine, you would like some extra functionality in the software to do this for you? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
...If the propaganda machine is the mainstream media, please show some examples of when they referred to Iraqis as sand monkeys.....

<hr /></blockquote>

Actually it is quite the opposite. They don't show the beheadings, the blown-up body parts of little children in Russia and Tel Aviv, or the towers falling. Then Bush goes out of his way to call Islam a religion of peace.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> ...They don't see the deep historical culture of the people that are being killed....
<hr /></blockquote>

I am not going to address who is or isn't getting killed. I'm not over there so I don't know for sure.

I want to address the culture issue. The fact is these folks have progressed very little since the 7th century. Why do you think that is?

crawdaddio
12-17-2004, 11:14 AM
Ed, you're a waste of time.

Hondo, good thread, sorry to have de-railed it. I believe, and hope Rummy is on his way out.

~DC

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 11:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Ed, you're a waste of time.

Hondo, good thread, sorry to have de-railed it. I believe, and hope Rummy is on his way out.

~DC <hr /></blockquote>

That is not a very good defense of your position that the media is a propaganda machine that encourages Americans to think of Arabs as sand monkeys.

IMO

Qtec
12-17-2004, 11:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
On top of that, he will be remembered as the President that brought us out of the recession that was handed to him, lowered taxes to all taxpayers and also gave more money to those who don't pay taxes, etc.

<hr /></blockquote>
[ QUOTE ]
Trade Data Show Another Record Deficit
By ELIZABETH BECKER

ASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - The broadest measure of the country's trade and investment flows registered a record deficit of $164.7 billion in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

With no relief in sight, some of the United States' closest allies are pressing the administration to take serious steps to rein in the trade and budget deficits that are propelling a decline in the dollar. The fall of the dollar, in turn, is hurting other countries' economies.

Economists hope that the declining value of the dollar will narrow the trade gap. But so far, the deficit has only deepened, with the nation's imports exceeding its exports by 54 percent in the third quarter.

Based on the first three quarters, the United States is adding to its foreign debt at a record annual rate of $665 billion, or $5,500 for every household in the country, according to a new report by Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a research group.

The report could have been worse. Many economists predicted that the third-quarter deficit could have been as much as $171 billion.

The lower figure in the report prompted a rally by the dollar in currency markets on Thursday. But economists said this would have no effect on the overall economic forecasts that predict that the current-account deficit will rise about $100 billion a year for the indefinite future.<hr /></blockquote>

Instead of reciting your standard doom and gloom reply to every criticism of this present admin, try opening your eyes and see whatsreally going on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

GW started with a surplus.
Now the US has records debts, record deficits and a net job loss.

The dollar has dropped a massive 30% in 4 years!

Now he wants to borrow trillions of Dollars [ SS] so that more people can invest in the stock market and make him and his friends, the super rich, even richer!
Today Rupert Murdoch put down $44 million for a 5th Avenue penthouse! Before Bush became President it would have been closer to $60 million.



[ QUOTE ]
The trade deficit, Mr. Bush said, is "easy to resolve."

"People can buy more United States products if they're worried about the trade deficit," he said.

<hr /></blockquote>

So much for free choice. Sounds like he wants the American citizen to bail out the Govt. Ha
Hardly a success story.:D

Q

Ross
12-17-2004, 11:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
This was NOT an example of "press coverage" it was an attack. It is the reporters job to report the events, not start the events and stand back and record. This would be similar to a fireman starting a fire and then racing to put it out.
<hr /></blockquote>

What I said was EXACTLY correct. The reporter putting the soldier up to the question started the ball rolling. But that was not what I was referring to as "press coverage" and the ethics of that is another debate. In any case the question was asked, soldiers cheered, Rummy gave his bs answer. If that was the end of it, nothing would have happened. But the event was reported in USAToday, CNN, Fox, NYTimes, and my local Durham Herald Sun. At this point a lot of people raised their eyebrows at Rummy's response, but as far as we knew he might be telling the truth, that the slowness in getting armor was due to limits in manufacturing capacities or whatever. But the manufacturers of the armored vehicles saw the press reports, called up reporters and said "Not true. We have had the capacity all along and are sitting here waiting for orders." The press then reported this new information which made Rummy look really bad. If we had the capability then (1) why weren't we using it, and (2) why had Rummy lied to his own soldiers about it?

No press coverage of these events and Rummy would never have put the order in for more armored vehicles to protect our soldiers.

Also your fire analogy is a poor one. The "fire" in this case was the lack of effort on Rummy's part to really address our soldiers safety needs, not the asking of the question. The reporter did not start this "fire" and then report it. Instead he pushed a soldier to ask a question that ended up exposing that there was such a fire.

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:11 PM
The initial "press coverage" was an attack. There is no more to it. What has transpired is coverage of the real issues, no armour, Rumsfelds' answer, however the initial coverage was not "press coverage" it was an attack.

The analogy was poor, I should not have used a fireman and fire since the reason would not be clear. Another analogy could be a guy kicking in his door on the car and then calling the insurance company. The point (though not clear) of the analogy is that the fireman started a fire (the reporter planting questions with the soldiers in hope to get a lead story) and then rushing to put the fire out (reporter covering this "story" as new coverage). Sorry that was not clear, I think everyone got caught up on the "putting out fires" analogy that might be often used.

Whether the armour issue was true, has nothing to do with what I was unsuccessfully trying to point out. The fact is that the reporter tried to make a news story himself to get a lead story. He was not there covering the event and happened to be at the right place at the right time, he made it the right place and time.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 12:13 PM
It is possible that Rumsfeld, while running such a huge enterprise as the US military, may have been unaware that procurement was dragging its feet getting the vehicles armored, but the buck still stops with him I suppose.

[ QUOTE ]
But the manufacturers of the armored vehicles saw the press reports, called up reporters and said "Not true. We have had the capacity all along and are sitting here waiting for orders." <hr /></blockquote>

If that is true then that is inexcusable.

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you're a waste of time. <hr /></blockquote> I am not sorry my participation is not to your expectations.

eg8r

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:27 PM
Q, I like your spunk. However, 9 times out of 10 you don't bother to actually read and digest what is posted. You jump to conclusions or just post whatever quick wit comes to mind.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> On top of that, he will be remembered as the President that brought us out of the recession that was handed to him, lowered taxes to all taxpayers and also gave more money to those who don't pay taxes, etc.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> The broadest measure of the country's trade and investment flows registered a record deficit of $164.7 billion in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Now, what in my post mentions debt? Did my post ever say there was no debt, or that Bush did not increase the debt? No, so what is your point? Ross' posts still wreak doom and gloom, and my post is simply choosing a slightly different route in mentioning those things that are also going well.

eg8r

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> But the manufacturers of the armored vehicles saw the press reports, called up reporters and said "Not true. We have had the capacity all along and are sitting here waiting for orders." <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally:</font><hr> If that is true then that is inexcusable. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> If it is true, it is inexcusable, I agree.

However, I wonder just how many here have dealt with suppliers for the DoD? There is a lot that is not being said and Ross and the media surely will not give the DoD the benefit of the doubt. We have many suppliers that have the capacity to do work for us and we do not send them orders because they do not meet requirements, have poor supplier ratings, etc. Ross and the media have not given any time to see if any of this type of information is available. They have taken the suppliers word at face value. Too bad they never offered this quick to jump level of acceptance to a few soldiers who disagreed with Kerry a few months back.

I hope my post does not come across as I am siding with Rumsfeld because that is not the point of my reply. I am not siding with either. I do believe it is a shame if the suppliers are correct, but I also don't just throw all loyalty to the suppliers whose main priority is to make a buck.

eg8r

Ross
12-17-2004, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ...I have said it plenty of times before, all you post is doom and gloom. You mention how bad things are, low % of electicity, blah blah blah. Never do you mention the things that have gone well. Oh well, if you keep up the doom and gloom mantra some people might actually believe it. It is comforting to know, that the majority of the voting public does not agree.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Wrong again jerk. The whole point of the post that you took my electricity quote from was that the war in Iraq was NOT DOOMED to failure like Vietnam was. I pointed out several reasons why I thought there was more hope for success in Iraq than in Vietnam. But I have argued all along (like McCain and half the Senate Intelligence Committee) that to do it right we needed more soldiers, the opposite of what Bush's Secretary of Defense argues. I pointed out the 6 hours of electricity in Bagdad today (just like it was a year and a half ago) as evidence that the postwar planning was grossly inadequate. Why have we been unsuccessful in getting electricity back to Bagdad? Because we don't have enough troops to provide security to contractors nor enough to prevent insurgents from undoing our work as fast as we do it.

Eg8r, you repeatedly use tiresome debating tricks borrowed from blowhards like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. When someone makes a point that you don't have an answer for, you change the subject and/or attack the source. For example, YOU label critics of Republicans and conservative policies as "doom and gloom" instead of providing a well-reasoned rebuttal of the points you disagree with. This is a way to divert the discussion from the issue at hand to the issue of the personality of the person posing it. So nothing good comes of it. Moreover YOU, like the ulta-conservative talk show hosts, are hypocritical in that you never label people conservatives who constantly criticize liberals/Dems as "doom and gloom" - you reserve that smear for those that disagree with you.

Another example of you attacking the messenger rather than responding to the message: in this thread when it was reported that Republican McCain criticized Rummy you managed to start labelling McCain --one of the most outspoken independent thinking politicians we have-- as a "people pleaser." You even, like a true dittohead, worked CLINTON into the post about McCain. It seems you will do anything to avoid considering the notion that JUST MAYBE McCain is correct to be critizing Rumsfeld's policies.

Another example of your use of misdirection: Snake posed the question: "What if we've gotten ourselves into yet another war that we can’t win – a war that may drag on endlessly until it nearly bankrupts us both financially and spiritually?" I responded to his question about Iraq by responding about Iraq. I said that Bush/Cheney/Rummy should go down in history as having made a collosal military and foreign policy miscalculation. I said nothing about how the administration as a whole would be seen. How the hell can that answer be controversial?

BUT NO, YOU come in and say that if Iraq is a total disaster you BELIEVE and HOPE that this "shortsightedness" won't make it into the history books! So apparently you like your history like you like your posts: sanitized to fit your fantasy world where Republicans/conservatives are always right and critics of Repubs are always wrong. THEN you go on to criticize me for not mentioning the admins success in Afghanistan, on the economy and on taxes in my answer to Snake's question about Iraq???!!!

You would think you would be done by now. But no, that would be too much to hope for. You then drag in the dispute with France and Germany which had nothing to do with my point that if we have to leave Iraq having failed our standing (not approval rating) in the world will suffer. Lost wars tend to do that.

But surely you are through now. OH NO! YOU decide that bringing in the point that Bush won the election is important information for this thread!

In sum, none of your post was relevant to the topic at hand, but you managed to attack me throughout it for staying on topic.

We won't even go into how you also misdirect discussions by focusing on semantics over meaning when it suits your purpose for attacking a fellow poster.

Eg8r, you are like one of those dolls that you pull the cord and it will repeat one of a dozen pat phrases they have drilled into their memory chip.

Unlike the other conservatives on this board, there is no pleasure nor learning to be had in debating with you. And you attack me repeatedly no matter how closely I stick to the topic at hand. So go scrxx yourself...

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again jerk. <hr /></blockquote> At least you started out civilised. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ....However, I wonder just how many here have dealt with suppliers for the DoD? There is a lot that is not being said and Ross and the media surely will not give the DoD the benefit of the doubt. We have many suppliers that have the capacity to do work for us and we do not send them orders because they do not meet requirements, have poor supplier ratings, etc....

<hr /></blockquote>

We used to sell a lot of furniture to the military. The specs were about 150 pages just for open-office stuff (cubicles)

It took about 8 weeks to do the testing on any new product we initiated.

for office furniture

eg8r
12-17-2004, 12:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, you repeatedly use tiresome debating tricks borrowed from blowhards like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. When someone makes a point that you don't have an answer for, you change the subject and/or attack the source. For example, YOU label critics of Republicans and conservative policies as "doom and gloom" instead of providing a well-reasoned rebuttal of the points you disagree with. <hr /></blockquote> This is where you are wrong and I think one of the reasons why you may not like the well deserved desciption of activity. I don't need to rebut any of what you have said because it might be true, that is not the point. You can read this as, I don't always disagree with what you have said, only mention that it is doom and gloom. The point is that you NEVER tell the good things.

If there is a mention of something that is good or at least not bad yet, it is only to point out something else that is bad.

I am not arguing any of the statistics, I am merely pointing out the fact that you dwell on the things going wrong. Really, I am open to seeing some posts in which you have made mention of some of the things going well. I have offered this before and you failed to take me up on such an offer.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2004, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Wrong again jerk...

go scrxx yourself...
<hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. Perhaps we won't be playing footy in no-man's land after all /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
12-17-2004, 01:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Another example of you attacking the messenger rather than responding to the message: in this thread when it was reported that Republican McCain criticized Rummy you managed to start labelling McCain --one of the most outspoken independent thinking politicians we have-- as a "people pleaser." You even, like a true dittohead, worked CLINTON into the post about McCain. It seems you will do anything to avoid considering the notion that JUST MAYBE McCain is correct to be critizing Rumsfeld's policies. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, another name. My mention of Clinton was not to degrade either but to point out the fact that McCain works the room similarly to Clinton. I don't think I said I disagreed or agreed with McCain. I did want the correct words stated but that was about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Another example of your use of misdirection: Snake posed the question: "What if we've gotten ourselves into yet another war that we can’t win – a war that may drag on endlessly until it nearly bankrupts us both financially and spiritually?" I responded to his question about Iraq by responding about Iraq. I said that Bush/Cheney/Rummy should go down in history as having made a collosal military and foreign policy miscalculation. I said nothing about how the administration as a whole would be seen. How the hell can that answer be controversial?

BUT NO, YOU come in and say that if Iraq is a total disaster you BELIEVE and HOPE that this "shortsightedness" won't make it into the history books! So apparently you like your history like you like your posts: sanitized to fit your fantasy world where Republicans/conservatives are always right and critics of Repubs are always wrong. THEN you go on to criticize me for not mentioning the admins success in Afghanistan, on the economy and on taxes in my answer to Snake's question about Iraq???!!! <hr /></blockquote> A fantasy world, wouldn't that be great. Anyways, back to your twisting...This is all back to the same point of my labeling of this activity as doom and gloom. Yes shortsightedness is a good word to use, because while we are still in the conflict you are jumping to conclusions about how everything will end. Good job, but I don't buy it just yet.

[ QUOTE ]
You would think you would be done by now. But no, that would be too much to hope for. You then drag in the dispute with France and Germany which had nothing to do with my point that if we have to leave Iraq having failed our standing (not approval rating) in the world will suffer. Lost wars tend to do that.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, wow, you are on a roll. It seems catching the point was not your strong point when replying. France and Germany are mentioned because you make mention of international standing. They are international and anyone even remotely awake know that they are the two most opposed countries to our actions (albeit I am not including the Saddam lead Iraq).

[ QUOTE ]
But surely you are through now. OH NO! YOU decide that bringing in the point that Bush won the election is important information for this thread! <hr /></blockquote> My gosh, I hope there is not a big rock at the end, you are falling faster and faster I am afraid you will not be able to miss it. Once again, a little comprehension is eluding you. I have added you to the gloom and doom group, and I stated I was glad the rest of the voting public did not agree with you and the rest of the doom and gloom.

[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, you are like one of those dolls that you pull the cord and it will repeat one of a dozen pat phrases they have drilled into their memory chip.

Unlike the other conservatives on this board, there is no pleasure nor learning to be had in debating with you. And you attack me repeatedly no matter how closely I stick to the topic at hand. So go scrxx yourself...
<hr /></blockquote> Ooopss, there is that big rock. I knew you would not be able to handle yourself. You might stick with the topic, much like I have. I have read what you posted, recognized it was doom and gloom and mentioned it. No more no less. Now that your panties are in a wad, sit back and take a big deep breath and relax. I don't really think I have attacked you or anyone on the board. I can promise I have not allowed myself to get nearly this worked up when you twist my words. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-17-2004, 01:26 PM
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. LMAO. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Ross
12-17-2004, 01:36 PM
Wally, I would rather have a root canal than try to discuss an issue with Eg8r.

I can take the fact that he often misses the point, is totally one-sided in his views, and tries to change the subject when pinned on an issue. After all this is the internet and that is common. But what drives me crazy is that he then accuses the person he is debating with of being illogical, "doom and gloom", ridiculous, etc. Eg8r is like a guy who can't run 3 balls telling everyone in the pool room that they are idiots because they don't agree that Cuetech makes the only good cue. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

On top of that he pretends he isn't repeatedly making personal attacks. If you are going to attack someone at least be man enough to do it directly and not with repeated snide remarks.

Anyway, that's my opinion! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Ross
12-17-2004, 01:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> A fantasy world, wouldn't that be great. Anyways, back to your twisting...This is all back to the same point of my labeling of this activity as doom and gloom. Yes shortsightedness is a good word to use, because while we are still in the conflict you are jumping to conclusions about how everything will end. Good job, but I don't buy it just yet. <hr /></blockquote>

What an idiotic response, Eg8r. Read my post. In response to a hypothetical put out there by Snake (he asked "what if the war turned into a disaster") I said that, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, Bush/Rummy would be seen as making a collosal mistake. Surely you have the intelligence to understand that this was in no way predicting that the war would end this way. And not only did I NOT jump to the conclusion that we would lose the war, I argued that I thought the opposite was true, that the war, unlike Vietnam, was winnable.

I say I think we can WIN this war - and then you ask me why I'm so shortsighted and doom and gloom to jump to the conclusion we will lose?! This is why I don't like debating with you. Once you put someone into your "liberal" or "Dem" box you don't really pay attention to what they are saying. And then you have the gall to attack them for things they never came close to saying and follow it up with a "Who, me?" when your stupid attacks are pointed out.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your drivel.

eg8r
12-17-2004, 02:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Read my post. In response to a hypothetical put out there by Snake (he asked "what if the war turned into a disaster") I said that, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, Bush/Rummy would be seen as making a collosal mistake. Surely you have the intelligence to understand that this was in no way predicting that the war would end this way. And not only did I NOT jump to the conclusion that we would lose the war, I argued that I thought the opposite was true, that the war, unlike Vietnam, was winnable.
<hr /></blockquote> You are correct, I see that snakebyte was offering up the hypothetical and you were answering. I did not catch this the first time around. When I read it the first time it looked to me that you had already made up your mind. I did not bother to read the rest as your post was clear enough up to that point. Sorry for the mistake.

eg8r

eg8r
12-17-2004, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can take the fact that he often misses the point, is totally one-sided in his views, and tries to change the subject when pinned on an issue. After all this is the internet and that is common. But what drives me crazy is that he then accuses the person he is debating with of being illogical, "doom and gloom", ridiculous, etc. Eg8r is like a guy who can't run 3 balls telling everyone in the pool room that they are idiots because they don't agree that Cuetech makes the only good cue. <hr /></blockquote> There are other cues better than cuetech? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Tom in Cincy now in Sacramento can definitely vouch that I cannot run 3 balls. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ross
12-17-2004, 05:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are correct, I see that snakebyte was offering up the hypothetical and you were answering. I did not catch this the first time around. When I read it the first time it looked to me that you had already made up your mind. I did not bother to read the rest as your post was clear enough up to that point. Sorry for the mistake.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the apology, Eg8r. I accept it.

But I have to say this fits a pattern that may explain why I have found discussions with you in particular so frustrating. I believe that if your goal is to have a productive discussion (and not to just try to make the other person look bad) you have to start by taking seriously the opinions of the person you are arguing with. But I often feel like you have made up your mind from the get-go to prove me and all other liberals/Dems wrong or pick our posts apart without giving what we are saying any truly open-minded thought. I end up feeling like I'm in a sparring match with a machine that doesn't listen to what I say but automatically spits out pre-formulated disagreements and/or does legalistic word parsing to find vulnerable spots where an attack can be launched.

Personally, I don't think I have ever responded to a post without reading it and thinking about what the other person is saying. I often disagree with other posters and will point out strongly why I disagree, but I make the effort to understand their point of view first. I have found that there are some nuggets of truth in almost everyones opinions. Sometimes I have to deliberately not get caught up in wording but instead listen for the essence of what they are saying. Otherwise I just write the person off and we spend our time in a fruitless "talking past" each other.

And most of all, don't assume you know where the other person is coming from before you hear them out. Because once you start that, listening stops.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2004, 09:19 AM
Ed, lol, show me one post, just one, when you mention anything good about the democrats, or the clinton administrations successes. I think Ross's points regarding your debating tactics are right on target. Although I like you Ed, You seem to "Hate" liberals and democrats so much that you can't be objective about anything that is correct or right in their ideaology. How can anyone deny a raging national deficit? How can anyone justify failing to give our guys what they need to fight this stupid war?

Ross is one of the most accurate and intelligent posters on this board. I can't begin to count the times when he has chimed in on one of my own posts and articulated axactly what I was trying to say far beter than I could ever manage.

When it comes to having an open mind regarding Democrats, or the other point of view, even when the poster is reporting or addressing realistic facts, you consistantly go to your standard gloom and doom.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-18-2004, 09:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Ed, lol, show me one post, just one, when you mention anything good about the democrats, or the clinton administrations successes. I think Ross's points regarding your debating tactics are right on target. Although I like you Ed, You seem to "Hate" liberals and democrats so much that you can't be objective about anything that is correct or right in their ideaology. How can anyone deny a raging national deficit? How can anyone justify failing to give our guys what they need to fight this stupid war?

Ross is one of the most accurate and intelligent posters on this board. I can't begin to count the times when he has chimed in on one of my own posts and articulated axactly what I was trying to say far beter than I could ever manage.

When it comes to having an open mind regarding Democrats, or the other point of view, even when the poster is reporting or addressing realistic facts, you consistantly go to your standard gloom and doom.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>








boo! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
12-18-2004, 10:48 AM
Ross,
I agree, but Wally is the last one who could see this, as he does the same thing exactly! LOL...
Gayle in Md.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
12-18-2004, 10:52 AM
[Gave more money to those who don't pay taxes] LOL, that's for sure Ed, he surely did accomplish that! Now he is going to reform SS and give even more money to those who don't pay taxes, lol.
Gayle

Chopstick
12-18-2004, 12:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How can anyone justify failing to give our guys what they need to fight this stupid war?
<hr /></blockquote>
I don't understand why people keep saying this. The American military is better equipped than any military force is human history.
The HumVee is a jeep. It was not designed to be an armoured personel carrier. That's what Bradleys are for. You don't hear about them shooting at the Bradleys or the tanks. They fire RPGs at them. Armouring a HumVee will not stop an RPG. HumVees do provide some protection against small arms fire. Remember Somolia. Could it be improved. Yes, but what is the trade off in vechile performance. More armour means more weight. More weight means they slow down. Where's the optimum balance? This is not a political question. It is a question for weapons systems designers. It is beyond the scope of what any politician would know.

If you want to consider it as a political question, why did Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, withold the Browing Automatic Rifle from American troops in World War One? A weapon that was clearly superior and desperately needed, at a time when our troops were dying by the thousands every day.

As far as this being a stupid war, consider this. I have always been a live and let live kind of guy, not only for people but for all living things. Now, there are some things that are not going to leave you alone like wasps and fire ants. When you encounter them there is only one recourse. You kill them. Those people have made it clear they are not going to leave us alone.

SnakebyteXX
12-18-2004, 12:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to consider it as a political question, why did Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, withold the Browing Automatic Rifle from American troops in World War One? A weapon that was clearly superior and desperately needed, at a time when our troops were dying by the thousands every day.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes it's about bureaucracy - sometimes it's about failure to change with the times - sometimes it's about failure to accept or understand the benefit of a technological breakthrough. The early failure to capitalize on the Civil War Era Henry Repeating Rifle is another classic example of this kind of dunderheaded thinking:

<font color="blue">Henry Repeating Rifle.

Described by one rebel as "that tarnation Yankee rifle they load on Sunday and shoot all week" the Henry repeating rifle was truly a weapon to be reckoned with. Produced by The New Haven Arms Company in 1860, the fast shooting Henry was in great demand and although Federal orders were small some infantry and cavalry troops started receiving them in late 1863. The 7th Illinois Infantry color guard (and their mascot dog) proudly display their new Henry repeaters in the photo at right. The 7th's regimental history shows that the men obtained the Henry at their own expense and paid $50.00 a piece for them. They put them to use when they fought brilliantly under Sherman and through the Atlanta campaign. The members of Birge's Sharpshooters of the 66th Illinois Infantry replaced their target rifles and also purchased their own Henrys. It has been argued that the Henry was better built, more reliable and had more fire power than the most popular weapon of the war, the Spencer carbine. The U.S. government bought 1,731 of the rifles and 4,610,400 cartridges, the last of which was received on November 7, 1865.

The weapon weighed 9.8 pounds and had a 24 inch barrel with a magazine holding 15 rounds (photo at left) located under and running the full length of the barrel. The rifle was chambered for the .44 Henry Flat, a rimfire cartridge which was propelled by 26 to 28 grains of black powder with a 200 grain bullet. It had a muzzle velocity of about 1,100 feet per second. Although that is somewhat underpowered, the Henry still represented a milestone in rifle innovations that ultimately led to the Winchester .44-.40 still popular today.

The Henry was invented at the beginning of the war but the U.S. Army's Ordinance Department had dismissed the new inventions because they thought the rapid firing rifles would cause the soldiers to waste ammunition. In tests, the rifle's 15 shot magazine could be emptied in less than 11 seconds. A rate of fire of 120 shots were loaded and fired in 5 minutes and 45 seconds. The advantage is very clear, keep in mind a well trained infantry solider could load and fire the muzzle loaders only three times a minute. Fire power wasn't the only asset of the rifle, it could also be fired in a very safe prone position. In the Battle of Chickamauga, the retreating Federal army was saved by just 535 men with Henry rifles.
Link (http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/carbinesetc.htm) </font color>
........................

By the way I've checked several links re the history of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and they all confirm that the rifle was introduced in the final year of WWI. Can you provide a link to support your comments regarding Woodrow Wilson's role in withholding its use?

[ QUOTE ]
John Browning was one of the greatest gun designer in history and the founder of Browning Arms. He designed the Browning Automatic Rifle to provide an automatic rifle for use during World War I. The M1918 saw service toward the end of World War I.
BAR (http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=652) <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks.

Snake

Chopstick
12-18-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If you want to consider it as a political question, why did Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, withold the Browing Automatic Rifle from American troops in World War One? A weapon that was clearly superior and desperately needed, at a time when our troops were dying by the thousands every day.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes it's about bureaucracy - sometimes it's about failure to change with the times - sometimes it's about failure to accept or understand the benefit of a technological breakthrough. The early failure to capitalize on the Civil War Era Henry Repeating Rifle is another classic example of this kind of dunderheaded thinking:

<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly my point Snake. Thanks for picking that up. My question was entirely rhetorical. The reason the BAR was not deployed was because it was so much better than anything the Germans had it was feared that it would be captured on the battlefield and given the manufacturing capabilities the Germans had, that the weapon might create more problems than it solved. The decision was made by the War Department. I doubt that Woodrow Wilson had very much to say about it.

There are always multiple factors and factions involved. It's a story as old as warfare itself and it's never about just one guys decision.

I remember the story about the Henrys. Great story. By the way. You any kin to this guy?
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/SnakePlissken.jpg

SnakebyteXX
12-18-2004, 02:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
that the weapon might create more problems than it solved. The decision was made by the War Department. <hr /></blockquote>

While reviewing the Civil War history of the Henry I tried to imagine what might have happened had there been anything like the instant communications we have today. Imagine what kind of stir would have been created if the then Secretary of War had been grilled by Union troops in the field over WHY they were stuck using outdated single shot rifles when they should have and could have had Henry's?

I mean, it strikes me that Union troops didn't get the Henry repeaters early in the war because there wasn't enough attention brought to the problem. There can be little doubt that an earlier introduction of that rifle could have saved many, many lives.

Sometimes the wheel has to squeak before it gets the oil.

Snake &lt;-- no relation to Mr. Pliskin.

eg8r
12-18-2004, 08:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[Gave more money to those who don't pay taxes] LOL, that's for sure Ed, he surely did accomplish that! Now he is going to reform SS and give even more money to those who don't pay taxes, lol. <hr /></blockquote> Yes, you are correct, and there is no initiative for those in poverty to get out. I am not referring to those with ambition, they will find a way. I am referring to those that don't mind the free food, housing, health, etc. And you sit there and laugh because our system supports it.

eg8r

eg8r
12-18-2004, 09:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, lol, show me one post, just one, when you mention anything good about the democrats, or the clinton administrations successes. <hr /></blockquote> Why are you laughing, the balance of this sentences makes no sense. Like a kid that giggles and keeps asking "why".

Since you don't "get it", I will clarify, my references to doom and gloom is not about people, political sides etc (read: this has nothing to do with democrat and republican). It is about choices being made to define the events of the day, or forcasted events of the future. Not all is going bad, just once it would be nice to hear of the good.

As far as saying something good about Clinton, I have already done that. I said he was good at working the crowd. I think I also said he did a good job with Marc Rich. Nice stand up guy, let free. Ooops, that was sarcasm. Oh well, no need to spell that out, seems to be the gist of all your posts. Just trying to rile each other up, aren't you?

eg8r

eg8r
12-18-2004, 09:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to having an open mind regarding Democrats, or the other point of view, even when the poster is reporting or addressing realistic facts, you consistantly go to your standard gloom and doom.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I had skipped the rest of your post till I saw Wally's reply. Funny guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Anyways, the last part of your post is, how do I put it, so what! That is the point, you can post your stats, realistic facts, etc till you are blue in the face, but does any of that change the fact that you/ross/doom and gloom crowd are still only passing off negative information. There is no reason to argue the "realistic facts" because that is not the point, no one is questioning them. <font color="blue"> WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED IS THE ABSENCE OF THE POSTIVE "REALISTIC FACTS"</font color>.

If you are even remotely as open-minded as you would like anyone to believe, you should have trouble arguing that last sentence (the one in <font color="blue"> blue</font color>, caps, and with a bold italicized ending).

eg8r &lt;~~~is this so tough for a liberal to understand?

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 03:20 PM
So true my friend. You are right on!
Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
12-19-2004, 03:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Now the US has records debts, record deficits and a net job loss.
<font color="blue">The job loss occurred within 90 days of and as a result of 9/11 and has been recovered. </font color>


The dollar has dropped a massive 30% in 4 years!
<font color="blue">It has fallen before. It will come back.</font color>

Now he wants to borrow trillions of Dollars [ SS] so that more people can invest in the stock market and make him and his friends, the super rich, even richer!<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> This is not true. Changes in the Socail Security system are neccessary because of the baby boom. They have known about it for fifty years. Bush is the only one to step forward and try to deal with it.

Reading your posts made me curious about where people from other countries are getting their ideas about America. I spent some time surfing some Dutch internet forums. I am glad to see that we do not have a monopoly on nut jobs.</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 03:43 PM
Oh, so we're all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, LOL.
IMHO, if a country is going to go to war, step number one, make sure you have enough troops to avoid looting and all out lawlessness after you invade. Make sure you have enough equipment to protect your own men. Make sure the population of the country wants you there and ready to make the sacrifices necessary to take over their own destiny so you can get the hell out in time to avoid an unwinnable war with no end. And last, make sure you have enough allies who agree that your invasion was necessary in order to protect your country.

I don't think there is anyone in America who does not want to see Bin Ladden brought to justice. Have we done that?

Saddam was no immediate threat to us when we went in there.
I would much rather have seen us develope a highly sophisticated intgelligence capability, along with thousands of foreign intelligence agents in covert operations than the invasion and occupation of another country. It is a matter of how you go about doing what you have to do, and what your top priorities are. Saddam was not the top priority.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 03:49 PM
I was not referring to those in poverty Ed, lol, I had in mind those rich buddies of GW with all their money in Swiss accounts, and those corporations you love so much with all their money in the islands. You've heard of that, right?

Gayle in Md. Ed has no compassions for the poor.

Gayle in MD
12-19-2004, 04:10 PM
Great Ed! As soon as this idiot president does something good, I'll try to remember to brag on it.

So far, given the his raging deficit, his attempt to cover up all the money he has taken out of our SS accounts by claiming that we need to reform SS by taking our own chances in the stock market, thereby helping his rich friends get richer, and with no guarenteed benefits from our gorernment, the falling value of the dollar, Amnesty for illegal alien criminals, no border protection, no safety in the shipping industry, the lowest job creation in history, the thousands of troops who are dieing everyday without even so much as enough socks to go around, the tax cuts for all his rich buddies, his failure to take responsibility for his stupid decisions, his failure to fill top level positions in the FDA, his expansion of anti American sentiment around the world, a foreign policy which has failed to rally international support from our allies, his "No child left behind" program which any teacher will tell you is a obstacle to education, maybe I don't see any good to refer to as regards this president, or his administration. But hey, I'm just doom and gloom, I can't FIND any positive realistic facts.

Gayle in Md.

SecaucusFats
12-19-2004, 05:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Great Ed! As soon as this idiot president does something good, I'll try to remember to brag on it.

So far, given the his raging deficit, his attempt to cover up all the money he has taken out of our SS accounts by claiming that we need to reform SS by taking our own chances in the stock market,thereby helping his rich friends get richer, and with no guarenteed benefits from our gorernment,

<font color="blue">Oh fer crying out loud! There are no individual or collective SS accounts (never have been)! SS payroll taxes are deposited into the treasury funds just like any other taxes. The US Treasury in turn issues what amount to government IOU's to the SS Administration. People collecting SS are not getting money back from the money they paid in, the current retirees are being paid from monies collected from people who are currently working. As boomers begin to retire in massive numbers the problem reaches critical proportions because there will not be enough workers to pay off the SS obligations. Giving younger workers the opportunity to invest a small portion of their SS contributions in equities strengthens the system. What would you suggest? Should we continue as if the problem doesn't exist until the whole thing collapses, double or triple SS taxes, come on Gayle what is your solution? Enquiring minds want to know. </font color>

the falling value of the dollar,

<font color="blue">The dollar has been allowed to fall in order to ease the trade deficit. A weaker dollar makes American products less expensive, leads to greater exports, and more American jobs. Were you sleeping during Economics 101? </font color>

the thousands of troops who are dieing everyday without even so much as enough socks to go around,

<font color="blue">My BS meter just went off the scale! Thousand of troops dying everyday without socks? Where? When? What the hell are you saying? At last count the number of combat deaths in Iraq was a little over 1,000. Fact is more people were murdered in any number of major US cities during the time frame since the beginning of the war to the present. </font color>
&lt;snip&gt;

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>


SF

Wally_in_Cincy
12-20-2004, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Ross,
I agree, but Wally is the last one who could see this, as he does the same thing exactly! LOL...
Gayle in Md.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

See what?

If you and hondo ever learn to use the quote function of this board my life will be complete.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 06:58 AM
Did I say there were individual accounts? NO.
Social Security money, IMHO, should not be removed to pay debts. You're right. We don't get the money we paid in because our politicians take it out to cover their a$$es for all the big spending they do.

My solution is not to tax the American people for SS, spend the money, and then tell them to depend on the stock market for their SS benefits. Every economist I have heard speak about the problem has suggested that Bush's ideas are not workable due to the costs involved in changing the system unless he increases taxes, or cuts benefits.

[As boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers, etc., is there anyone who doesn't know about this?...Oh wow, gee, thanks for explaining it to me, LOL.

[The dollar has been allowed to fall to ease the trade deficit]

Allen Greenspan apparently doesn't realize how great it is that the dollar value is falling, LOL. He thinks that leads to higher interest rates, and other countries being too concerned to invest in, or lend money to us! But, what does he know...unfortunately we are better at exporting jobs than goods.

My bad, thousands aren't dieing everyday, only over 1,300 have lost their lives and countless others, that aren't being counted by our politicians.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 07:09 AM
boo!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SecaucusFats
12-20-2004, 09:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Did I say there were individual accounts? NO.
<font color="red"> Gayle: his attempt to cover up all the money he has taken out of our SS accounts </font color>

<font color="blue"> Yeah, you never said that. LMAO </font color>

Social Security money, IMHO, should not be removed to pay debts. You're right. We don't get the money we paid in because our politicians take it out to cover their a$$es for all the big spending they do.

<font color="blue"> Yes but it's not just Republicans or Democrats..both are equally to blame. </font color>

My solution is not to tax the American people for SS, spend the money, and then tell them to depend on the stock market for their SS benefits. Every economist I have heard speak about the problem has suggested that Bush's ideas are not workable due to the costs involved in changing the system unless he increases taxes, or cuts benefits.

<font color="blue">Years ago Chile went to a privatized system where all workers' can decide how and where to invest their SS contributions. By all accounts the system has been sucessful and you'd be hard pressed to find a Chilean who would wish to go back to the old system (which was based on the current US model). In fact there are many countries which have instituted at least partial privatization including that socialist bastion called Sweden. </font color>

[As boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers, etc., is there anyone who doesn't know about this?...Oh wow, gee, thanks for explaining it to me, LOL.

<font color="blue">I felt it necessary to restate the obvious since you, either by design, or out of an incomplete understanding of the gravity of the situation, seem to be in denial of this. In twenty years the ratio of workers paying in to retirees receiving SS will be 2:1. Given the low birth rate of native born Americans the only way to ensure that there are enough workers to make up the shortage is thru massive immigration. Of course, if we had not systematically murdered 40 million unborn children thru abortion in the last 30 years we would not be in this predicament now would we. Hey I know "save the baby seals", "kill the baby humans".</font color>

[The dollar has been allowed to fall to ease the trade deficit]

Allen Greenspan apparently doesn't realize how great it is that the dollar value is falling, LOL. He thinks that leads to higher interest rates, and other countries being too concerned to invest in, or lend money to us! But, what does he know...unfortunately we are better at exporting jobs than goods.

<font color="blue">With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan, I think it's something that certainly is less consequential than you think from reading the newspapers. But I think in the end right now it's a good thing for the dollar to decline in value. I think it will help reduce the trade deficit. I don't see any consequences in terms of internal inflation in America that are very major.

We've had this before, the dollar declined 40 percent I think in - roughly the Reagan years, and I didn't see any really terrible consequences from that. It's a necessary adjustment. The exchange rate is the price of dollars. There are a lot of dollars out there, so the price is going down.

</font color>

My bad, thousands aren't dieing everyday, only over 1,300 have lost their lives and countless others, that aren't being counted by our politicians.

<font color="blue">You purposely exaggerated the number of combat deaths and then throw in a comment about our military not having even basic things like socks, then when you get caught in your lie you shrug it off with a trite "my bad". I suppose that you figure that the "big lie" worked for another socialist (Hitler) so what's wrong with lying if it serves your own bleeding heart socialist agenda, right?

The Iraq War commenced on March 20, 2003, The 1300 combat deaths you cite occured over a 20 month period, contrast that with 15,517 murders committed in just one year (2000) right here in the US. Fact is combat deaths were and are surprisingly low for a military operation of this magnitude. </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 11:04 AM
Combat deaths,? How long have we been there, and how long will we be there? IOW, this is just the beginning. We shouldn't have gone over there in the first place in my opinion.

Social Security....Did I say it was only the republicans? No I did not, I said politicians.

Don't compare us to Chile'. Their economy is totally different from ours.

I am for a woman's right to chose. I will always be for that right, instead of having desparate women forced back into coat hangers in back alleys. There has always been abortion, and there will always be abortion. You don't seem concerned about the false information on birth control that is being promoted by the religeous right in their abstinence campaign. If you are so concerned about abortion why not?

Regarding the value of the dollar, I have more respect in the opinion of Mr. Greenspan than in you. Your arguement makes no sense to me. There are many economists concerned about it, not just folks like me.

I did not purposly exaggerate, it was a mistake, and I meant to say thousands were dieing, not that thousands were dieing every day. Thousands have died since we have been over there, PEOPLE, not just our troops. I am not a liar, and I have posted articles here to support most of what I have said about George Bush, Condoleza Rice, and Dick Cheney, who are liars.

I am happy to debate you, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't compare me to Hitler.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
12-20-2004, 12:37 PM
Boo? Boo who?


boo! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
12-20-2004, 12:46 PM
Wally drives me crazy but Eg makes me homicidal.
Ross analyzed his style fairly accurately,I believe.
Don't answer the question, attack the source, divert,
rosort to name- calling. I find it hard to believe
that are people who think like he does. Sometimes
I wonder if he just plays devil's advocate to stir
up things. It would be nice to think that he's
really not as brain-washed as he seems.


quote=Gayle in MD] Ross,
I agree, but Wally is the last one who could see this, as he does the same thing exactly! LOL...
Gayle in Md.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
12-20-2004, 12:51 PM
With all due respect this post made me physically ill.
So now it's kill them all, huh. This kind of thinking
is why I am very nervous about the future of America.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 12:59 PM
You're not the only one.

He's against hate? He's for bombing? Does this make any sense? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

hondo
12-20-2004, 01:00 PM
God, I feel better about the war already. Classic Eg.
Divert, divert, divert. Oh, wait, that was Fats.
They're starting to run together.

At last count the number of combat deaths in Iraq was a little over 1,000. Fact is more people were murdered in any number of major US cities during the time frame since the beginning of the war to the present. </font color>
&lt;snip&gt;

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>


SF <hr /></blockquote>

SecaucusFats
12-20-2004, 01:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I am for a woman's right to chose. I will always be for that right, instead of having desparate women forced back into coat hangers in back alleys. There has always been abortion, and there will always be abortion.

<font color="blue">Take a good look Gayle this is what you support. When you are called to stand in front of your maker tell Him why
</font color>
Original image removed by SF click on link to view. WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT:
Consequence of "Choice" (http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/DecapitatedBaby.jpg)

You don't seem concerned about the false information on birth control that is being promoted by the religeous right in their abstinence campaign.

<font color="blue">What is false about abstinence? Do sperm travel thru the air like viruses? It's all really simple..if a woman doesn't have sex she can't get pregnant. If she elects to have sex she should be responsible and use the pill, an IUD, or a diaprhagm. If she gets pregnant and doesn't want the child then give it up for adoption. The only exception,IMO, should when an abortion is done to save the life of a woman. </font color>

Regarding the value of the dollar, I have more respect in the opinion of Mr. Greenspan than in you. Your arguement makes no sense to me. There are many economists concerned about it, not just folks like me.

<font color="blue">"My" arguments are also espoused by quite a few leading economists. Google up some information.

</font color>

I did not purposly exaggerate, it was a mistake, and I meant to say thousands were dieing, not that thousands were dieing every day. Thousands have died since we have been over there, PEOPLE, not just our troops. I am not a liar, and I have posted articles here to support most of what I have said about George Bush, Condoleza Rice, and Dick Cheney, who are liars.

I am happy to debate you, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't compare me to Hitler.

<font color="blue">When you hide behind choice as an excuse for murder you are using the "big lie" technique. When you knowingly and willfully inflate troop casualty numbers for political ends you are using the "big lie" technique. The notion of the big lie as a propagandistic tool refers to the belief that a lie, told often enough and shouted loudly enough, ignoring any and all statements that debunk the lie, will eventually be believed by the masses. The Big Lie technique refers to attempts by propagandists to use the frequent emphatic repetition of a lie as a means to get people to believe it. This is certainly a propaganda technique that the Nazis engaged in quite frequently.

Here is what Adolf Hitler wrote about it:

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

</font color>
Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

SF

Wally_in_Cincy
12-20-2004, 01:39 PM
Post deleted by Wally_in_Cincy

Chopstick
12-20-2004, 01:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You're not the only one.

He's against hate? He's for bombing? Does this make any sense? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Why? Take a look at the rest of the animal kingdom. They neither love nor hate but the do have war.

eg8r
12-20-2004, 01:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wally drives me crazy but Eg makes me homicidal. <hr /></blockquote> Whoa. For you health you should give up the NPR side of this board. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~always looking out for my fellow ccb'ers

SecaucusFats
12-20-2004, 01:58 PM
Post deleted by SecaucusFats

Wally_in_Cincy
12-20-2004, 02:08 PM
Post deleted by Wally_in_Cincy

Wally_in_Cincy
12-20-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...Everyone in this country should read Woodward's book and Richard Clark's book. ...<hr /></blockquote>

You claim to have read 20 books on the Bush admin, but those are the only 2 you ever quote.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 04:58 PM
Those are the two which had the most impact, guess you want a book list now, huh? Just ask some of my friends about my book lists, and they will tell you I am always prepared with a good book list for whatever ails ya, LOL.
Gayle

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 05:04 PM
The job loss has been recovered????????????? We are down 600,000 jobs, is this post of yours what you call lieing propaganda?

We've got thirty years before the SS fund is in trouble. The baby boomers will all be dead by then.

Bush is just trying to cover up for dipping into the sacred SS fund, and his raging deficit.

Gayle in MD
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2004, 05:11 PM
LMAO, this post of yours (Hitler's words) is the best description of this years Republican Campaign that I have heard so far, thanks for the laugh.
Now go have a twinkie and just chill.
Gayle in Md.

SecaucusFats
12-20-2004, 05:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> LMAO, this post of yours (Hitler's words) is the best description of this years Republican Campaign that I have heard so far, thanks for the laugh.
Now go have a twinkie and just chill.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Your tersely cogent response is an erudite display of your incisive wit and brilliant intellectual capacity. I can only marvel at the wonders you would produce if the other 50% of your brain were functional. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

SF

crawdaddio
12-20-2004, 09:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Big Lie technique refers to attempts by propagandists to use the frequent emphatic repetition of a lie as a means to get people to believe it. This is certainly a propaganda technique that the Nazis engaged in quite frequently.

Here is what Adolf Hitler wrote about it:

-snip- <hr /></blockquote>

You are absolutely correct. Since we're on the topic of Hitler, I've been meaning to ask, is this true?:

[ QUOTE ]
In April 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush proclaimed a week of remembrance for the Holocaust. He said, "I urge Texans to never forget the inhumanity of those who perpetrated the Holocaust, and reflect upon our own humanity and our responsibility to respect all peoples." Good advice. He should reflect upon his own family, if he is interested in reflecting on inhumanity.

G.W.'s grandfather and great-grandfather, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, were among the chief American fundraisers for Germany's Nazi Party. Through industrialist Fritz Thyssen, the Bush-run Union Banking Company and W. A. Harriman &amp; Company, the Bushes sold over $50 million in German bonds to American investors, starting in 1924. Thyssen in turn pumped money into the infant Nazi Party, which had proved its desire to rule and its willingness to use brute force in 1923's Munich Beer Hall Putsch.

.............The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime.

<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id195/pg1/

????

~DC

Qtec
12-20-2004, 10:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You don't seem concerned about the false information on birth control that is being promoted by the religeous right in their abstinence campaign.

What is false about abstinence? Do sperm travel thru the air like viruses? It's all really simple..if a woman doesn't have sex she can't get pregnant. If she elects to have sex she should be responsible and use the pill, an IUD, or a diaprhagm. If she gets pregnant and doesn't want the child then give it up for adoption. The only exception,IMO, should when an abortion is done to save the life of a woman.
<hr /></blockquote>
As a means of controlling the spread of AIDS and as a means of birth control, abstinence is a non-starter. Its been proven that it just doesnt work. Its a fantasy that is based on relgious driven wishfull thinking, not on scientific fact.
Also ,in their drive to scare kids into not having sex, these programs ar spreading false information. [eg you can catch AIDS from sweat!]

Q
BTW, no sperm, no pregnancy.

SecaucusFats
12-21-2004, 12:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The Big Lie technique refers to attempts by propagandists to use the frequent emphatic repetition of a lie as a means to get people to believe it. This is certainly a propaganda technique that the Nazis engaged in quite frequently.

Here is what Adolf Hitler wrote about it:

-snip- <hr /></blockquote>

You are absolutely correct. Since we're on the topic of Hitler, I've been meaning to ask, is this true?:

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
In April 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush proclaimed a week of remembrance for the Holocaust. He said, "I urge Texans to never forget the inhumanity of those who perpetrated the Holocaust, and reflect upon our own humanity and our responsibility to respect all peoples." Good advice. He should reflect upon his own family, if he is interested in reflecting on inhumanity.

G.W.'s grandfather and great-grandfather, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, were among the chief American fundraisers for Germany's Nazi Party. ~DC <hr /></blockquote>

&lt;snip&gt;

That site seems like a meeting site for the tin foil hat set. The person who posted that offers no corroborating evidence, cites no investigative sources, and has no journalistic or other credentials. His claims about Walker / Bush family dealing with Nazi Germany in particular seem suspect as this has never (to my knowledge) been claimed or reported in any serious media. Could it have happened? I suppose anything could be possible. Who knows?

Look at Joe Kennedy Sr.'s bootlegging during prohibition, and his documented support for Hitler and the Nazis I certainly don't hold JFK or Ted guilty for their father's mistakes. (BTW, Henry Ford was also a Nazi sympathizer, and strongly anti-Jew as well.)

One of the writer's claims does have a kernel of truth: When Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, the agency did have dealings with Manuel Noriega,this in and of itself should not come as a great shock to anyone. Covert operations many times require that the agency deal with unsavory characters of all stripes. I'm sure the agency was aware that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking but for whatever reason they chose to look the other way. (During the VietNam War the agency was widely rumored to have aided Laotian and Cambodian drug warlords in exchange for their support against NVA troops within their respective domains.)

As to the exact extent of the CIA / Noriega relationship I seriously doubt we will ever know what transpired. The matter is classified and Noriega is buried so far underground in a remote federal super-max prison that no one can get to him.

I will try to see if there are any other more credible sources to back up the claims, and if I come up with anything I'll post it no matter where the chips fall. Fair enough?

SF

eg8r
12-21-2004, 06:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As a means of controlling the spread of AIDS and as a means of birth control, abstinence is a non-starter. Its been proven that it just doesnt work. <hr /></blockquote> I understand what you are trying to say, but the words are not coming out correct. LOL, abstinence is the only gauranteed way, works 100% of the time. I know that is not what you were meaning but it still seemed a little funny. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Its a fantasy that is based on relgious driven wishfull thinking, not on scientific fact.
<hr /></blockquote> After I thought I knew what you were talking about (preaching abstinence knowing the masses will not follow), I got a bit confused with this sentence. Can you explain this a little more, because scientifically speaking, you will not get AIDS through sex (you can still get AIDS through other means), or get pregnant if you are abstinent.

eg8r &lt;~~~ignoring the obvious, in vitro fertilization (sp)

eg8r
12-21-2004, 06:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
You are absolutely correct. Since we're on the topic of Hitler, I've been meaning to ask, is this true?:

[ QUOTE ]
In April 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush proclaimed a week of remembrance for the Holocaust. He said, "I urge Texans to never forget the inhumanity of those who perpetrated the Holocaust, and reflect upon our own humanity and our responsibility to respect all peoples." Good advice. He should reflect upon his own family, if he is interested in reflecting on inhumanity.

G.W.'s grandfather and great-grandfather, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, were among the chief American fundraisers for Germany's Nazi Party. Through industrialist Fritz Thyssen, the Bush-run Union Banking Company and W. A. Harriman &amp; Company, the Bushes sold over $50 million in German bonds to American investors, starting in 1924. Thyssen in turn pumped money into the infant Nazi Party, which had proved its desire to rule and its willingness to use brute force in 1923's Munich Beer Hall Putsch.

.............The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime.

<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id195/pg1/

????

~DC <hr /></blockquote>Uh oh, the BS Conspiracy alert is back on.

eg8r

crawdaddio
12-21-2004, 06:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Uh oh, the BS Conspiracy alert is back on.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

That's a nice defense mechanism.

~DC

eg8r
12-21-2004, 07:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That's a nice defense mechanism. <hr /></blockquote> Does that make the reply easier to digest, I call it reality. So tell us, what happened when you emailed the author asking for proof and maybe some sources? Did he whisper back and tell you he could not tell you or he would have to kill you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't want to fuel this conspiracy fire burning within but you should read Ludlum. He was the best at this stuff. I will warn you though, he is being honest right at the get go and puts his stuff out as fiction.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-21-2004, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Those are the two which had the most impact, guess you want a book list now, huh? <hr /></blockquote>

Sure. That would work.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Just ask some of my friends about my book lists, and they will tell you I am always prepared with a good book list for whatever ails ya, LOL.
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know any of your friends.

hondo
12-21-2004, 07:38 AM
So, Gail, St. Fats thinks you're going to Hell
for supporting women's rights? Well, I am anti-
abortion AND pro women's rights. i think some
of you will understand what I mean. I guess
I'm doomed too. Hey, fatty, tell Pat Robrtson
and Jerry Fartwell I said high when you folks
get up there.

hondo
12-21-2004, 07:42 AM
Well, I might have been exaggerating for dramatic
purposes.



Whoa. For you health you should give up the NPR side of this board. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~always looking out for my fellow ccb'ers <hr /></blockquote>

crawdaddio
12-21-2004, 07:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party--in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis. <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html

hondo
12-21-2004, 07:48 AM
Fats, your intelligence is only exceeded by your
wit and charm. I stand in awe of you, Sir.

SecaucusFats
12-21-2004, 08:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> So, Gail, St. Fats thinks you're going to Hell
for supporting women's rights? Well, I am anti-
abortion AND pro women's rights. i think some
of you will understand what I mean. I guess
I'm doomed too. Hey, fatty, tell Pat Robrtson
and Jerry Fartwell I said high when you folks
get up there. <hr /></blockquote>

Saint Fats, that has a nice ring to it. LOL
Thanks Hondo, but in all honesty I must point out that I am still in the first stages of beatification. The church is still debating as to whether or not some of the shots I have to pull out of my rear due to poor position are really miracles. And then there is also the fact that I am a CINO (Catholic In Name Only) as I consider myself an agnostic.

As an agnostic, I'm not sure if there really is a hell or even a God, and in any case if there is a God then He, She, It would decide who goes to hell not me. I'd lay you good odds on it that Mssrs. Falwell, Robertson, and others of their ilk a good candidates for the inferno. (Oh you forgot Jimmy Swaggart, man what a piece of work he is.)

Like you, I am Anti-abortion and pro women's rights. I don't think one cancels out the other.

BTW, morality and ethics need not be confused with religious doctrine. Agnostics and atheists can be moral and ethical, while devout churchgoers can be immoral / unethical, and vice versa.

Yes, I'm opposed to abortion, yes I think it's murder, and certainly we (all of us) have a right to our own views on the matter and to voice our opinion.

Happy holidays / Merry Festivus to you.

SF &lt; Dear God (if you exist), please help me (if you can).

hondo
12-21-2004, 09:27 AM
Good post, Fats. Merry Christmas to you also.

Chopstick
12-21-2004, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
abstinence is a non-starter. Its been proven that it just doesnt work.
<hr /></blockquote>
What!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif How exactly did they prove that? Did they multiply two negative numbers together or something?

I can see the report now.

It is not proven, that it is not a "Realistic Fact" that not doing something will not result in something not happening.

It makes me wonder about the time table also. If you are doing nothing how do you know when you are finished? If you are in the middle of nowhere, how did you get there?

"Realistic Facts". I love that one. Is that like an almost fact. A simulated fact?

A Gayle fact?
An Egg Fact?
A Secaucus Fact? Oops, my transmogrifier just slipped a gear. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Chopstick
12-21-2004, 10:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>
BTW, morality and ethics need not be confused with religious doctrine. Agnostics and atheists can be moral and ethical, while devout churchgoers can be immoral / unethical, and vice versa.
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">You can also be spiritual without religion.</font color>

Qtec
12-21-2004, 10:40 AM
Did you have sex before you were married ? Is there anybody on this board that didnt?

When kids reach their teens, ALL they think about is the opposite sex. You cant stop them having sex. What you can do is accept the fact and work with it. ie if they are going to have sex, lets educate them and stop unwanted/ accidental pregnancies.
Sure, if people dont have sex, there will be no unwanted pregnancies. If people would obey the Law, there would be no crime. If people wouldnt take drugs there would be no junkies, you could make the same arguement about alcohol abuse, war, etc, etc..............

lets say, in your line of work, someone comes to you with a design that looks perfect on paper but YOU know its not going to work because its not practical. Would it be folly to continue? If lives were at risk, would it be criminal?

Q

Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 10:50 AM
I understand exactly what you mean friend, and I could say the same.
Gayle

eg8r
12-21-2004, 12:06 PM
Q, you have not offered scientific fact. You have only offered the thoughts on the reality of the situation. Since your previous post was very specific with respect to scientific fact that is why I called you on it.

I do not disagree with anything in this post, but don't stand behind science and state it as fact, when clearly it is wrong.

Nothing wrong with having an open mind, but don't state it is scientific fact.

eg8r