PDA

View Full Version : just a question (a rare political one) from Sack



sack316
01-11-2007, 03:59 AM
out of ALL the threads concering the prez (mostly negative), I couldn't decide which one to reply to to ask this... so my solution was to just start another thread. I hate getting into these kinds of ones, but I'm just curious.

The majority seem to be against what's going on in Iraq, and most people here seem to have been from day one. And I doubt anyone is saying "A plan well executed" about it. But seeing as how the criticism started from the beginning, I was curious about this:

GW took flack from 9-11 because of possible intelligence that could have been useful in possibly preventing it. The flack came from the LACK of taking action in this case.

Since then, it's been all action going on, and now the complaint seems to be "you're taking actions on 'ifs' and 'maybes' that shouldn't have been acted upon.

This looks lose-lose to me, as it seems those who are against Bush would not waiver their opinion reguardless of what happened. I mean, say operation enduring freedom never started, and we never got to where we are presently in the gulf. Now let's say WMD's or terrorist attacks were coming from Iraq... would the same critics that are now saying we should have never been in Iraq not then be saying that he should have used the intelligence and taken some course of action against Sadaam?

I hope I explained that clearly enough (it is late and I'm tired), but my overall point is that it doesn't seem like he could have gained a good rap no matter what he did. Seems to be a lot of hypocrisies when it comes to what should or shouldn't be done.

And I'm spent,
Sack

pooltchr
01-11-2007, 05:51 AM
Good question! No matter who the President is, and no matter what he (or she) does, half the country is going to agree and half are going to be against it. I think being President is pretty much a losing proposition for anyone unfortunate enough to be elected. I can't for the life of me underatand why anyone in their right mind would want to spend millions of dollars to get a job where they are going to get ripped apart for the length of time they hold the job. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 08:56 AM
Respectfully, my answer is, first of all, please read my last response to Steve in the thread, "Bush lied"...

Also, I was not against George Bush's Iraq decisions, until I studied what he, the republican neocons, and his appointees have done to us, and the rest of the world, and how they came to make the decisions they made. I did not vote for Bush, either time, but after watching the Republicans during Clinton's administration, and having read throughout the years of his administration, many many books about the middle east, I was completely turned against the Republicans, their lies, and their misguided actions, at that time, because I realized that they were spending a fortune to discredit Clinton, at a time when we needed to come together as a nation to fight terrorism, which he was addressing, and making progress by implementing the necessary special terrorist intelligence units within the government, to stay on top of bin Laden, alqaeda, Saddam Hussein, whom Clinton had in fact completely weakened and removed any threat of weapons of mass destruction from. I might add, that I was a Republican, when Clinton took office, and changed my party because of the fiasco I watched from the Republicans which crippled the country over non issues, at a time when we should have been focussed on alQaeda, and because of the way that George H. W. Bush had encouraged the uprising of Iraqis during Desert Storm, and then abandoned them to the methods of Saddam Hussein, after they had made efforts to overthrow Saddam, an action which Bill Clinton tried to assuage by protecting them during his administration.

Last, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, after 9/11, and it never occurred to me that a President would lie to the American People about the necessity of sending our people in harm's way, in spite of the fact, that everything I had read previous to his taking office, suggested that many of his statements were false, and that he did in fact have opportunity, and intelligence, and warnings, previous to our attack.

I now know, having purchased an entire library on the middle east, George Bush, Dick Cheney, donald Rumsfeld, their histories, his father's dishonesty, the Saudi connections, oil connections, and connections to Halliburton, and re-reading much of what was written during Clinton's administration by middle east experts, that this President, is a liar, is incompetent, and has made the entire terrorist situation much much worse. He is not a leader, does not heed expert advice, does not tell Americans the truth, and has been in over his head throughout his tenure. My answer to your question is that until Americans understand that only through presonal study, can we as a country learn what we need to know in order to make effective decisions when we enter the voting booth, rather than relying on partisan news on any news channel, we can not effectively make decisions about our own best interests, umless we do so, and that we should all strive to cut through the partisan BS, and learn the facts, for we are now at greater risk, than we have ever faced before, due to disengenuous elitist statements and faulty, extreme, philosophical notions and actions of Ivy League hawks, and liars. Finding the truth, is our first duty as Americans.

If you will read my post in the other thread, you will see why George Bush had no business invading and occupying Iraq, and his incompetence afterward, and mistatements, is now quite obvious to all but the roughly 30% of blind followers in this country who are only happy when we are killing someone, anyone, regardless of whether or not we do so as a last resort, in a legal, reasonalbe, way, and against the propper enemy, are quite happy to go along, as long as it gives them some false sense of security. Unless one studies the overall complexion of middle east, and muslim philosophy, one cannot possibly understand why Bush and the neocons were so completely remiss in making the decisions they have made. I highly recommend that you read everything written by Paul Galbraith, and especially his book... The End Of Iraq and also, Fiasco The Rise Of The Vulcans Hubris The Book Of Bush State Of Denial Lions At The Gate Perfectly Legal Cobra II and Jawbreaker ...if you are truly interested in a brief overview of the Bush Administration, and the Neocon Republican Party, and their dangerous hidden agendas.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
01-11-2007, 10:21 AM
"but my overall point is that it doesn't seem like he could have gained a good rap no matter what he did."

Uhhh you mean like being honest and NOT invading a NON threatening soveregn country, using deciet and total dishonesty to the American people? I think that was the mainest crime we are talking about...sid

sack316
01-11-2007, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>
Uhhh you mean like being honest and NOT invading a NON threatening soveregn country, using deciet and total dishonesty to the American people? I think that was the mainest crime we are talking about...sid <hr /></blockquote>

and the last president (or just about any political position) that was full of nothing but honesty and integrity was ___________?

and Gayle, thanks for your well thought out and organized post. I have to get ready for work, but I will look into some of the things you mentioned whenever I get some time.

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 01:36 PM
You're quite welcome, friend, and btw, when our folks are currently being blown up every day, all due respect, but it doesn't matter much who did the lying in the past, what matters most is are we being told the truth today.

Love,
Gayle

Sid_Vicious
01-11-2007, 01:54 PM
Like pool Gayle, people here should me "in the now." For the life of me, it's just not understandable how Bill C. always gets into the picture. People have such a lifeless thought arena if they have to keep going back to Bill C, when in fact by the numbers of wealth and worldly respect, Clinton is a saint right by God's side. Bush figures the end justifies the means, so he professes christianity, then lies, lies lies,,,and all the while real people are getting killed and mamed in the name of his supposed faith. IMO GW gives christianity a very bad sales pitch. Sad, aint it? sid

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 05:46 PM
Martin,
I think they call it denial. don't know if you heard the remarks made by some of the journalists after their little unexpected meeting with Bush last night, but his statments about the world were disturbing to many of them. I personally, think he is out of touch, and a narcissist, unable to distinguish between his personal experience of how things are, and how they really are, IOW, he experiences his version of reality, as THE reality, beyond any other input, or supposition of contrary indicators. This is a psychological phenomena, a kind of neurotic flaw. Some of the reporters, left feeling very disturbed by his statements. I believe this may have been part of his problem in over blowing the Saddam threat.

As for your statement about the continuous references to Clinton, low these many years later, and false statements at that, John Dean addresses the psychological explanations in his book, Without Conscience and I have found his studies to be the only explanation for the roughly thirty percent of Bush blind faith believers in his failed policies. Has to do with authority leaders, and authority followers. Suffice to say, Hitler was blessed with many authority followers....

Love,
Gayle

cushioncrawler
01-11-2007, 05:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ... As for your statement about the continuous references to Clinton, low these many years later, and false statements at that, John Dean addresses the psychological explanations in his book, Without Conscience and I have found his studies to be the only explanation for the roughly thirty percent of Bush blind faith believers in his failed policies. Has to do with authority leaders, and authority followers. Suffice to say, Hitler was blessed with many authority followers.... <hr /></blockquote>
AHAAAAAAAA -- GAYLE, GAYLE, GAYLE -- u mentioned Hitler -- Godwin's Law is hereby invoked immediately -- this thread is now terminated. Address all correspondance to SONama. madMac.

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 06:01 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

pooltchr
01-11-2007, 09:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> but it doesn't matter much who did the lying in the past,

Love,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Especially if it happened to be a Democrat who was doing the lying. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I give up!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve

sack316
01-12-2007, 05:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> but it doesn't matter much who did the lying in the past,

Love,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>


Especially if it happened to be a Democrat who was doing the lying. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I give up!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

just off work and catching up some, so I add ditto to this one to save some space...

And Gayle, I again thank you, as your thoughts are both well organized and thought out. And I also give you kudos to plenty of partial truths, but in looking at some on the books you mentioned... well honestly what is the difference in watching patisan news and reading partisan books(not that any of it matters--- in reality the "news" itslef all began as partisan--- see new york times beginnings as a libertarian newspaper). And beyond that... if, as you say, Clinton did such an admirable job of weakening Hussein and terrorists as a whole, how were they all rebuilt and good to go in a minuimum of a mere year and a half later (note, being generous giving a whole 1.5 years there)?

I feel, as a whole, the truth lies somewhere in between. I am a republican, and I suppose I am a Bush supporter as such. I don't feel he is a great president... nor do I see him as the most horrible president either (as anyone anywhere near the left likes to imply). But either way, I don't think he deserves near as much criticism as he gets. He just happens to be the guy at this time and place, and as such he's getting the shaft. Were a democrat to be in office right now, all these threads would likely just be vice-versa.

But really, if you look at it honestly, it's all a situation of circumstance. We happen to be in an age of infinite information flowing continuously throughout the world... where every word and move is put under a microscope in a way that has never been before. That said, Lincoln is looked at as one of the greatest presidents of all time, yet he had half the country attempting to secede from the union. How's that for approval ratings these days?

Not sure where else to go with this, all I can say is I think after '08 this same topic will be going on, just all us righties will be doing the attacking and the lefties will be defending... for every one thing that is better another thing will be worse, and the cycle shall continue. G.W. would have been better off letting the "party image" remain as his legacy in a pop culture world, then at least he could have been looked back on as a "cool" prez like his adultering predecessor

Gayle in MD
01-12-2007, 08:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> And Gayle, I again thank you, as your thoughts are both well organized and thought out. And I also give you kudos to plenty of partial truths, [ QUOTE ]



<hr /></blockquote> Dear friend, if there is anything untrue in what I write, please do point it out, as I will be more than happy to provide the proof.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> but in looking at some on the books you mentioned... well honestly what is the difference in watching patisan news and reading partisan books [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Not much difference, in some cases, however, reading books written by people from both sides of an issue, which I try to do, does give one a much better handle on things, not to mention, reading the history of the countries involved, the tribal factions, the many divided philosophies and sects, religious and otherwise, helps one to formulate realistic opinions and expectations about what is and isn't possible, or likely to result given any particular set of policies. I might add, that IMO, no one could possibly determine a reasonable understanding of why Bush's foreign policies were so completely wrong headed, and his stated reasoning dishonest, unless one made a study of the Middle east, and the many Arab factions.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> (not that any of it matters--- in reality the "news" itslef all began as partisan--- see new york times beginnings as a libertarian newspaper). [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Well, respectfully, IMO, Newspapers, regardless of their leanings, are extremely valuable to our society. Although their opinion and editorial pages may provide information according to their leaning, they are held to an system of having to print apologies when they report false information, and the threat of law suits if they fail to report the truth. Hence, we learned about Watergate, among many other destructive actions by presidents and government, from both sided of the fence.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> And beyond that... if, as you say, Clinton did such an admirable job of weakening Hussein [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

If you read what I wrote in the other thread, from Mr. Rich's book, this is not opinion, it is fact, and an admitted fact, not only by David Kay, but by others from the left and the right. There were no WMD's in Iraq, as Bush and company assured us, with wild statements, greatly exaggerated for their own purposes, such as, "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's" And, a quick study of memos and books written by the CIA, some of our Generals, and our counter terrorist people during the Bush buildup to this war, provide undeniable proof, that the vast intelligence, when looked at as a whole, free of cherry picking, did not ever support the claims made by the administration, but rather, provided much more intelligence which suggested that there were no WMD's left, no evidence of any reconstitution of them, and no likely threat from Saddam, even if he had them, to the United States.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> and terrorists as a whole, how were they all rebuilt and good to go in a minuimum of a mere year and a half later (note, being generous giving a whole 1.5 years there)? [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure what you mean by this, the Book from which I quoted, and I might add, one of many many in agreement, from both the right, and the left, tells the story of how many more rockets and attacks were launched against Saddams weapons by Clinton's efforts, than by anyone else, and that his weaponry, other than some short range rockets, had been decimated, also, the counter terrorist ALEX unit, in Virginia, which had been formed by the Clinton Administration, began to warn the Bush administration about the impending attack, months before it occurred on 9/11, and in fact, gave Rice, unprecedented warnings, which were all ignorred by the administration. This has also been admitted by many from both sides of the fence, both Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Independent, although, the Administration made every possible effort to block questions, and investigations, even after Bush originally said...

"we must uncover every detail, and learn every lesson of September eleventh,"

"And Dick Cheney said..."There is no question but that there were failures."

And Wesley Clark, who headed U.S.-NATO operations in the war in Kosovo, said it is "a basic principle of military operations [to] conduct an after-action review. When the action's over you bring people together. The commander, the subordinates, the staff members. You ask yourself what happened, why, and how do we fix it the next time?" And yet, Clark notes, "this had never been done about the essential failure at 9/11."

I submit, when George Tennet, and ...Black, (I think his name is) jumped in their car and rushed to Rice's office, urgent Memo in hand..."bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States" and this was several months after the innitial warnings, pooh poohed by the administration, Rice protesting one time that the "President wasn't going to spend his time swatting flies." I submit, their failure to respond in any manner to the threat, the many warnings, gives us a very good idea why they made every effort to prevent the investigations from going forward, right down to Bush trying to cut off the funding, and Rice, originally refusing to testify at all. I might note, that several on the 9/11 panel admitted later, both Baker, and Hamilton, that in the interest of healing the nation, and building on the bi-partisan emotions which grew from our National tragedy, many questions involving determining administration failures, were not asked.

Richard Clarke, former terrorist Zar, writes a very full account of what happened, and writes it without avoiding his own failures, and in fact, was the only Government official to apologize to the survivors of the 9/11 victims, saying, "Your Government has failed you, and I have failed you." Mr. Clarke was not partisan enough to add that his failure to stop trying to convince the administration was his only true failure. His non self protecting approach, makes it very difficult to accuse him of partisanship, along with the general overview of his service, which many who worked with him have said amounted to an addiction to finding and killing bin Laden, and p[rotecting us from any future attacks. That he "ate slept and drank his job" every waking hour...among other things.

Then, there was Paul O'Neil, former FBI agent, who was pushed out of service due to his constant rantings that bin Laden had intentions to fly jets into the World Trade Center, and that he was sure of it due to his knowledge of someone who worked in Florida who was puzzled by Arab looking men, learning how to take off and fly, but not how to land, and even resigned, frustrated, and took the job of Chief of Security at the WTC, and also, perished on 9/11.

There is basically a wealth of information available, which proves that the administration lied to us, and still lies to us to this day. Perhaps, after a few more months, say six, or eight, and another five hundred to a thousand of our people have been slaughtered in Iraq, while Iraqis continue to show up and fight, and another 20 to fifty billion thrown at Bush's failed policy has gone down the drain, and who knows how many legs, eyes, brains and arms are gone, perhaps then, more people will be willing to absorb the full reality of what George Bush has created, and maybe, even have the courage to investigate this administration all the way back to 9/11, for the full and complete summary of their lies, incompetence, and failures. What a very sad commentary for us all.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-18-2007, 05:13 AM
Dear Sack
On this question, and after re-reading it... [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> and terrorists as a whole, how were they all rebuilt and good to go in a minuimum of a mere year and a half later (note, being generous giving a whole 1.5 years there)? [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

The attacks against our troops began almost immediately after the occupation. I believe the answer is that Paul Bremmer released the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi gaurd, after Saddam fell, and because Bush wouldn't listen to Shinsheki, and other Generals with years of battle experience, who warned him that more troops would be needed to keep the peace after the occupation, stock piles of battlefield weaponry were left without enough troops to gaurd them.

Many of the roadside bombs have been smuggled into Iraq, and as I understand it, Iran created and smuggled many of the worst and most devastating type, accross the borders, left wide open due to a lack of troops. Another problem, which has cost the life and limbs of many of our people, which could have been greatly reduced, had we had people prosecuting this war, who listened to expert advice. Instead, those who wouldn't go along with administration policies, or spoke out against them, were axed, a policy which obviously continues to this day.

And as for Steve's statement, I continue to maintain that a person's personal sex life, between consenting adults, regardless of their party affiliation, is his own personal business, unless he is breaking the law. I will always find it amazing that those who most often accuse people of partisanship, never mention the intense, far reaching, secretly organized, multifaceted, manufacturing of false information by the Bush administration, containing lie after lie, and causing death, destruction regional unrest, increasing the dangers to our country, nor their breaking of international and national rules and regulations, nor the unconstitutional actions by Bush and the rest of his administration, who lied to the world, intentionally, and continue to lie to this day. Comparing that to Clinton's being put in a position by the right wing neocons, and Republican majority on the hill, of having to answer questions which, IMO, should never have been asked in the first place, and failing to address the vast differences of the result of Clinton's lies, whatever they might have been, is a blatant example of their own partisanship.

As I have said, the Clinton's were the most investigated people to ever reside in the Whiat House, and the only thing the Republicans could come up with, was a private issue, which many many other Presidents, and the very Republicans who promoted the investigation, had themselves indulged in for years, including Bush Senior, and Newt Gingrich.


I can't think of a single Amcerican politician of any party who has created so much death, destruction and misery on our planet with lies, as George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The partisan comparisons used by the right, in defense of Bush's devastating lies, are not only ridiculous, but smack of a mental lapse in judgement, if you will, due to blind partisanship.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
01-18-2007, 09:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> but it doesn't matter much who did the lying in the past,

Love,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Especially if it happened to be a Democrat who was doing the lying. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I give up!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

I think you should. Trying to convince me or Gayle
that Clinton or Carter was worse than Dubya is silly.
Now LBJ.That might be possible.

Gayle in MD
01-18-2007, 09:42 AM
Hi Hondo,
I almost fell over when Bush stated that anyone who was against his policies, shouldn't be allowed to verbalize any criticism, unless they had a better solution!!! Then tony Snow, says the same thing. I couldn't help thinking, wow, he makes a huge mess, puts us in a trick bag that even the experts can't figure out how to get out of, and most say, there are really no good options, then he has the nerve to put limitations any criticism of the mess that HE created!!! Unbelievable!

I heard the pundits saying last night, that public outcry against his policies, can no longer be labeled as partisan, since some 70% of us are against them, from the left and the right. You would think that the right would atleast be willing to acknowledge that it is no longer an issue of so called "Liberal" criticism. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-18-2007, 11:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I almost fell over when Bush stated that anyone who was against his policies, shouldn't be allowed to verbalize any criticism, unless they had a better solution!!! <hr /></blockquote> I find it equally entertaining when I see a Dem mouth off about how bad Iraq is going and then they have deer in headlights look when asked to provide a better solution. You are all one in the same.

Bush should have asked a long time ago, maybe we would not be in as deep a mess. However if the rest of Congress is as responsible as you he would have received no solution just a response that basically says, "you made the bed now lay in it". You offer nothing positive, nothing useful to turn things around, just negativity. Your only recommendation is to vote out all the Cons. What good did that do, we now have a Dem congress who is padding their own bills. Same problems and issues, just a different chief.

eg8r

hondo
01-18-2007, 11:43 AM
Well, look at how many bushies have clammed up on
here. As I said, AZ is another story. Take a gander
over there sometime, Gayle. It's another world.
Bush popularity is running about 80% and several
of those posters make Eg look like a choir boy.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi Hondo,
I almost fell over when Bush stated that anyone who was against his policies, shouldn't be allowed to verbalize any criticism, unless they had a better solution!!! Then tony Snow, says the same thing. I couldn't help thinking, wow, he makes a huge mess, puts us in a trick bag that even the experts can't figure out how to get out of, and most say, there are really no good options, then he has the nerve to put limitations any criticism of the mess that HE created!!! Unbelievable!

I heard the pundits saying last night, that public outcry against his policies, can no longer be labeled as partisan, since some 70% of us are against them, from the left and the right. You would think that the right would atleast be willing to acknowledge that it is no longer an issue of so called "Liberal" criticism. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-18-2007, 11:47 AM
Bush should have asked a long time ago, maybe we would not be in as deep a mess.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Amen, brother EG. The truest statement you ever made.

Gayle in MD
01-18-2007, 02:35 PM
LOL, they not only clam up, they make phone calls trying to stop posts about politics, completely!!! Try to get people kicked off the board, send out emergency pm's, try to round up CCBers, asking them not to respond to political posts, it's a riot. All because they can't deal with the fact that they were wrong. Reminds me of Junior High School.

Hey, I'm just happy that the blank check Congress is gone. that was what I believed this country needed to keep this monster in the White House in his place. Already, he's backed down on the spying on Americans without court oversight. Guess he knew without all his party line crooks in there to block them, there might be actual investigations into just whom he spied on. Even the Attorney General, backed down. What does that tell ya.

Things are looking up friend, finally, and I'm happy as a lark. I've heard more open debate and concerned discussion on the hill about protecting our troops, and their plight, more truth about this war, and Bush's ridiculous, failed policy, during the last month, than ever before. Bush is going to have to get used to being held to account for what he does. Maybe we'll get lucky, and the Congress will force Bush into bringing back that twice guilty drug dealer that he pardoned twice, and sent back to Mexico, and letting those poor border patrol guys out of jail. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

As for AZ, I think I'll pass on that one. One Eg8r is already one too many. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif 80% Bush supporters would be like waking up on the planet of the apes! That would be like an on-going Geico Commercial, that never ends! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

eg8r
01-18-2007, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, they not only clam up, they make phone calls trying to stop posts about politics, completely!!! Try to get people kicked off the board, send out emergency pm's, try to round up CCBers, asking them not to respond to political posts, it's a riot. All because they can't deal with the fact that they were wrong. Reminds me of Junior High School.
<hr /></blockquote> Who is doing this? Especially the part about asking not to respond to posts! You are the only one I have ever seen act like that on this board?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-19-2007, 08:05 PM
Eg, When I suggest the someone not bother posting to me, or decide not to respond, it is because, hard as it may be for you to understand or accept this, I'd really prefer to spare others from having to read a bunch of who struck John going on constantly between the same few posters, whose personalities must clash. I believe that your only purpose in posting, most of the time, is to irritate people. While I'm sure that I irritate others, also, who can't abide differing opinions, bashing people is really not what I enjoy doing. That's not to say I don't get annoyed myself, at times, and fall into the same bad habit, but it isn't my overall goal when I post. Hence, I try to alert people who I think are targeting me intentionally in order to annoy me, that I will not be responding in the future. I'd prefer not to have to do that, but there are times when I think it's best. It's really only a suggestion, I'm not one who would endeavor to dictate who can and can't post on here, or even how or what they post about, I just think in some cases, we'd all be better off if we recognized who we should and shouldn't banter with. That's why I don't usually read your posts, because I know before I even open them up, there's nothing in them other than insults and sarcasm, and your intentionally twisted version of what others are actually saying. I know you do this on purpose, but what's the payoff?

BTW, you're back on total ignore, so don't bother responding /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-22-2007, 08:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Especially if it happened to be a Democrat who was doing the lying.

I give up!!!
Steve [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Again, out of context, Steve, the discussion is about the war in Iraq. Please explain how President Clinton's lie about a private affair, between consenting adults, has anything at all to do with the War in Iraq.

Gayle in Md....can't wait to hear this answer, which I'm sure, will be left unanswered.

pooltchr
01-22-2007, 06:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote> Especially if it happened to be a Democrat who was doing the lying.

I give up!!!
Steve &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

Again, out of context, Steve, the discussion is about the war in Iraq. Please explain how President Clinton's lie about a private affair, between consenting adults, has anything at all to do with the War in Iraq.

Gayle in Md....can't wait to hear this answer, which I'm sure, will be left unanswered.




<hr /></blockquote>
Clinton's lies under oath had absolutely nothing to do with the war. Nor did I suggest that they did. I have stated my opinion about lying in the past. A lie is a lie regardless of the subject matter. Lying speaks more about the character of the person who chooses to lie. You are so quick to jump on GW, but are willing to let others slide. Believe it or not, some may think that speaks to your own character as well. You either believe lying is ok or it is not. There really isn't any gray area there. It's either right or wrong. It's not a matter of degree or of subject matter. It is either wrong to lie, or it isn't. How difficult is that for you to comprehend.

And no, this one didn't go unanswered. Many of them do, simply because I get tired of saying the same thing over and over. You seem to have enough time on your hands that it isn't an issue for you. I don't. I choose what to respond to, and what to ignore. Sometimes, I figure it's a waste of time to respond to your posts, since many of them say the same thing over and over. If I respond once, that should be enough for most people.

Thank you for the opportunity to once again clarify my position on the subject. It took me 3 minutes, and that's 3 minutes of my life I will never get back.
Steve

DickLeonard
01-23-2007, 08:07 AM
Eg8r They hung Saddam for killing 148 people and George Bush has killed Thousands of Iraqis for what turns out to be no good reason at all. So who is going to punish him, oh wait he has already pardon himself.

He is the Bull in the China Shop now you want us to glue all the pieces together. We will have to wait for Hillary to do that. ####

Gayle in MD
01-23-2007, 08:09 AM
Gee, sorry you continue to suffer from such poor judgement in response selection! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

BTW, the world isn't black and white, neither are lies. Some are much worse than others. Sending troops to die in an un-necessary war, and then lying about conditions on the ground, and reasons for going in, and refusing to listen to advice frome experts, amounts to a devastating lie which has caused the lvies of hundreds of thousands of people, destablized an entire continent, devastated and misplaced millions of Iraqis, increased our enemies and threats here in America, lost us valuable allies, increased missive debt, divided our nation, degraded our reputation in the world, created over two thousand dead American youths, injured over 20,000 troops, over two thousand of them double amputees, and emboldened terrorist organizations.

Now, please tell me the results of Bill Clinton's lie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif All lies do not have equal consequences, and all lies are not for evil purposes, and bad intentions. To think otherwise, is ridiculous!

DickLeonard
01-23-2007, 08:17 AM
Mad Mack George Bush bears a great resemblance to Hitler and his methods of stirring up the populace to going to War. Hitler mades many critical war moves overriding his Generals which led to Germany losing the War. He seems to have that same trait that makes him think he knows more than the Generals. ####

DickLeonard
01-23-2007, 08:24 AM
Gayle lying about sex is a greator sin than lying us to war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. That thinking I can't understand. ####

Gayle in MD
01-23-2007, 09:21 AM
I'll say. What I find so interesting about that concept, is this. Psychologists say that having unrealistic expectations of others, lays the ground work for being disillusioned, depressed, and victimized. Women who set up their own self-esteem subject to their husband's sexual fidelity, with high expectations, without considering men's undeniable urges for variety, their inherent desire for it, particularly during their male menopause, and their escapist desire to indulge when under stress, are really setting themselves up for disaster.

That's not to say that we don't all hope for faithfulness, or that monogamy isn't valued, or worthy of value, but women need to embrace their own value, separate from their remantic relationships with men, and so should men do the same.

If we are to condemn one politician for his extramarital affairs, then we need to call every one of them up in front of the American people on a regular basis, put them under oath, and interrogate each one, every few months! LMAO! Man, we'd narrow down the people who want to hold office real fast with that rule!

How bout Newt!!! Presented his wife with divorce papers while she lay in a hospital bed, after carrying on for years with some young aid, whom he married later! But he's the biggest attacker of Clinton! Look at Rudy, a womanizer for his entire life, trying to kick his wife and kids out of the Governors mansion!

Neither Hilliary Clinton, Jaqueline Kennedy, nor Barbara Bush, were stupid women. Roosevelt has his woman, even in a wheel chair. Eisenhower had his. Nobody said a word. All the way back to Thomas Jefferson's tunnel to Sally's bedroom! I'm quite sure non of the involved wives were in shock over their husband's natures.

People should be allowed their privacy when it comes to private issues. I thought the Republicans did a lot of un-necessary damage to our country when they decided to go against the accepted, unspoken agreement to stay out of our President's private sexual lives.

If we're going to base our government's attention, and harmony in our country on any man's fidelity, we're in big trouble!

Gayle in Md. Thought Hilary Clinton handled a horrible, and embarrassing situation, with tremendous dignity. Hat's off to Mrs. Clinton!

pooltchr
01-23-2007, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

BTW, the world isn't black and white, neither are lies. Some are much worse than others. <hr /></blockquote>

This is where you just don't get it. No, the world isn't black and white, but some things in it are. Either someone is pregnant, or they aren't. There is no "almost" in there. Either you speak the truth, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Now, there are different consequences based on the particular lie told. If you lie and say the dog ate your homework, the consequences could be a failing grade. If you lie to your spouse, it could cost you your marriage. If you lie to the IRS, it could cost you money as well as some time in jail. All of them are lies, but they all don't carry the same consequences.

When you are under oath, I believe the terminology is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Nowhere does it say, kinda sorta tell the truth unless you think you have a good reason not to do so.
At what point does an "acceptable" lie cross the line and become unacceptable? It doesn't! A lie is a lie, period!
Steve

DickLeonard
01-24-2007, 06:28 AM
Pooltchr did George Bush put his hand on the Bible when he took office. How many lies has he spoken just from that one oath. Period.####

Gayle in MD
01-24-2007, 06:36 AM
Steve writes...At what point does an "acceptable" lie cross the line and become unacceptable? It doesn't! A lie is a lie, period!
Steve

It becomes completely unacceptable to me when lies are used to send our people into harms way, the result is hundreds of thousands of people dead, over 2,000 double amputee American Troops, over twenty thousand American Troops injured, Regional Kaos, loss of international American respect, increased numbers of terrorists around the world, emboldened terrorist ideology, supplying bin Laden his greatest dream...America weakened by a war which increases our enemies, inspires his would be followers, and helps prove his stated slander against our country, deep divisions within our country, huge deficits, terror used to keep Americans fearful of false threats, and a more threatened and unsafe America.

And please recall, this all happened not because of just one lie, but because of many, many continuing lies over the last five years, but, I'm sure, given your usual partisan analytical tilt, this equals lying about the dog eating your homework.

Gayle in Md.