I’d like a cite on that pardon of crack dealers. Bill Clinton wasn’t even as sleazy as Ronald “Iran/Contra” Reagan, let alone Richard “Dirty Tricks” Nixon.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**
I cannot believe anyone who watched the same speech I did would call it ‘boring’ and ‘predictable’.
You know, there comes a point when your partisanship is so severe it actually prevents you from making reasonable judgements about the world. People like that wind up as paranoid crackpots and conspiracy theorists. You might want to brush up on your reality a bit. **
[/QUOTE]
You know, there comes a point when your partisanship is so severe it actually prevents you from making reasonable judgements about the world. People like that wind up as paranoid crackpots and conspiracy theorists. You might want to brush up on your reality a bit.
Yeah, I’ve been REALLY partisan lately. You might want to scan the message boards and have a look at what I’ve been saying. I’ve spent a good chunk of my time defending Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example. And expressing my admiration for Rosie O’Donnell.
Yeah, neither of these adjectives came to my mind either during his speech. “Scary” did, though. “Opportunistic” did too. But then, I’m an enemy of the people so what do I know?
Well, ‘Scary’ and ‘Opportunistic’ I can understand. If you don’t like the man and don’t trust him, you might see some of what he said as being dangerous.
But it was anything but boring and predictable. The speech was riveting, and it was surprising in that he said a lot of things that were new - like the fact that he essentially said that the Taliban government was coming down, regardless of whether they turned over Bin Laden or not. It was as close to a declaration of war as you can come without saying the words. It really was an unprecedented speech in many ways. Certainly not boring or predictable.
Sam Stone: I specifically chose the words “boring” and “predictable” because they were polite and essentially non-partisan.
You don’t want to know the words I might have substituted had I chosen to speak as a partisan.
And, it seems to me, only a Bush partisan could consider that insipid, clichéd speech “riveting”, no matter how much it set back the American vision.
And why did you not quote the part of my post wherein I praised Reagan’s speechifying talents? Did that interfere with your premise?
More importantly, what about the point I raised when I wrote:
Your praise for President Bush’s jingoist speech, wherein he trampled on some of our own noble American ideals, failed to address that glaring weakness. Dubya is no Reagan.
I detest Dubya. It was an exellent speech. I was riveted.
Do those facts open your mind any? Probably not, I think.
I can only think that people who think the Clinton administrations made Richard Millhouse Nixon, late President of the United States, look like a Boy Scout, either doesn’t remember the Nixon administration or has a very low opinion of the Boy Scouts.
Please explain to me then, why the majority of pundits from both sides of the political fence, even those who have lambasted Bush from day one of the primaries have praised both the speech and the assured manner in which he delivered it?
Anyway, back to my original topic…
Whether you found the speech compelling or boring, I still found that, whatever her reasons, Hillary showed very little class in looking so put off. Surely she knows that the camera will be on her at some point?
Other huge democrats, such as Daschle and Gephardt looked as if Gore were declared the winner of the election and he was being sworn in, they looked so enthused. My point: Is playing the political game in this manner beyond Hillary?
If so, she could very well be done politically!
“Riveting”? Are you folks serious? * riveting? *
Are you sure you aren’t confusing the fact that you may very well have been riveted, because the Prez was addressing the nation and the government after an unprecedented attack on the US with the speech itself being “riveting”?
Uh, exactly what noble ideals did he trample? Exactly how was his speech jingoistic? I know that you can’t stand the guy, I think he’s an idiot myself. If you thought his speech was lackluster and boring, well boring is in the eye of the beholder.
But how exactly did he trample our precious freedoms? Be specific, please.
Maybe my eyesight is failing, but Hillary didn’t look all that bored to me, she looked serious (except for the few times the camera showed her whispering in the ear of the man sitting next to her). Heck, most of the people at that speech hardly changed expresion. As for the speech itself, Bush appeared earnest and sincere but I didn’t hear one word that was over three syllables and he seemed to have diffuculty with those. All-in-all, it was a decent speech, well delivered and easily understood. I wonder who wrote it?
I appreciated Bush’s kind words about true Islam. I was a bit baffled when he bashed the treatment of women in Afghanistan, while counting Saudi Arabia among our “friends and allies” who are “democratic.” And when he said we should go after every country who has harbored terrorists… I think many of the highjackers were living in the US.
The treatment of woman in Afghanistan is worthy of condemnation. Yes, the U.S. can sometimes be hypocritical in that we will support (or ignore) an undemocratic regime that either has something we want (Saudi Arabia) or is too big (China). I didn’t catch him referring to Saudi Arabia as a democracy. But the main reason I’m writing this–boy have we gone off topic–are you really suggesting that there is an equivalence between harboring terrorists (which is a knowing act of providing refuge) and the fact that some terrorists maybe secretly hiding out in America, taking full advantage of the fact that we have an open and diverse society?
What do you mean? That we should bomb our own country? If ever there was an example of reductio ad absurdum I think this is it.
That does bring up a good point, though:
How do we know someone is a terrorist if he hasn’t committed any acts of terrorism yet?
I’d hate to see accusations of “he’s a terrorist in training!” have the same effect as accusations of being a Communist during the McCarthy era, or as accusations of “he’s a drug dealer!” are doing right now in some South American countries (where you’re essentially guilty until proven innocent).
[[What do you mean? That we should bomb our own country?]]
Well, no. That’s my point.
They weren’t secretly here. The U.S. apparently knew they were here. And my point about Bush’s condemnation of Afghanistan’s treatment of women and human rights is that our “friend” Saudi Arabia is really no better. We are very selective about when we get on our high horse about being all about human rights. We boycotted and had sanctions againt South Africa because of aparteid, meanwhile doing business with - and counting as allies - countries where women are not allowed to go out in public alone, to be educated, to drive, to travel without a male’s permission, and worse. And we don’t just harbor terrorists. We support and train them all over the world.
Cite, please?
As a long time Bush hater, I’ll say that the speech was decent, but it was predictable. Everyone knew beforehand that he would call on Americans to fight a long war against terrorism while remaining vague in most of the details, and that’s exactly what he did. His diction was clear and he didn’t stumble, and he did appear to speak with conviction. His handling of this entire crisis has been much better than the incident with China last February (it could hardly have been worse). However, I don’t fault Hillary for having a few eye movements that weren’t do everybody’s liking. All members of Congress have obviously had tough schedules for the past two weeks, it’s absurd to expect them to look pert and attentive for every minute of every day.
[[Cite please.]] - minty green
This isn’t common knowledge?!
Well, here’s one cite: Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II by William Blum - one of many sources of information about horrifying CIA acts abroad. Along with describing US-supported, financed and trained terrorist groups around the world, he describes a number of oppressive (and often murderous, if not genocidal) governments who have been backed by the US. Some of them took power after the CIA had the previously elected leader assasinated. Some examples of “leaders” your tax dollars have gone to support: “Papa Doc” Duvalier; dictator of Haiti, General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Lon Nol in Cambodia, Jonas Savimbi of Angola, the Shah of Iran, Anastasios Samoza in Nicaragua, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq… should I go on? Under the guise of protecting democracy and freedom and fighting communism, the motive was usually just supporting US economic interests at all costs, including human rights and lives.
I’ve been all over the world, and I think the US is about the best place to live that there is. The American people are, for the most part generous, caring and ethical. Few other countries have the laws we do to protect the disabled, for example, and to protect the civil rights and freedoms of all. But our government has been involved in some very nasty things overseas. There are many groups of people out there in the world who hate and fear the US.
[Edited by JillGat on 09-24-2001 at 12:26 AM]
Oh, you meant to use the past tense. Those decades really do make a difference, you see. Also note that there’s a difference between supporting bad guys and training people to murder innocent civilians in cold blood. Finally, between the Shah of Iran and the Ayatollah, I’ll take the Shah any day, thank you very much.