- ** Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! ** *
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.
Aye, count me in!
Pretty shrewd plan for such a purported dumbass, doncha think?
QUOTE from Stoid: I just didn’t need to worry about whether Clinton could get away with anything, considering that he was under a microscope from the moment he was elected…
I say let’s question this president because suddenly the whole damn country thinks he’s just peachy and isn’t questioning him at all. I don’t think it is possible to get two more different scenarios.
As to Congress keeping an eye, Congress does what Congress thinks will get Congress re-elected. If they think that the country wants them to let Dubya do whatever he wants, they’ll let him do it. That would be the heart of my point: we mustn’t let this fear of terrorism make us blind. /end
Stoid, working from the end, paraphrasing you: Congress will do whatever the country wants them to do -
answer - BIG FAT “YES!” They are REPRESENTATIVES, and that is how it is DESIGNED to work…to represent the people…yes to get re-elected, which means you represented them well. However, you file this as a complaint. A complaint that is of the highest order of bias and ignorant of the advantages of ocassional non-partisonship. That’s a horrible point you made. Basically, you complained that congress is elected by the people as their representatives. We’ll let that die on it’s own lack of merit.
Now, do we really need to discuss how the press digs on EVERY preseident and pres.-elect? You can say straight faced that no one (go back about a year) has tried to dig up anything in the way they did with Clinton?
Clinton had closets that needed cleaning - and I don’t think Bush has quite has many closet cleaning issues. AND YOU ARE FORGETTING the little woman named Hillary who, by the role she chose to play, simply invited MORE scrutiny upon herself than most first ladies get…and she was so connected to Bill she just doubled the scrutiny. WHY did she get so much attention? Because she seemed to have alot more impact and potential impact on the country than most first ladies, as per the role she chose in the White House, the Guvship and his business dealings.
You’re wasting your breath, Philster. I’ve been down that road–arguing that the press treats everyone with almost equal unfairness, and that these things more or less tend to even out over the long haul–before. You’re not going to make any headway there, man. The persecution complex is absolutely essential to the defense–it gives you something you can always run home to.
For example: nobody here has accused her or elucidator of spitting on fireman at airports. Nobody has called them un-American.
Apparently, though, these imaginary slings and arrows take a heavy toll. I suppose the rest of us should be grateful that they’re willing to endure them. After all, they and those of their ilk (elucidator’s word, not mine–I’ve never seen an ilk and would probably run in the other direction if I did) are privy to knowledge and insight denied the rest of us. Thankfully, they’re willing to carry the burden, and pay the price, for being so much more willing to question authority than the rest of us sheep.
Funny thing, though. I still don’t see a refutation of Sam Stone’s point about the blind trust.
I think our military action in Afghanistan is needed, unfortunately. I think that Bush and his friends will profit from it. I think before any of this happened, Bush was on a mission to help big oil and weapons contractors (his friends). I think the current situation has made it alot easier to achieve his goals. It’s a shame, because I think those goals make the world a worse place to live in.
But they DID attack us. And we DO have to give them a whippin’ back. Much as I can’t stand Bush, He’s an American and a Texan, and proud of both. He will make those bastards pay.
But he’s still in the pocket of his Dad and big buisiness and that is a bad thing for sure. Crazy times these days.l
DaLovin’ Dj
Of course not. We don’t have to trouble ourselves with facts or substantiations when we live in a fantasy world.
Everything is just crystal clear, simple and untroubling when you don’t bother to think.
We know who the good guys and the bad guys are already. Why do we have to think about it or respond to reason?
Why should we bother to substantiate what we already know is the truth?
Come join us and live in the fantasy world with Stoid, elucidator and the whole gang!
Our mutual support network keeps reality safely at bay, while we criticize we things we don’t understand, and ignore rationality.
It’s quite seductive, you should join us.
I get to be a pirate!!
One more thing about this mercenary idea.
I seem to remember some people on this board taking the US government to task for its sponsorship and training of bin Laden, lo those many years ago.
Look how it came around to bite us on the ass, and like that.
How is sponsoring mercs or pirates to kill bin Laden any different?
Oh, maybe there’s no ideology at issue there. The A-Team or Bluebeard probably don’t care much one way or the other, as long as they get paid.
But if Mr. T turns around on us, for a bigger check or because he’s suddenly embraced anti-American ideology? Are we going to cry then?
No. We would have to shut our jibber-jabber. Fool.
elucidator, if you act fast, we’ve still got a few openings for galley slaves.
“Jibber-jabber”? “Fool”?
Natsy names. I’m insulted. I don’t have to respond.
No, actually. I will respond.
And maybe you’re right, Maeglin. I was probably being too cute. And maybe you’re assuming I must disagree with the notion that there’s a hard lesson to be learned from our sponsorship of bin Laden, and we have to be very careful about who we work with in the future.
(Nothing’s a 100% certain, though. Hopefully, we can improve. For ex: It looks like we’ve been pretty careful with the Northern Alliance so far, but then again, I have no way of knowing what’s gone on behind the scenes or what promises have been made.)
But I’ll stand by the point. In light of the arguments concerning bin Laden and our sponsorship of him, how can we turn around and really contemplate letting mercenaries–whoever they may be–fight the whole battle?
(Note I said “whole.”)
Whooosh!!
Sheepy, you brought up the A team, Maeglin just quoted a few phrases from T’s character.
BTW, Stoid, nice way to wiggle out of the “let’s question them all” arguement. So we had investigations, found that Bill perjured himself, and he still served out his term - because congress did not impeach him. You are not complaining about congress in that case (they did what they had to to get re-elected), but when it comes to support for W they are all mis-using their power, eh? OK, I guess you win that arguement.
Please tell me how you think congress, especially democracts in congress, could possibly let a big conspiracy (like the one you described) slip by without bringing it to light. Think how many points they would earn with the voting public. Unless you think W has all of congress (yes, I know, except one from Bezerkeley) in on this too. I guess there may be enough profit to go around from a few extra months of bombing, so it’s possible…
He was impeached. He was found “not guilty”, and thus was allowed to continue in office. Impeachment is the process of bringing an office holder to trial, not the actual verdict. The press got this one wrong a lot.
Whoops!
Duh.
You’re right, tradesillicon. Maeglin went right over my head on that one, and did me one better.
Looks like a persecution complex got the better of me.
And me, the guy who was earlier pointing to imaginary slings and arrows.
Indeed! Ha-ha!
How funny. I have to say, though, that my sin was born not of hypocrisy, but forgetfulness. Mr. T’s stock phrases just didn’t register.
You have turned my point upside down. I did not file that as a complaint * at all. * I stated it as a fact. My complaint is with the people who are being represented, and it is to them (us) that I specifically directed my point. ** We ** must let Congress know that no, we do not want them rubber-stamping anything he wants to do (although they already have!).
Pardon? This whole discussion has been about what’s happening * since the attacks. * I’m talking about the way scrutiny and questioning of Dubya has been suspended * since the attacks. * That somehow a guy that really hardly anyone seemed all that nuts about, even his supporters, suddenly seems to be the greatest prez ever, * since the attacks. *
stoid
Given that the attacks* took place six weeks ago, doesn’t this strike you as being kind of a small data sample? What evidence is there that Bush is going to continue getting a free ride? I’d be surprised if they aren’t on his back by Christmas.
And what is Bush getting a “Free ride” for, in your opinion? He’s taken some ignorant and unjustified shit for the security precautions the Seret Service took on 9/11, and there is certainly a lot of justified opposition and concern over the threat to civil liberties that some of this administration’s moves could present. What is he getting kudos for? Well, he’s being given credit for handling this crisis with a steady and patient hand, not for being God incarnate, and frankly he HAS handled the crisis with a steady and patient hand. I really don’t see how the covereage of him has been out of sorts with reality.
So what has Bush done wrong, over which there should be widespread hue and cry, since the attacks?
If I’m understanding you correctly (no easy task, as you are as hard to pin down as that ex-president you want to taste), you are saying,
“The public just better be wary of this sleazy, oil-covered Bush character. Because we hated him a few months ago! He was a buffoon! And now, he’s … he’s doing things that make everybody like him! He has the support of Democrats for how he’s handling things! This makes my universe meaningless! So, it must just be wrong! So, we must be careful! And I found five people on the SDMB and an article in The Nation that agree with me!”
Does that about cover it?
No offense, Stoid, but if by that you mean
I don’t really think this is physically possible.
I have read your other posts. Clinton can do no wrong; Bush can do no right. Your OP admitted you agreed with what he had done so far, and still went on to as much as accuse him of getting ready to line his own pockets by killing Afghanis.
By all means keep a good close eye on him. But if you ever did come up with something, you have set up a huge disadvantage to your chances of being believed by posting this kind of thing.
Stoid Hates Bush, Part MCMLXIII. Ho hum.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Shiver me timbers, Jim boy, t’is the black spot - arrrr arrrrr.
I didn’t mean to call you nasty names, Blacksheepsmith, I was just continuing he joke. The “fool” comment was not aimed at anyone in particular, as it is an essential element of Mr. T’s lingo.
Sorry to have given unintended offense.
Because different aspects of the industry exist? Hardly. When I say “Oil men” I refer to the men (and women, but I don’t’ think they hold many positions of power) who are in the business of selling oil. People who sell oil care only how they can get it cheaply. The fact that an “oil man” who has in own wells in Texas doesn’t want to see cheap oil from overseas has no bearing whatsoever on the people and companies who buy it from him.
It’s an expression, Sam, an expression that means simply make it easy for us to get at the oil without having to worry about governments that hate our guts. If we could wave a semi-magic wand and put all the oil that is available over there under Israel, don’t you think that’s what we’d want to do? Always easier to do business with friendly governments.
Hmm…and why does “everyone know” that, I wonder? Could it be because George has been drumming that into our heads pretty much since Sept 12? It sure aint’ because bin Laden can replicate himself to a thousand locations on earth. What exactly will the justification be for invading Iraq, hmm? They harbor terrorist camps, no doubt. So will that be how it works from now on, the US can invade and or bomb just about anyone who has a terrorist within their borders?
Then why will it be so?
Depends on how you define corrupt. Does it strike you as silly when rich people say that poor people are more likely to commit property crimes?
I haven’t made a case for “rich people being more corrupt”. I think selfish, greedy people who are myopically focused on their own gain exist at all economic strata. The only difference is the nature of the ugly acts they are willing to perform to have their way. In rich people in tends to manifest as acts of corruption, conspiracy, manipulation – subtler than the poor folk, who have no choice but to be cruder, just sticking you up for your wallet.
You can’t seriously be using that as proof of anything, can you? Cuz if you are, I’ll use it too: Everyone knows the wealthy never pay for their crimes – look who is in jail! The rich man can always buy his way out, one way or another.
That’s fascinating, I’d never heard that. Do you have a cite for it? I’d like to know more about how that works. But in any case I have no doubt that he knew what he was invested in before the trust was created, and that the trustees are not doing their best to leave him destitute.
And assuming it is precisely as you say, it is also proof of nothing. Dubya’s daddy won’t be living forever, for one thing. And it has been about HIS wealth that I have spoken all along. Also, and even more importantly (and I haven’t seen anyone address this at all) George is beholden to a lot of very rich people. Making them richer is entirely in his best interests.
Stoid