jshockeyguy7 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Nice post. I agree with all of it except the "when it will be part". If the future could be seen with precision, then I would not have a problem with saying everything will be wonderful or FUBAR'd on x date. Unfortunately, none of us know what the future holds, and cannot say y will happen on z date. I do not have a problem though with the administration providing a listing of individual goals that are to be accomplished and then allowing the American people to decide on their own whether progress towards the goals are being made at a satisfactory pace. I believe a lot of those goals have been put out there, but perhaps more specificity would help. 505953[/snapback] Exactly, it is impossible to try to put a date on things involving this nature, as anything could happen. But a structured list of goals and what we need/want to accomplish would be very helpful for both sides i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Funny, I thought that you would actually want members of both parties to be held to the same standard. It looks like I was wrong and you feel there should be different standards depending on your party affiliation. 505941[/snapback] And this is coming from the guy who's never missed out on a chance to post "Halliburton!, Bush bad!, and Mission accomplished"? That's rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 But a structured list of goals and what we need/want to accomplish would be very helpful for both sides i think. 505959[/snapback] Yes, that would be desirable. Let's hope that such common sense as you advocate can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yes, that would be desirable. Let's hope that such common sense as you advocate can happen. 505968[/snapback] Cincy, that's crazy talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallow Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 PS - President didn't lie, unless you think the Dem luminaries did, too, or you have questions about the quality of information that the Clinton administration left for the next guy. 505101[/snapback] To suggest that he didn't lie or at least stretch the truth is just absurd. He had every red state american believing that Saddam had something to do with 911. 4 years later, Osama is still alive and well and we're in a war we didn't need to be in, and now can't get out of. Bush was briefed about possible attck in August 01. Did nothing about it. I think he was on vacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 So, what did she say at the birthday party? As far as the Dem being held to the same standard as a Republican, just look at Byrd's comments as recently as a few years ago and you will see that your statement is incorrect: "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." (Robert Byrd - March 4, 2001 - Television interview) What would have happened if Lott used that word? Let me help you. Lott lost his leadership position for saying something equally or less divisive that this. Byrd kept his leadership position and there have been no repercussions. The comments were just swept under the carpet. Hell, even the NAACP called Byrd's comments "repulsive" but failed to do anything more about it. How did they react to Lott? Byrd apologized and everything is OK. Lott apologized (repeatedly) and he lost his leadership position. 505918[/snapback] First of all, I thought Trent Lott was unfairly treated. He just said something i found stupid but the punishment did not fit the crime. He should have known better but I don't think he deserved what he got. I think the Reps were the ones that put him out to pasture, however, because they didnt want to deal with it. And they screwed him as much as the Dems did. And I am not a Trent Lott fan, in fact, he's one of my least favorite politicians. I just think he got screwed in that deal. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether or not Trent Lott was treated fairly or unfairly at his birthday party. The fact is that he said something controversial and that was the ONLY reason it was a story anywhere. Surely, no one thought that there shouldnt have been a birthday bash for the old bastard, or that Lott or anyone else shouldn't have attended it. The ONLY problem was advocating the presidency at a time when the dude had some rather extreme views. So no one cared that Lott went to the party or Clinton went to the party for Byrd. He's allowed to have a bash and anyone invited is allowed to attend. If she advocated how great it was that Byrd uses the term "!@#$", then there would be a story. Thirdly, The term "white !@#$" has been around for several decades and isn't a no no. It was the title of a Norman Mailer essay in the 1950s and has been used by all kinds of people in all kinds of settings and few take offense to it. It's a term that has become part of the vernacular and not a derogatory absolute no-no term like just the second half of it. Byrd didnt even need to apologize for that. But even if he did, it doesn't mean he shouldn't have any more birthday parties and colleagues shouldn't attend them. Unless you consider everyone that spends any time with him to advocate everything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshockeyguy7 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 To suggest that he didn't lie or at least stretch the truth is just absurd. He had every red state american believing that Saddam had something to do with 911. 4 years later, Osama is still alive and well and we're in a war we didn't need to be in, and now can't get out of. Bush was briefed about possible attck in August 01. Did nothing about it. I think he was on vacation. 505985[/snapback] So then you would logically agree that most democratic senators and representatives either lied or stretched the truth then, and had all the blue states mistakenly supporting the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yes, that would be desirable. Let's hope that such common sense as you advocate can happen. 505968[/snapback] Cincy, I'm sorry for being harsh earlier - you're one of the good guys and didn't deserve that. That said, I just don't think that major media outlets failing to cover a birthday party are really indicitive of a liberal bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 And this is coming from the guy who's never missed out on a chance to post "Halliburton!, Bush bad!, and Mission accomplished"? That's rich. 505967[/snapback] Funny, I thought I am on record stating that there is no difference between the parties: they both suck. I deeply apologize for mocking idiotic regurgitation of soundbytes which have no basis in reality. I now realize that I have not been wear my tinfoil hat while reading the posts here. I will wear the tinfoil hat in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 To suggest that he didn't lie or at least stretch the truth is just absurd. He had every red state american believing that Saddam had something to do with 911. 4 years later, Osama is still alive and well and we're in a war we didn't need to be in, and now can't get out of. Bush was briefed about possible attck in August 01. Did nothing about it. I think he was on vacation. 505985[/snapback] Um...Clinton and his lawyers demurred about whacking UBL...can't hurt the popularity. And Presidents are briefed daily about numerous attacks, domestically, internationally.. Tell us how to filter that. Sorry that you think the murdered Saddam is no longer in power, though. That darn Clinton and his Iraqi War Act of 1998...who knows what would be without Bill's insistance to use aggression against Iraq. Shame on the Bush Adm for trusting the legacy and info provided by the Clinton Adm. and strongly supported by congressional Dems. Shame, shame, shame for Bush for taking with seriousness the findings of the previous eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 Cincy, I'm sorry for being harsh earlier - you're one of the good guys and didn't deserve that. That said, I just don't think that major media outlets failing to cover a birthday party are really indicitive of a liberal bias. 506025[/snapback] The heat of battle. Sun falls today and rises tomorrow. Tides go out and in. New day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Funny, I thought I am on record stating that there is no difference between the parties: they both suck. You are. I deeply apologize for mocking idiotic regurgitation of soundbytes which have no basis in reality.As I am for doing the same. Hopefully everyone can now see that doing so really doesn't advance their position. I now realize that I have not been wear my tinfoil hat while reading the posts here. I will wear the tinfoil hat in the future. 506027[/snapback] Unlike mocking idiotic regurgitation, statements like that really do go a long way toward advancing your position. Nice show chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts