| Author | Message | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 366 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson.... But what about Joe's questions regarding Michael Moore ? They went unanswered......why ? Peter.... Thanks for the commentary. Telson forgot to post my rebuttal to his allegations of lying however, as well as the photos that I posted in addition to prove the authenticity of my statements. He just doesn't like me because I am an "effective" critic to his leftist/liberal position. For the others here.... While I should have typed in the phrase "while in the military" as opposed to "in the military" I can accept that as being a mistake, but in a further response to one of his posts I put in my actual position and time served, along with the photos of me to prove my point. Liars embellish......if I had realised the typo existed, I could have played along, and not done anything, and that would have been actual lying....but alas....I am not that way, and never realised anything was amiss in "his" world until he brought it up. Now this is getting to the point of almost being childish, as I have been trying to talk rationally to what "may be" nothing more than an intellectual eunech here besides a troll.....but personal credibility is everything, online and in real life, and I indicated to Telson that if he wished...I would wait patiently while an "online mob" formed up to judge me if they felt that indeed was the case, somewhat along the lines of......Gary Green...Tony Roberts and others being recent examples. Have at 'er if you feel it's necessary. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 176 Registered: 8-2003 |
Peter, uhh, hmmm, its like hey, I mean really, remember when, you know ? lol Joe, I really like a lot, if obviously not everything about Howard Dean, but that applies to everyone I've ever backed, the question for me in making my choice to back Clark was this: Taking into consideration the fact that the country is still in a bit of a bewildered state, and that security will be a pretty important factor in the elections, who stands the best chance of getting elected ? The way I see it that's Clark because of his background. And that is fully respecting that Dean has been a frontrunner who has said many excellent things on the lies that led to the Iraq war, on national security etc... But, is he really electable at THIS time ? I may well be wrong, but the way I read the mood in the country right now is that Clark will better fit that bill. The way I see it, the main objective right now is getting Bush out of the White House, the sine qua non for getting this country back on track where it belongs, but that entails not necessarily putting the vote where your heart is, but where the most effective outcome is to be expected, ie where its most likely that the White House will get a new inhabitant in 2004. Best, | ||
| Peter Gozinya (Blingmeister)
Junior Member Username: Blingmeister Post Number: 67 Registered: 9-2003 |
Telson, it is one thing to spew your opinionated spam 50+ times daily here, but another to engage in gratuitous name-calling and Clintonian attack-the-messenger tactics when someone else expresses their own opinion. You should be ashamed of the following: "Jesus, typical SPIN SPIN BS from our Resident Board LIAR and EMBELLISHER again, KDS"..."LOL, too stupid to remember his own lies, but slimey and duplicitious enough to slander all and everything that doesn't fit into his make believe world!" Perhaps it is you who is "duplicitious enough to slander all and everything that doesn't fit into his make believe world", eh, Telson? Next time you preach about truth & tolerance, try practicing a bit of it yourself. | ||
| Joe (Jts)
Junior Member Username: Jts Post Number: 196 Registered: 8-2003 |
Some random points: 1) Gen. Clark seems like an impressive man. I do wish that he wasn't pro-affirmative action though. 2) I saw Howard Dean on 60 Minutes II - seemed to be a bright, viable candidate. Or is he a non-factor with Gen. Clark in the race? How come no one is mentioning him? 3) Michael Moore must be a millionaire many times over - anyone know what he's doing/done with all that cash? Foundations, schools, community improvement...anything? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 171 Registered: 8-2003 |
Jesus, typical SPIN SPIN BS from our Resident Board LIAR and EMBELLISHER again, KDS: "I was an intelligence officer in the military for 6 years, so I have no problem with the other issues of this debate...." Kds Post Number 260, Monday, October 06 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/132929 /324718.html#POST326816 And then in a second version the story KDS was dishing us up totally changes: "I served as my regimental intelligence officer for 2 out of my 6 years in the forces..." Kds Post Number 334, Tuesday, October 21 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/ 132929/335915.html?1066834899 LOL, too stupid to remember his own lies, but slimey and duplicitious enough to slander all and everything that doesn't fit into his make believe world! | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 364 Registered: 5-2003 |
Two opposing views.....the viewers can decide.... The LA Times has been discredited as a reliable souce of objective journalism a long time ago....and "devastatingly" once again during the recent California elections.....so take it for what it is worth. If Moore had not been so psychologically taken aback by the length and depth of the negative reaction, his rebuttal that was posted here would have not been necessary at all. Anyways William...I am not going to hijack your thread, so please continue on topic. I apologize. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 169 Registered: 8-2003 |
" My Oscar "Backlash": "Stupid White Men" Back At #1, "Bowling For Columbine" Breaks New Records by Michael Moore Dear friends, It appears that the Bush administration will have succeeded in colonizing Iraq sometime in the next few days. This is a blunder of such magnitude -- and we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who have died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them. So, where are all those weapons of mass destruction that were the pretense for this war? Ha! There is so much to say about all this, but I will save it for later. What I am most concerned about right now is that all of you -- the majority of Americans who did not support this war in the first place -- not go silent or be intimidated by what will be touted as some great military victory. Now, more than ever, the voices of peace and truth must be heard. I have received a lot of mail from people who are feeling a profound sense of despair and believe that their voices have been drowned out by the drums and bombs of false patriotism. Some are afraid of retaliation at work or at school or in their neighborhoods because they have been vocal proponents of peace. They have been told over and over that it is not "appropriate" to protest once the country is at war, and that your only duty now is to "support the troops." Can I share with you what it's been like for me since I used my time on the Oscar stage two weeks ago to speak out against Bush and this war? I hope that, in reading what I'm about to tell you, you'll feel a bit more emboldened to make your voice heard in whatever way or forum that is open to you. When "Bowling for Columbine" was announced as the Oscar winner for Best Documentary at the Academy Awards, the audience rose to its feet. It was a great moment, one that I will always cherish. They were standing and cheering for a film that says we Americans are a uniquely violent people, using our massive stash of guns to kill each other and to use them against many countries around the world. They were applauding a film that shows George W. Bush using fictitious fears to frighten the public into giving him whatever he wants. And they were honoring a film that states the following: The first Gulf War was an attempt to reinstall the dictator of Kuwait; Saddam Hussein was armed with weapons from the United States; and the American government is responsible for the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq over the past decade through its sanctions and bombing. That was the movie they were cheering, that was the movie they voted for, and so I decided that is what I should acknowledge in my speech. And, thus, I said the following from the Oscar stage: "On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan (from Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have invited the other Documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here in solidarity because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious 'Orange Alerts,' we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up." Halfway through my remarks, some in the audience started to cheer. That immediately set off a group of people in the balcony who started to boo. Then those supporting my remarks started to shout down the booers. The L. A. Times reported that the director of the show started screaming at the orchestra "Music! Music!" in order to cut me off, so the band dutifully struck up a tune and my time was up. (For more on why I said what I said, you can read the op-ed I wrote for the L.A. Times, plus other reaction from around the country at my website) The next day -- and in the two weeks since -- the right-wing pundits and radio shock jocks have been calling for my head. So, has all this ruckus hurt me? Have they succeeded in "silencing" me? Well, take a look at my Oscar "backlash": -- On the day after I criticized Bush and the war at the Academy Awards, attendance at "Bowling for Columbine" in theaters around the country went up 110% (source: Daily Variety/BoxOfficeMojo.com). The following weekend, the box office gross was up a whopping 73% (Variety). It is now the longest-running consecutive commercial release in America, 26 weeks in a row and still thriving. The number of theaters showing the film since the Oscars has INCREASED, and it has now bested the previous box office record for a documentary by nearly 300%. -- Yesterday (April 6), "Stupid White Men" shot back to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. This is my book's 50th week on the list, 8 of them at number one, and this marks its fourth return to the top position, something that virtually never happens. -- In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million hits A DAY (one day we even got more hits than the White House!). The mail has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive (and the hate mail has been hilarious!). -- In the two days following the Oscars, more people pre-ordered the video for "Bowling for Columbine" on Amazon.com than the video for the Oscar winner for Best Picture, "Chicago." -- In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary, and I have been offered a slot back on television to do an updated version of "TV Nation"/ "The Awful Truth." I tell you all of this because I want to counteract a message that is told to us all the time -- that, if you take a chance to speak out politically, you will live to regret it. It will hurt you in some way, usually financially. You could lose your job. Others may not hire you. You will lose friends. And on and on and on. Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly, on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4. In the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they were all sold out. (To read Rich's column from yesterday's Times, "Bowling for Kennebunkport," go here. He does a pretty good job of laying it all out and talks about my next film and the impact it could potentially have.) Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week. They have not been hurt at all -- but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent -- and those who would dare to ask a question -- SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if they would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol' me?" In other words, shut the f--- up. And that, my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an Oscar for -- how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into doing whatever they are told. Well, the good news -- if there can be any good news this week -- is that not only have neither I nor others been silenced, we have been joined by millions of Americans who think the same way we do. Don't let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda or the terms of the debate. Don't be defeated by polls that show 70% of the public in favor of the war. Remember that these Americans being polled are the same Americans whose kids (or neighbor's kids) have been sent over to Iraq. They are scared for the troops and they are being cowed into supporting a war they did not want -- and they want even less to see their friends, family, and neighbors come home dead. Everyone supports the troops returning home alive and all of us need to reach out and let their families know that. Unfortunately, Bush and Co. are not through yet. This invasion and conquest will encourage them to do it again elsewhere. The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, "Don't Mess with Texas - If You Got What We Want, We're Coming to Get It!" This is not the time for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful America to be quiet. Make your voices heard. Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country. Yours, Michael Moore" www.michaelmoore.com http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0409-09.htm | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 362 Registered: 5-2003 |
And Michael Moore was also roundly booed off the stage as well......he genuinely seemed flummoxed by the audience reaction as well...you could see it in his eyes and facial expression. Some of the people who stood with him expressed dismay afterwards as they had not expected him to speak like he did as they did not think that they were on stage for that purpose either. Heh....... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 165 Registered: 8-2003 |
When Michael Moore received his Oscar he used the opportunity during his thank you speech to launch a well founded attack on Bushs Iraq war. I think General Clark demonstrated great conviction and courage when he went public on CNN to support Michael Moores attack on Bush in the very first week of war, a period of fanatic and blind nationalism, where crazed hatred of all critics was prevalent, yet Clark stepped right up and did what he believed in: "A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home) by Michael Moore Dear General Wesley Clark, I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television. And that person was you. Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence. Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them." In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that... 1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers. 2. You are firmly pro-choice. 3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case. 4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share. 5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community. 6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country. General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election. This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into have a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot. But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is: Bush Must Go. This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency. The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be. The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause. That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for. Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with. I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is: mailto:[email protected]). None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize. Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people." Yours, Michael Moore Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972 Conscientious Objector applicant" http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0913-06.htm | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 159 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lou, if it helps your peace of mind, replace "an actor to survive 8 years without the country coming to a standstill" with, say, "Kennedy, who had absolutely no executive branch experience and the lights didn't go off in Washington when he assumed the presidency." What I'm trying to say is, I guess there is no training for the top job, be it POTUS (US President), CEO or becoming a Bill Gates repeat performance. | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 359 Registered: 4-2001 |
"I reckon if we got an actor to survive 8 years without the country coming to a standstill then " Wow, you sure are fast and loose with the smears. Didn't Reagan's 2 terms as Governor of California count for any thing? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 158 Registered: 8-2003 |
Jon, I'm talking mainly about Bushs dishonesty in force-feeding us a counter-productive and superfluous war down our throats with potentially huge and disastrous national security repercussions, and his catastrophic civil rights record, when seeing Bush as the worst and most dangerous president of the last 100 or so years, more likely ever, and his reckless spending for nothing but a major lie only comes a distant third. As for Clark being able to effectively work Congress and manage consensus building etc, I reckon if we got an actor to survive 8 years without the country coming to a standstill then someone like Clark, who admirably managed the difficult Nato alliance during the Kosovo war, shouldn't have any major problems he couldn't overcome. Best, PS: Cute Kid ! | ||
| Peter Gozinya (Blingmeister)
Junior Member Username: Blingmeister Post Number: 64 Registered: 9-2003 |
Jon, I agree. I also know Clark. Decent military man, although somewhat of a hothead. But probably not capable of the consensus-building needed to efffectively govern (when was the last time you heard of consensus-building among career military senior officers who are used to ruling by fiat?). Also agree on Carter. Like most Presidents, Bush has positives & negatives, notwithstanding jerkoffs like Telson who, still PO'd at the results of the 2000 election, will do and say anything to attack him. While I abhorred Clinton, must say that he actually was not that bad of a President, if you can get past his multiple acts of perjury & obstruction of justice. But Carter--also an honorable, brilliant military man like Clark--was horrendous, despite his best intentions. And he surrounded himself with true rednecks, while the country almost went down for the count. But you will never get that perspective from cyclops-like ostriches like Telson and other ideological a$$clowns. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1131 Registered: 8-2001 |
Telson, I have met General Clark, and while I don't agree with some of his views (taxes and fair vs. free trade) he does seem like an honorable man cut from a different cloth. My main concern for him would be his military background. Keep in mind that Grant and Eisenhower had huge problems trying to deal with Congress and how the poitical process works. It's quite different than the "clear chain of command" route in the military. My wife's best friend is the head of his Wash DC campaign office. Here are a few pictures of my 4 month old son with General Clark. As for Bush being the worst president in 100 years.....Nope peanut boy Carter takes the honor. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, negative growth, double digit interest rates and a general lack of understanding of anything economic. In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Bush isn't even close to this number. When Carter took office in 1977, he received a moderately growing economy in which inflation was 5.4 percent and interest rates were around 8 percent. When he left office, the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan, Iranian students had been holding US State Department personnel and US Marines hostage for 444 days. At one point interest rates were so high it was impossible for Americans to finance large purchases like homes and cars. In addition half the CIA quit during his term in office culminated in the Iran hostage fiasco when he refused to let Mossad go in and get the hostages out. He was directly responsible for the deaths of our special forced on those choppers that crashed in the dessert. He may be doing some good charity work now but he did nothing worthwhile in the White House. And on top of that he accepted the Noble Peace prize from the same people who thought Arafat was worthy of the prize. Not even close on that one! Regards, Jon   | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lou, as ever one mustn't trust all the disinformation being put out now. Bush and Gang are running extremely scared of Clark, they realize that the citizens want someone who they feel will be able to actually deal with terror as opposed to going off on extremely counter productive, politically motivated wars that have nothing to do with the real threat, and who better to fit that bill than Clark, even more so when people are now waking up to the fact that Bush lied to them, Iraq is turning into a quagmire, and Afghanistan is, outside of Kabul, back in the hands of the warlords and the TAliban. Add in Bushs atrocious lack of respect for the constitution, and its not looking good for him. The normal thing to do now on Bushs side is slander the character and just about anything you can put your hands on RE your biggest threat, an attractive candidate, Bush and Gang will twist facts, spin them, or even plain invent stuff on Clark, just anything to make him look bad now. As for the Pentagon, many over there were just plain jealous of Clarks astromic rise through the ranks, they called him a water walker over there as an assessment of the ease with which his career developed, and there will be more than enough people over there who are also pushing a political agenda against Clark. While CLark may in the early stages have reacted as a soldier, albeit retired, who demonstrates loyalty to his political leadership, and praised the President and policy etc, he pretty quickly found his independent feet and, as per his track record as CNN commentator, was very consistently against the war: "{"New York Times Clark Says 'Rush to War' Based on Twisted Facts By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Published: October 4, 2003 RLINGTON, Va., Oct. 3 - Gen. Wesley K. Clark delivered a searing indictment of the Bush administration on Friday, asserting that its "headlong rush to war" was based on twisted facts and had violated the nation's democratic principles "with dire consequences for our security." General Clark said the administration was governing "against the will of the majority" by being secretive, demonizing critics and retaliating harshly "against anyone who expresses dissent, questions their facts or challenges their logic...continued"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/politics/ campaigns/04CLAR.html?ex=1380686400&en=509350 cd8c0796de&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war." The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments. "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press Sep 20, 2003 We went into Iraq under false pretenses We went into Iraq under false pretenses. There was deceptive advertising; you'd be taking [President Bush] to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. We're taking casualties. We haven't made America safer by this. We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, less able to respond. We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions. Source: CNN Late Edition interview with Wolf Blitzer Aug 17, 2003 Iraq distracts from the War on Terror I think the conflict with Iraq was elective. It was purely elective and it represented a big distraction from the War on Terror. It was not a reinforcement of it. It was a distraction from it. Source: WCGU-FM interview on "Sound Off With Sasha" Jun 27, 2003 | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 358 Registered: 4-2001 |
Telson. Do yoy realy trust this guy? He spent the last year praising Bush and his team and now has done a 180. Gen Shelton in a very unusal move pubically questioned his integrity. I think its far too early to make a call on this latest pretty face. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 155 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lou, I don't hate anybody, life is too short for that, but I do think that Bush, a personal coward, is another wannabe dictator waiting to happen, the most disastrous and dangerous president the USA has had at least in the last 100 years, maybe ever, and we need to stop him pronto. I am for Wesley Clark, a professional who, unlike Bush and Gang, actually has a clue about national security and how to achieve it, would not start dim witted and evil politically motivated wars that do not in the slightest address true security needs, and who, also unlike Bush & Co would honor and defend the constitution, our civil liberties, freedom and judicial due process. best, | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 357 Registered: 4-2001 |
Telson. We all know who you hate, now who are you for based on what you know now and why? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 153 Registered: 8-2003 |
 "Neo-Conservative Extremists"?? What exactly does that mean? Uh, basically Bush and Gang, who have done a great job so far at tearing down civil liberties, freedom and judicial due process through the misnamed "Patriot Act" etc, in order to achieve their ultimate dream, that would turn the USA into what we always professed to be fighting: "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98) "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS /0012/18/nd.01.html "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/ jul2001/nf20010730_347.htm  | ||
| Mark Moon (Enzomoon)
Member Username: Enzomoon Post Number: 305 Registered: 4-2002 |
"Neo-Conservative Extremists"?? What exactly does that mean? The last time I heard jibberish like that was during my college years. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 151 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hmm, who is responsible for the biggest deficit in the history of the USA? Right, our Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief Dubya Bush for a nonsensical and extremely counter-productive war based on nothing but lies and deceit against Iraq, which posed no threat to us, to the detriment of fighting our REAL enemy, Al Qaeda, that has accordingly made the USA a more dangerous, NOT a safer place. The issue right now is NOT taxation but SPENDING. Bushs neo-conservative extremists are spending money like there's no tomorrow in the backdrop of a shrinking economy. Anybody here believes money grows on trees for free? How do you think the money (aka deficit) is going to be paid off? By the deficit fairy? NOPE, fraid not, its gonna be through taxes. So while you may think that GWB is the savior of taxes, all he's doing is messing us up even more in the long run - which won't be his problem any more by the time the SH** hits the fan - by tacking on interest to the money -- OUR MONEY -- that he is recklessly wasting for nothing (on Iraq, that is). Another HUGE advantage to kicking Bush out of the White House will obviously be that America can once again resort to constitutionalism, freedom and true democracy, unlike the totalitarian police state Bush and his neo-conservative extremists would like to impose on us, where freedom, civil liberties and judicial due process are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Best, | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3436 Registered: 4-2002 |
WULL WHAT ABOUT TELSON FROM F-CHAT?? ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS CLIP, PASTE, AND POST.... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3395 Registered: 2-2001 |
I know of 4 now. Sen Lieberman who wants to raise your taxes, Howard Dean who wants to raise your taxes, Sen Kerry who wants to raise your taxes & Gen Clark who I dont know a whole lot about, perhaps he's not so crazed about raising taxes then wasting your $ as the rest of this crew. Any1 know the details ? |