wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Good week to be a Democrat Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons this week in the Android forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Good week to be a Democrat" Watch "Good week to be a Democrat" New topic
Author

Good week to be a Democrat

Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
What a good week to be someone who identifies with the Democratic party.
First you get 'Baghdad' Bill McDermott (from Seattle, are you surprised?) and the equally clueless David Bonior doing their best Hanoi Jane impersonations (Innocents Abroad, Lott: McDermott Another 'Hanoi Jane').
Next you have the Dems once again showing their distaste for election law as they make their third recent attempt (think Gore and Reno for the other two) at hijacking an election. Just proves that they will do absolutely anything to try to keep themselves in the majority (N.J. Supreme Court will hear Democrats on replacing Torricelli, Analysis: Politics by other means, In Back-Room Huddle, a Senator Began to Sense the End).
And let's not forget 'Bawbra' Streisand's recent idiocy (Streisand 'Bard-boozled' over quote) at a recent Dem fundraiser coming soon on the heel's of a newly clean-shaven Al "[sniff sniff] I did NOT lose the election" Gore's recent antics in [snicker] San Francisco (The new San Francisco democrat).
I guess we can leave Daschle's obstructionism, refusal to berate Baghdad Jim and company, and the Dems' belief that France, Russia, and China are in the best position to look after our national security interests, as topics for another day.
All-in-all, a stellar time to be a Democrat.
[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Dave Vick
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 10, 2001
Posts: 3244
Wait a minute!!!
You mean your not a democrat Jason?!


Dave
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
I wrote Daschle today. I berated him about how the Senate is not concerned with US citzen programmers and demanded an apology.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Don't worry, Jason, the President will try speaking off the cuff, sooner or later, and people will forget those stories.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

God, why am I letting myself respond to this...
Y'know, all President Bush had to do was keep his mouth shut last week, instead of saying to the world that the Senate has "some people" in it who do not care about the security of the American people.
That's a public f***-you, Jason. Are you really surprised that some Democrats are going out of their way to insult the President in return?
As for Trent Lott, he's well-trained. I'll give him that.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
I saw Dr. Condolezza Rice (R) on the PBS News Hour last week. She still claims the aadministration had no clue that people would actually use an airliner as an offensive weapon.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I mistakenly said there were only three recent elections the Dems attempted to or are attempting to manipulate. I forgot a fourth one. I forgot to mention Hawaii's election (Playing politics with Mink, Hawaii Democrats Urge Voters To Back Late Rep. Mink in November, State defends special election).
Latest news out of New Jersey is that the New Jersey Supreme Court, four of the seven justices Dems and two of the justices having contributed substantial sums to Torricelli in the past, have decided to throw out state election law and apparently are willing to disenfranchise military voters. Of course you will remember that the Dems also attempted to disenfranchise military voters during the Florida presidential race when their ballots were deemed inconvenient. Anyway, looks like we have yet another election forced into the Supreme Court.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Y'know, all President Bush had to do was keep his mouth shut last week, instead of saying to the world that the Senate has "some people" in it who do not care about the security of the American people.
That's a public f***-you, Jason. Are you really surprised that some Democrats are going out of their way to insult the President in return?

Many have been sucked in by this false propoganda, originally spread by the Washington Post. The quote that the President was supposed to have said that got Dashcle and his lap dogs all fired up was: "Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'" I have found many other news sources referencing this quote by the Post, but I have been unable to find the exact Post article, although here are two where it is repeated: In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades, Bush's Words Can Go to the Blunt Edge of Trouble. The implication that has often been made regarding this supposed comment was that Bush was attacking the Dems for their stance on Iraq, as the Dems have since accused him of politicizing the war debate.
The problem is, Bush never said this. Bush's speech, which this was supposedly quoted from, was concerning the Senate's pandering to special interest groups, unions in this case, which was hindering the passage of the Homeland Security Bill. The actual quote was as follows (bolding is mine):
So I ask Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America that we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interest in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the American people secure.
...
And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue, this is an American issue, this is an issue which is vital to our future. It will help us determine how secure we'll be.

Bush is dressing down the entire Senate. This was not a partisan attack, and it certainly had nothing to do with Iraq, as many have since been claiming. So if anybody was attempting to politicize this whole thing, it was, as of course you have guessed by now, Daschle and the Dems.
The truth is that our current national security issues are very inconvenient for the Democrats in an election year. I don't have the source handy, but I saw something recently that said that by a ratio of 2:1, voters feel that in general teh Republican party is better equipped to handle foreign affairs and national security. Similarly this report claimed, voters tended to believe that Dems were better suited to handle domestic issues.
This is why the Democrats are doing everything they can to make the economy more of an issue in the minds of voters. Much to their dismay however, most polls are showing that national security is considered to be of more importance in the minds of the voters currently (as it should be). This means bad news for the Dems in the upcoming elections.
Right now the Party of Fear is doing everything they can to lose their majority, and I wouldn't doubt if they were successful come November. We don't need to worry about Bush opening his mouth when we know that there are folks on the other side of the aisle such as Baghdad Bill McDermott, David Bonior, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle all prepared to make themselves look like idiots every time they make the mistake of speaking in public.
On another note, if you haven't tried Google News yet, you really should give it a whirl.
[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Dave Vick:
Wait a minute!!!
You mean your not a democrat Jason?!

Shhhh!!! Don't tell anyone.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

The old "taken out of context" argument is interesting but it cuts both ways. I think the Dems interpreted this one just right. It had all the plausible deniability one would expect of a stupefyingly broad statement couched in the safety of a "totally different context."
It takes a really, really lax mind to believe that Bush could say something like this and not have it interpreted by Democrats as an attack. I don't see Bush attacking "Senators" in the Senate even under the thin pretense of "non-partisan" comments.
I think this is totally beside the point of so-called inability of Democratic leadership to handle foreign policy. I'd take the time to remind you of just how adept Bush is at, say, remembering the names of various foreign heads of state, to make my point here, but whatever.
The perception that Republicans are better at foreign policy and Democrats better at domestic policy is a lot of stereotyping. What, exactly, in foreign policy, does the Republican administration have to be so proud of right now? We have how many allies with us on attacking Iraq? One? Oooooh...
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
It takes a really, really lax mind to believe that Bush could say something like this and not have it interpreted by Democrats as an attack.

For one thing, the supposed quote that the Dems were responding to never happened. It was a misquote. But given the statement Bush made, and the context it was in... Is it a stretch to think that there are some Senators who are more interested in securing their political futures by pandering to special interest groups than they are national security? I know its really going out on a limb to suggest a Senator would be influenced by special interests, but come on.
The perception that Republicans are better at foreign policy and Democrats better at domestic policy is a lot of stereotyping.

Well, rarely have the voters been swayed from perception and rarely are they predominantly guided by cold hard facts and substantive issues on which they have educated themselves. Most of these guys would never get in office if that were the case.
We have how many allies with us on attacking Iraq? One? Oooooh...

Now this one interests me, because it is an issue that seems near and dear to many liberals. Let me state ahead of time that we do have more than one "ally" for one thing. UK, Turkey, Qatar, Israel, Italy, and Spain are the first ones that cmoe to mind. France to some degree as well (btw I heard the French troops in Africa recently who rescued those school children were upset when the kids refused to accept their surrender ), Russia is aquiescing, and even Saudi Arabia seems to have capitulated on the use of their bases. There are others I'm sure, but the degree to which they will express their public support will vary by country and circumstance.
More importantly though, why the liberal fixation on the number of allies we can collect? Does it make us "more right" if more people agree with us? Does it make us "wrong" if these other countries don't share our interests? Why on earth would we think that we should ask the permission of countries like France, Russia, and China so that we may carry out our national security objectives? Bottom line, if we truly believe we are right in this Iraq thing, why should we let other nations, who often act counter to our interests anyway, keep us from doing the "right" thing? Why should we let these other countries (I'm not talking about France, Russia, China, and the UK in this particular case), many of whom are hostile towards us or have opposing interests, have any influence on us whatsoever simply because they want to take this opportunity to rally to the flag of Kofi "Neville Chamerlain" Annan and seek to influence the foreign policy of a super power? Screw them.
Whatever the right course of action is, we do it because it is the right course of action to take. We don't do it because we get a bunch of other nations to convince us one way or another. So if we have one ally or 100 allies of convenience, as long as we are doing what is "right", that's all that matters.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

JM: Now this one interests me, because it is an issue that seems near and dear to many liberals. Let me state ahead of time that we do have more than one "ally" for one thing...There are others I'm sure, but the degree to which they will express their public support will vary by country and circumstance.
ME: I'm remembering a clip from "Hollywood Shuffle" in a 50's hard-boiled private-eye spoof. The PI walks into a room and hits a guy. 9 others show up, including a really big one. The PI starts talking trash to the one guy he knew he could beat up.
I think we're going after Iraq whose ass we know we can kick, and not because it's the right thing to do. And even if it is the right thing to do, I do not see how it is particularly relevant to the world scene today. Is OBL in Iraq? Is Hussein currently attacking anyone? Why are we so hard-pressed to do what's right here? And if we're so right, how come only England will come out and say so in unequivocal terms?

JM: More importantly though, why the liberal fixation on the number of allies we can collect? Does it make us "more right" if more people agree with us?
ME: Yes, it does. Consensus among sovereign nations is an essential exercise in promoting the idea of democracy globally, and if we take our ball and go home when things don't go our way, we might as well pledge allegiance to the Monroe Doctrine.
JM: Does it make us "wrong" if these other countries don't share our interests?
ME: A-ha. Thank you. This is not about what's right. This is about what's right for the US. If the US attacks Iraq, fine. We better be prepared to bare our teeth at our friends, though, when they object, and say to them, "Best keep f***ing clear friend, we're in here to kick ass. Make no mistake about it." That would at least be candid, if not admirable.
JM: Why on earth would we think that we should ask the permission of countries like France, Russia, and China so that we may carry out our national security objectives?
ME: So they don't get the wrong idea and start to wonder if maybe they're next on our list of national security objectives. Nobody really likes Goliath, but you'd like to know he's not against you, eh?
JM: Bottom line, if we truly believe we are right in this Iraq thing, why should we let other nations, who often act counter to our interests anyway, keep us from doing the "right" thing?... Screw them.
ME: Well said. A President with guts would say it too. But we're not a country of hotheads. We don't want a piece of Middle East politics. Dubya's Dad knew that.
JM: Whatever the right course of action is, we do it because it is the right course of action to take.
ME: Among sovereign nations, I don't put much faith in moral imperatives. The 'right' to self-determination is one exception, but we interpret that one selectively too.
But, bottom line, you know what all this UN talk is really about -- making sure the rest of the world doesn't find a reason to line up against us after the fact.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Don't use facts Jason. They confuse liberals. It is more important how you feel.
Michael what exactly did the libs do to make the economy good? Then explain how it made it good.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Michael, the problem is that when Saddam gets the bomb he isn't going to be using it against Paris or Beijing. Their interests are not our interests all the time. Our interests are not their interests.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Michael what exactly did the libs do to make the economy good? Then explain how it made it good.

In 25 words or less, right?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
As I was afraid, this is turning towards the Iraq thing, but as it is relevant to the problems of the Democrat party, I guess it is relevant.
Saddam is a bad guy. He has used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. He has threatened to use them on the Israelis. He has launched ballistic missile attacks targetting population centers in Saudi Arabia and Israel. These attacks versus Israel were unproked, targetted civillians, and Israel was not a party to any conflict with Iraq. He has invaded and raped the country of Kuwait. He has committed environmental attrocities of the worst kind with his scorched earth policy he implemented upon fleeing Kuwait. He had planned to invade Saudi Arabia but was thwarted.
After the Gulf war a cease fire agreement was signed where he promised to meet certain conditions. He has flagrantly violated most conditions of the cease fire. He has attempted to assassinate George Bush Senior. He has apparently been giving training, weapons, and financial backing to terrorist organizations. He has consistently stonewalled attempts to verify the extents of his WMD programs. He apparently continues to vigorously work on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction programs. He routinely attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones.
His past and current actions indicate that he will use WMDs and that it is only a matter of time until he aquires nuclear capabilities to go along with his bio and chem capabilities. He has the means to deliver these weapons, both using overt military means as well as more covert means. Given his history of supporting terrorism it is very likely that he will make these weapons available to terrorist organizations if it suits his purposes. Finally, there can be no doubt that he would like to deploy these weapons against us, either at home or abroad.
If they weren't so pathetic, I would have to laugh at these people who insist on giving him the benefit of the doubt, or who actually believe weapons inspectors are going to be able to do their job over there. I for one am not willing to wait until after the US, Israel, or the UK are hit with one of these weapons which he has proven he is willing to use. In addition, sanctions against Iraq will never be lifted until the country is in full compliance, which they refuse to do. So it is clear that regardless of what any other nation wants, we need to (and will I believe) look out for ourselves and take him out of the picture, before it is too late. The Iraqi people will greatly benefit from this as well as international aid comes flooding into the country and sanctions are lifted.
People like Baghdad Bill, David Bonior, Gore, and Daschle, who are against us doing what is necessary to protect ourselves, are not only naive, but sickening as well. As far as these other nations who are against us doing what is necessary, I believe they are irrelevant and Bush was mistaken for ever approaching the UN to begin with. The only one who can avert war is Saddam by fully complying with our demands. The only way he will do this is if he truly believes that we are going to take him out. The more that the UN, Europe, and the Dems whine against us taking action, the closer they bring us to war as they only embolden Saddam and push us farther away from choosing to deal with the international community on this issue. And also let's not forget, he is in violation of the terms of the cease fire, which I would think should revert us back to a state of war.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Michael, the problem is that when Saddam gets the bomb he isn't going to be using it against Paris or Beijing. Their interests are not our interests all the time. Our interests are not their interests.

Of course not. But threatening to build a bomb is not nearly the same thing as having one. I haven't been glued to the newswires for the last six weeks or anything, but from what I've heard, the following points are undisputed:
a) Iraq has no nuclear capability
b) Iraq has no delivery system for any kind of mass-destruction weapon
c) We beat the living crap out of them. At will, on their own soil. We maintain a no-fly zone. We knock out their radars whenever we damn well feel like it. Iraq complains to the world, the world says "guess you shouldn'ta oughta invaded Kuwait."
d) Iraq suffers heavily under trade sanctions, or at least its people do.
Where do we get imminent threat out of all that? Is Saddam an a-hole? Yes! Given the chance, would he stick it to us? Of course! So we have a determined, spiteful enemy. But since when do we invade countries to protect ourselves from attacks that haven't formed yet?
When's the last time we started a war? I thought we were the country that came in to finish them.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Do you want to wait until a nuclear weapon is used on us and then respond? According to MSNBC, Sadaam has at least 5 locations in his country where nuclear bomb research is being done. I would also like to point out that the only reason Sadaam doesn't have any nuclear capability today is that the Israelis blew up his nuclear power plant 20 years ago. As far as delivery system goes, what do you consider the required delivery system for a small nuclear bomb?
Anyway, this started because you were worried that Bush wasn't letting the French determine our foreign policy goals. Can we now toss that aside?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I think it is interesting too that people seem to be more worried about a small nuclear device than they are about some sort of biological weapon. A biological weapon has the potential to be much more devastating in some cases (ebola comes tom mind) than a low-yield nuclear device. Although I would personally not care for either.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Don't use facts Jason. They confuse liberals. It is more important how you feel.

Paul, unfortunately, these f**king liberals live in every society, perhaps under different names. In the fUSSR they were called "dissidents". Can you imagine, when our troops came to Afghanistan to help our Afghan brothers to get a better leader for themselves and to protect our national security, these idiots mumbled that it doesn't feel right and something about "human rights". What are "human rights", who ever seen them? While the facts were clear: if we do not have our Army in Afghan, Americans will locate their bombs right on our borders, and we all know they wont hesitate a minute to use nuclear weapon against civil population - they already did it in 1945 and killed hundred thousands. They value their own interests above anything else. In these conditions, only brainless bastards can speak against their own country national interests. Our government, in its unlimited and unreasonable kindness, even went so far to make Soviet people pay for those idiots could lead relatively comfortable life in psychiatric clinics and Siberian camps.


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Thomas: Do you want to wait until a nuclear weapon is used on us and then respond?
Mike: If you aim a gun at me, that's enough; I'll shoot first. If you're trying to buy a gun, I shouldn't kill you for that. I should just keep you from getting the gun.
Thomas: I would also like to point out that the only reason Sadaam doesn't have any nuclear capability today is that the Israelis blew up his nuclear power plant 20 years ago.
Mike: See above; that's my point. A covert operation is more effective, less overall risk, and leaves it up to Iraq to declare war on us, as if that would mean anything. But send an army to take out Saddam's research? That sounds more like militarism than shrewd geopolitics to me.
Thomas: As far as delivery system goes, what do you consider the required delivery system for a small nuclear bomb?
Mike: ICBMs. Backed by a tests conducted 4 times a year to see if they work. Followed by an air raid
within 24 hours of the first test.
Thomas: Anyway, this started because you were worried that Bush wasn't letting the French determine our foreign policy goals. Can we now toss that aside?
Mike: Now, now, don't confuse me with apologists like Bonior. But before we send our sons and daughters off into no-man's land, wouldn't you like a demonstration of some clear and present danger? I'm simply not satisfied I've seen that.
[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I think it is interesting too that people seem to be more worried about a small nuclear device than they are about some sort of biological weapon. A biological weapon has the potential to be much more devastating in some cases (ebola comes to mind) than a low-yield nuclear device. Although I would personally not care for either.

My larger point was simply that Iraq has no demonstrated delivery system to move its weapon beyond its immediate neighbors. It hardly matters whether the deliverable is nuclear or biological.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Mike: If you aim a gun at me, that's enough; I'll shoot first. If you're trying to buy a gun, I shouldn't kill you for that. I should just keep you from getting the gun.
Map: So you'll keep Tom from getting a gun, while you have one?
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

What else is my gun good for?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Perhaps commies were hypocrites, perhaps. Maybe if I heard from my childhood "let's screw them, just because we can " I got use to it. Perhaps. Too late now... How diffciult is it to get Canadian citisenships, anyone knows?
I am sick of Great Nations Who Save The World.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
My larger point was simply that Iraq has no demonstrated delivery system to move its weapon beyond its immediate neighbors. It hardly matters whether the deliverable is nuclear or biological.

They only need ICBMs if they choose to attack the US, for example, with a missile. They do have missiles that can hit other targets, although not very accurately. Don't think for a minute though that a missile is the only way to deliver a nuclear weapon. Far more realistic and feasible on the part of the Iraqis, or their terrorist cronies, would be to attempt to deliver it by cargo ship or some other covert non-military means. Delivering a biological weapon could be far more simple and harder to detect until symptoms started showing (the incubation time for haemorrhagic fever is generally 5-6 days for example).
If you aim a gun at me, that's enough; I'll shoot first. If you're trying to buy a gun, I shouldn't kill you for that. I should just keep you from getting the gun.

Exactly. And the best way to ensure the country of Iraq never gets that gun is to remove the few people in that country who are so intent on acquiring it. He has already "aimed" his "gun" at us however and his intentions are clear, particularly as he is likely helping people attain WMDs who have already pulled the trigger on us.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1561.html (*note, this is commentary on a CNN article by an individual who seems to claim to be a national security expert with a particular interest in Iraqi WMDs. He is oft quoted on other sites, although I haven't read enough about him to decide if he really gets good information or is just a glorified conspiracy theorist.)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/iraq_mission_aborted020819.html
We should not doubt his will to use these weapons for even a second, particularly in light of what he did in 1988. **Caution, disturbing and graphic images
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am sick of Great Nations Who Save The World.

I'm with you. I would rather we stayed out of everything. We should have let Iraq take Kuwait and Saudi. We should totaly remove our leash from around Israel's neck and let them do what they want. We should have never got involved in the Balkans. So what if the entire region would be embroiled in war now? So what if it would have spread beyond the Balkans and probably have involved Turkey and Greece going at it over Cyprus? We should never have gone to Somalia either. Should have let them starve. Going back a ways, we should have stayed out of Korea and WW2. If we had the entire Korean peninsula may now be starving, not just the northern part, and much of Europe would now be speaking German.
I absolutely agree. We should never get involved and just mind our own business, even if someone else tries to provoke us.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
and much of Europe would now be speaking German.
To believe this you chose the wrong person, I am afraid.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
and much of Europe would now be speaking German.
To believe this you chose the wrong person, I am afraid.

You're probably right. More likely much of them would now be speaking Russian.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Don't you believe an election ought to have two candidates?
Can't the GOP find a little stronger candidate than a guy who runs on - My opponent is a bum. This Forrester guy has some real Senatorial qualifications. A person would think the GOP could find another carpet bagger ( aka Dole ) to invade the state.
Dole BTW is even afraid to identify herself as a Republican on her home page.
Dole Campaign Propaganda
If the GOP can't beat a 78 year old geezer in need of a walker, I see why you're crying in your beer.
It's not just a good week for Democrats, but a great step forward for mankind to see Jesse Helms retire.
:roll:
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Don't you believe an election ought to have two candidates?

There were two candidates. When it was clear to one of them that he would lose the election, he dropped out, amidst pressuer from other Democrats. They are purposely doing what they can to manipulate the election and change the rules in the middle of the game purely so that they don't lose that seat.
Additionally, this is a clear attempt to disenfranchise military absentee voters, who traditionally vote Republican.
You can't try to replace a candidate only because you think he is going to lose after you already get past a certain point in the election. His dropping out should be looked at more as a concession than anything else, however the sick truth is that it is merely the vilest of Democrat ploys to try to retain their prescious power, regardless of the law, and regardless of the fact that they are disenfranchising voters.
The fact that the Dems have tried to manipulate four recent elections (FL twice, NJ, HI), while seeking to disenfranchise voters in at least two of those elections, should be of concern to those who actually believe we should be a nation of laws and one that upholds our Constitutional ideals.
another carpet bagger

Hillary Clinton?
It's not just a good week for Democrats, but a great step forward for mankind to see Jesse Helms retire.

Yes, Republicans eventually retire. Democrats on the other hand are usually forced out in disgrace long before reaching that point.
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
You're probably right. More likely much of them would now be speaking Russian.
Or whatever language they used to speak.
Jason, I am not that much object to the permanent process of saving the world per se, as to enthusiasm it raises. Enthusiasm is dangerous.
I remember, I was about 12 when read interview with a person from some Baltic town (I think, it was Tallinn, but I am not sure). He said when fascist troops came to the town, its authorities surrendered "because we always surrendered to everybody". I was a bit shocked by such an explanation, it was so different from all heroic rhetoric I heard. (I still wonder how censorships sleep this text, Soviet kids weren't supposed to read anything besides heroically-patriotic stories).
I got a clue later, when democracy happened, and our TV translated a political meeting in one of Baltic republics. Somebody said that there was the third part of the whole nation, two more squares like this and these are all their people. Overstatement, most likely, (or maybe "understatement" is the right word), in any case, it explained something. Big nations can afford heroic history, for others it can be a luxury. There was a good deal of arrogance in our 40-years of non-stop bragging about "saving the world" that was hard to realize when you are inside of it.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Jason, I am not that much object to the permanent process of saving the world per se, as to enthusiasm it raises. Enthusiasm is dangerous.

I'm not suer I understand where there is enthusiasm. Or if there is a perception of enthusiasm I personally don't see it. What I do see is resolve. Nobody wants to go to war with Iraq, but the chain of events going back from 1988 up to the present seems to indicate that is what we will be forced to do. This isn't something that has happened over night and diplomacy efforts have been undertaken for the last eleven years or so in order to solve the problem. Those efforts have failed and it seems pointless to continuously "give him one more chance" ad infinitum.
There is a certain point that gets reached where you realize that other methods must be undertaken. This isn't something that should be approached with enthusiam, but it is something that should be approached decisively and with resolve.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I know a person who was going to go to the restaurant to celebrate bombing of Afghanistan as soon as this would happen. Because it is "Right Thing to Do". What is interesting, that this person is a Christian and this apparently (and paradoxically) adds some passion to the issue.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I know a person who was going to go to the restaurant to celebrate bombing of Afghanistan as soon as this would happen. Because it is "Right Thing to Do". What is interesting, that this person is a Christian and this apparently (and paradoxically) adds some passion to the issue.

I'm not sure what being Christian has to do with it, but regardless, that person is an idiot. I can't say I know anybody who have celebrated any of our military actions, but I am sure there are some misguided people out there.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Well that boy from Plains, Jimmy Carter, gave the donkeys something to be proud of this morning. I personally voted for Ronald Reagan when they came head to head the last time. Perhaps time has softened the harness of the hostage crisis. The national malaise is now a republican problem.
At any rate, I've really grown to admire Jimmy. These teeth are just so apropos.
Jason, when is Virginia going to put Robert Byrd out to pasture?
[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Jason, when is Virginia going to put Robert Byrd out to pasture?

Robert Byrd is from West Virginia.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Thanks Paul. Can I take it then that you are a Robert Byrd follower, err fan?
[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Thanks Paul. Can I take it then that you are a Robert Byrd follower, err fan?
[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

You are aware Byrd is a Democrat, right?
Rick Hightower
Author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2002
Posts: 350

When's the last time we started a war? I thought we were the country that came in to finish them.

We started the war of 1812 against the British and Canadians. Although we won almost every naval battle, we lost the war. The British and Canadians occupied Detroit for quite some time, and the British burned down Washington. Of course this is ancient history for the USA. The amazing thing about this war is not that we lost (the British were much more prepared than the US), but that we won so many naval battles against the British navy (at the time the British navy was the best and biggest in the world).
My understanding is that we started the Vietnam War by saying that they fired on our ships. I could be wrong about this, but I think it is a historical fact. I can not swear to it.
It is also a historical fact that we started the Spanish/American war by saying that the Spanish bombed one of our ships when in fact the boiler blew up. I can swear to this one.

The real question is who started the American/Mexican war? I think they did, but can not remember.
I love the history channel.

Note: no political statements were made in this at least I tried not to.
I am not saying if I am liberal or conservative or neither.
I am not saying if I am democrat or republican or neither.


Rick Hightower is CTO of Mammatus which focuses on Cloud Computing, EC2, etc. Rick is invovled in Java CDI and Java EE as well. linkedin,twitter,blog
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Good week to be a Democrat
 
Similar Threads
Republican or Democrat? Or Republicrat?
Want free beer? Become a democrat!
U.S.A. or CHINA
Mock exam question
Best Practices