Ahhh, politics is back. Well the last 2-3 days were great.
Just out of curiosity I went back to the beginning of this forum (pages 218-219). The postings are dated late 2000 and early 2001. There is not one political message!
-- Modified on 2/16/2004 2:19:01 PM
If I wanted to hear that I'd turn on CNN "The Clinton News Network"
Sdstud,
How are you friend?? Damn I miss the political debates!! You know, over the span of 5 years some people post few messages on politics and all the sudden people get upset. Thought it would be fun but oh well.
Hope I didn't offend you with any of my posts!! You seem very passionate about certain issues so if you post anything expect a reply from me
Almost as much as I will enjoy helping to vote Dumbya back to Crawford this November. I wouldn't dream of posting in a vacuum unopposed.
We could be the TER version of Mary Matalin and James Carville - LOL!
Damn sdstud, Mary Matlin and James Carville aren't pleasant choices
Don't be too sure about sending Dumbya back to Crawford in November. You seriously underestimate Rove and company!! They are not kids playing on a playground, and trust me when they unleash things are gonna get very ugly.
I do NOT underestimate Karl Rove. This Bush AWOL stuff is simply us on the other side warming up for what we KNOW is coming, and showing that we can play on the same field.
This certainly is going to be one hell of a bloody dogfight!! The political has become more and more poisoned since the beginning of Vietnam but I have a feeling this year we are in for something we have never seen before.
Liberal and conservative ideologies feel threatened from the opposing side in a unparalleled and unprecedented manner. The extremes of both bases seem to have internalized a belief that their respective success will come only when the other side is completely destroyed. That is going to make for one hell of a mess thats for sure!!
I believe that the degree that this George W. Bush quote is a true statement or an outright fiction is the single most legitimate measure of the man's Presidency.
I don't expect even his most ardent supporters could contend with straight faces that he has unified the American Public in support of his agenda.
And I would argue that since Sept. 11th 2001, he had a very legitimate opportunity to do exactly that. But he put the agendas of his biggest political patrons ahead of those of the nation as a whole.
-- Modified on 2/16/2004 3:29:11 PM
Sure Bush is a very polarizing figure as President. Agree with his policies or not, he wasn't this polarizing as Governor. If you only knew him as Governor you would have a different opinion of him as a person, though not Republican politics.
To me its bigger than Bush. There are extremes on the conservative side who absolutely want to do away with the Democratic party and completely abolish many a gov't programs, and usher a new foreigh policy based of use of force to achieve democracy in the middle east. There are extremes on the liberal side as well. My point is that those extremes want to push policies through that will drastically change the social and political landscape and see any political opposition not as democratic dissent, rather misguided and out of control liberal dangers to the very survival of this nation. Bush is merely the face of that belief.
And we are happy to do it.
The fact is, he's President, and he is in the position of National leadership. He alone is the owner of the political agenda that comes from his side of the aisle. He either agrees with it, or he lacks the character and courage to oppose it. In any case, he owns it, and is responsible for all of it's ramifications.
Ronald Reagan was certainly a holder of even more extreme views than Dumbya. But Reagan exercised a level of leadership that got much of his agenda accomplished WITHOUT polarizing the nation to anywhere NEAR the degree that Bush has. And he got the stuff he viewed as critical, accomplished, while giving the other side of the aisle it's victories in areas that Reagan did NOT perceive as critical. And as such, he left office as a popular leader of a not nearly so divided nation. Contrast that to Bush II. The ONLY explanation of this is that it is a failing of leadership, on the part of Bush. Each side has it's extremists. The leader's job is to reign them in for the betterment of the Nation, NOT give them the sense that it's time to engorge themselves during their turn at the public trough.
I do NOT underestimate Karl Rove. This Bush AWOL stuff is simply us on the other side warming up for what we KNOW is coming, and showing that we can play on the same field.
Whew, I’m glad to hear you guys were only getting “warmed up”. I expected a better cheap shot that a bunch of AWOL / deserter talk from someone with Alzheimer’s who wasn`t even sure if he was there.
You`re going to have to do better than bad mouthing a President for “only” serving in the National Guard. I guess it would have been okay with you if he`d have just said how much he loathed the military and failed to serve at all. What a band of hypocrites you people are.
As for the rest, see my reply to Bribite below. This game is now played this way, BECAUSE of successful Republican campaigns in the past that developed this game. Dems may be slow learners, but they have now learned the entire game. Both from the standpoint of how to launch the attacks, to how to pick a candidate who is least susceptible to similar attacks from the other side. BRING IT ON!
The gloves are off, let the dog fight begin Ampallang, if you have read my posts you know I am not on either side, as I think the political leaders of both sides are corrupt hypocrites.
As a neutral person I agree this Awol stuff is nothing more than cheapshots. If Howard Dean was on the brink of getting the nomination, not a single Democrat would even raise the issue of Bush's service in Vietnam.
I hope Bush does as expected and wins in November. If that does come to pass I`m going to repost all the junk I`ve seen here in the last week. I`d love to help you through your agony with a heaping helping of crow.
Since I will need to prepare for the fucking the nation will endure if it faces 4 more years of Cheney/Bush.
Have mercy man!! Please don't repost the junk if Bush wins
We don't need a recount on this board
A few of us had fun on some of the posts talking about politics since elections are just around the corner. I personally enjoyed it but quiet a few were unhappy about bringing up politics on this board as they felt this was not the appropriate board for such heated debates.
Personally, I felt since there are obviously many intelligent and informed people posting on this board they wouldn't mind having a few posts on politics on a "General Discussion" board.
I promised I wouldn't start a new string on a political subject and will abide by it, but if anyone else wants to ruffle some feathers I would be more than happy to instigate and jump in
or the A-Rod trade to Yankees?
-- Modified on 2/16/2004 4:00:38 PM
Also the body painting shots were quite nice. What would you pay for an intimate session with Marissa Miller?
And as a Yankee fan, I LOVE the A-Rod theft.
The Czech model on the cover of this year's SI was doing the rounds on the late night shows last week and OMG I just couldn't believe how gorgeous that woman is. Damn!!!!!!!!!!
The SI issue is pretty much every straight man's common ground Damn it Ststud, here I am visualizing that Czech model and you bring Matalin and Carville into it again You couldn't let me have my moment??
...but I thought I would offer this link to a story about BUSH's
National Guard service or lack there of depending on one's point of view political or otherwise. It's taken from an independent news organization based in the UK.
There is an attempt to present the various arguments of both sides on the issue.
I think the most salient paragraph in the article is the last.
One point I would make is that as a vet myself who is proud of his military service (in country Vietnam), but in the end of the view that the war in Vietnam never should have happened just as the war in Iraq never should have happened, I SAVED my military service records. I think that is probably true of a lot of vets, especially those who are proud of their service to their country.
I find it troubling that the Whitehouse is still struggling with producing a comprehensive copy of Bush's military service records.
In the end however this is probably not going to be an issue that the vast majority of the public is going to care much about.
Domestic issues, primarily the economy and the jobless recovery along with the War in Iraq are going to matter far more to the public at large than Bush's Air National Guard "service".
I would point out that given how vastly overstretched our armed forces are at this point, the ranks of the forces on the ground in Iraq at this moment are approximately 40% guard and reserve and projected to go to approximately 50% in less than a year's time.
That was just recently reported on the national news networks.
Seems that serving in the guard now your chances of getting killed have risen dramatically since the time Bush was somewhere in Texas or Alabama during his guard "service".
I don't have the energy to rehash my reasons for thinking neither the war in Vietnam or Iraq should have ever happened. It probably matters little to anyone reading this anyway. I'm not likely to change the views of those who have a different take on it and they are not likely to change mine.
You can do a search by author using my handle if you care to review what I've posted on this subject in the past.
My greatest concern is that there are probably going to be a lot more young American servicemen die in Iraq along with many more Iraqi civilians and there is yet no way of knowing how this is all going to play out.
So here is the article. Read it if you care to and draw your own conclusions.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1678205.php
either the above link or the link title should take you to the article.
I'd grudge fuck Matalin. Get her head about 6 inches from the head board and see if I can knock some sense into that woman. Probably no luck, but ya know if she would just give head we wouldn't have to listen to her.
To me, she looked like a Koala. Admittingly, she is very photogenic. However, she looks very plain and normal in person as reflected in her video appearance and some of her photos. She does look better as she gets older. (She is actually 25 instead of 24 as claimed in SI)
Petra Nemcova followed bad advices from her modeling agency to have her hair shorten and darken. Her photos in the 2004 Swimsuit issue are absolutely pedestrian.
Then again, in the last few years, SI's editors generally dropped their balls in selecting models and photos. Compared these 2 with those models in SI's Hall of Fame. Nowhere were they come close of those supermodels in their primes.
really elaborate here. Just to say that different people have different taste.
If you check modeling sites on the net, you would find that there are plenty of beautiful models out there who are a lot better looking than many in this year's swimsuit issue of SI. Even professional photographers are shaking their heads towards the poor taste of the current SI swimsuit editors.
Peace.