It didn't come easy, but what are you going to do

• Congrats to Obama - Kaydie
  • Congratulations - LRS
  • THANKS, KAYDIE...nm - aw
  • It's now official. McCain conceding...sm - ms
    • McCain gave an eloquent speech - Kaydie
      • I thought he gave a good speech. I hope all people listened - to it.
      • I didn't see McCain speak, sm - m
        • I could not agree more - Kaydie
          • Excuse me: Did you wander into the TWILIGHT ZONE? What's wrong with you?.. - aw
  • WE WON! Congratulations to ALL Democrats! Go. Obama! nm - aw
    • Don't congratulate THIS democrat ... I'm sickened by these results! (nm) - NO Obama Supporter
    • Moot point and small reminder.. - LRS.
  • With over 200 electorial votes sm - m
  • Chickens - Marmann
    • I truly hope you are right - Kaydie
      • Not what I meant. - Marmann
      • Yeah, I know what you mean.....we were saying a few minutes ago....sm - ms
  • 76 more days - Depression No More
    • Oh, no ...DEPRESSION is exactly what we are - headed for now with Obama. You can thank him.nm
      • thank Obama? He isn't the President.Thank Mr. Bush. NM - ozzz
        • No. Obama will kill jobs with his tax plan. - The USA is headed downward, unfortunately.nm
          • Yes, there will be major job losses now /NM - Tootie
      • Guess most of the country is cool with stealing - other people's money too.. sad.nm
        • what are you talking about? Are you saying paying - ozzz
          • Uhh, no! Stealing from wealthy to give to people - who pay NO taxes anyway.. stealing...welfare!.nm
            • Where on earth do you people get those crazy - ideas? In the tabloids? No one's
          • Then you obviously have not been.........sm - m
    • Loved it...thank you! - GObama
  • I did not vote for 4 years of socialism, but that is life. - Hope we all survive it. nm
  • There you go. That could not have come easy for you. - I appreciate your gesture. nm
    • It didn't come easy, but what are you going to do - Kaydie

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

You said:

America is becoming a very scary place indeed.  I believe, as you do, that there are people who are eagerly awaiting the *Rapture* and indeed believe they have the *inside track* to heaven.  Unfortunately, it look as if this country might actually suffer from their self-fulfilled prophecy if it continues going backwards in time under Bush's completely inept leadership.

If you don't want your kids looking at porn on the internet, teach them not to do it.  Provide your kid with internet access and put a block on that computer.  If they are visiting a library during class hours and are looking at porn on the internet, I would say they have some behavioral problems anyway, and porn is about the last thing you need to worry about in that case.

You guys scream smaller government, but then you want the govt to raise your kids. 

or else you'd have mastered the art of "twisting" and wouldn't have such high regard for the truth.

Lesson 1:  Visit the Conservative Board and study closely.

(Lesson 2 will follow as soon as you have successfully completed Lesson 1.)

Title of you post is lifted straight out of TT112OldTimer's post responding to Free Speech Rocks.  When spinning soooo out of control that the brain becomes blank, you can always resort to plagiary.  Hello.  Are you listening?  Vitriol out, vitriol in.  You might be shocked by how much respect you earn with just the simple gesture of extending some.  Respect is NOT a 4-letter word. 

Common sense is exactly what I used when I decided to attack my own bigoted tendencies back when I was still a teenager.  I did not learn any of that from books or courses I took in school.  I took it to the streets and reaped benefits beyond measure from those lessons. 

Au contraire.  The bluster of bigots is easy to bury under fact and logic.  No need to be thwarted by that.  Their reservoir of insults runs very shallow, but the intellect is a well that one can dig as deep as is necessary.  Fact/truth is another arch-enemy of the bigot.  You at least had the wisdom not to attempt to ridicule the context post since you knew you would be in way over your head and besides, you are allergic to the other side of the coin.  As they say, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.   It can’t be much fun to find yourself dumbfounded by your own narrow mind.  Frustrating too...remember it well. 

On the shortcut post:  That was your snipe, not mine.  Snipe begets tripe.  Vtriol out/vitriol in.  Garbage out/garbage in.  Is there an echo in here? 

Not the slightest bit interested in agreement, validation or vindication.  I am secure enough by now not to need all of that.  But in political contexts, the journey down the road to consensus will never begin in the absence of flexibility, open-mindedness and a good dose of patience.        

What part of my posts reflect your tactics do you not understand?  You absolutely refuse to look at yourself in the mirror, but you do know enough to be outranged when someone sends you your own reflection.  It’s not a pretty sight and furthermore, you become every bit as enraged as you seem to think I am.  You are constitutionally incapable of seeing what a spiteful little vixen you become when your brick-wall logic is thrown back in you face. 

No surprise there.  Bigotry is always blind.  Here’s another example you are bound to ignore:  You are so driven by your hatred of illegals that you would actually weigh in on the side of transnationals and cast your vote for the party who empowers them to outsource your profession overseas and drive your own wages into the ground.  

Well shut my mouth!  Could it be that you have finally run out of insults in the face of the realities of logic and have arrived on the threshold of the next level where most other right-wingers eventually find themselves...running for the hills and back into the open arms of the choir members?  You are big on cliché.  Here’s one for you...you can run, but you can’t hide.  Have a safe journey and I am “sending up a prayer” that you find the sanctuary you seek. 

Unfortunately there are people who still believe the lies of Bush, even now that he's finally said something honest:  That there were NO WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

if you have enough time on your hands.  Here is an article asking if President Bush is the anti-Christ.  People will believe what they want to. 

http://markswatson.com/bushac.htm

Too bad there's not a tough liberal voice on Fox.  By the end of the interview with A. Coombs you would have thought Alan Coombs was the one who made these idiotic remarks not Bennett.

Whatever, he can clean this up for all of those interested.  I'm not.

Nope, let's spend a few million and buy new furniture for homeland security and a few million more to buy hybrids for congress. 

Can they not deduce that keeping corporate America from offshoring jobs will actually create more jobs, thereby lower the unemployment rate, and put more money in American's pocket for them to spend?  Cut all tax cuts given to companies for offshoring and give the tax cuts to companies to strive to keep jobs in America?

And here's another V8 moment -- how about we buy American?  Maybe increase tariffs on imported goods to discourage American companies from importing so much crapy and thereby necessitating said crap be sold at higher prices in an effort to discourage Americans from buying imports? 

The ONLY way to help the American economy is to employ Americans and buy American!  It's that simple!

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.

The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.