Northwest Observer Forums > Closed Topics > Previous Topics > My thoughts on President Bush, Liberals & the Media.
Northwest Observer Forums > Closed Topics > Previous Topics > My thoughts on President Bush, Liberals & the Media. |
|
| Moderated by: Steve Adkins | Topic closed | |
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PeachMan Member 
|
Over half the country voted for President Bush, more people in the history of Presidential elections actually & 44%+ still support him(myself included), we seem to forget all of this. It would seem that everyone thinks our President is a fool or an idiot, but let us not forget all the Libs, media, etc. that thought Reagan was an idiot & now as a little time has went by we see that he was one of, if not the best Presidents in history....I think the same will be said for George W. Bush, IMAO. Just as certain people thought Reagan was nuts for taking on Russia(and winning the Cold War), certain people think of W. the same way....even though he's the first person to stand up to terrorists and not flinch despite the Liberal Media, polls & Liberal Democrat's constant onslaught, while on the homefront, unemployment is at or below it's lowest point in history I do believe, and the stock market is about to set an all time record, gas is coming back down, etc. but I guess none of that has anything to do with the President....unless it's going bad & not good. PeachMan  Last edited on Sep 21st, 2006 04:05 pm by PeachMan |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member 
|
WELCOME TO THE FORUM PEACHMAN!!!!
Last edited on Sep 21st, 2006 06:06 pm by Cracker Jax |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
I wish I could share y'all's enthusiasm fer W, but personally, I think Bush is probably the worst President this country has seen in a long time, regardless of what Reagan did or Kerry might have done. Somebody like John McCain suits me better. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
Pappy, I guess I'm a chicken.... I wasn't going to weigh in here, b/c I don't like to get into discussions of controversial issues like religion and politics too much. I agree with you, Pappy. I saw John McCain on TV this morning.... I've always thought he made a lot of sense, even if he is a Republican. ♥♥♥  |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
I reckon you make a lot o' sense there, Macca. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
Wow a political debate! I am on Pappy's side in this about W. I think the american people were lied to about wmd in Iraq and now we have no way out. We have killed 2,600 plus of our youngest and finest. We didn't learn a thing in Vietnam. We are involved in a civil war and we don't know who is on what side just like in Viet Nam. Haviing said that I think I am probably an indepenent when it comes to voting. I want leaders in this country whose fore most concern is this country. I want everybody who wants a job to be able to get a job. I want everybody to have affordable health care. Don't care who pays for it just want everybody to be able to go to the doctor and be seen with out worrying about losing their house. I think it is probably more efficient to make the employer provide health insurance but if we can't do that then we need the government to do it. My husband's employer says they provide insurance for all employees but two years ago the family coverage for the employee went from $3,000 to over $7,000 in a company where probably 90% of the people make $7 to $10 an hour. Health coverage should not be a choice between eating or health care. I want leaders who can stop the wholesale crossing of our borders but not demonize the hard working people who are here illegally, just figure out a way to keep the good people and send the few bad ones back to their home country. I want leaders who are neither owners or receive huge contributions from the oil companies so this country that is goobling up the naturdal resources of the world will seriously look at alternatives. We would save billions of gallons of oil, cut down on air pollution and save peoples live with a national push to good, usable public transportation. If you want to take a train to Memphis you have to go to Chicago. How much sense does that make? I don't care what political party offers these candidates they are the ones I want in office. Care of the people in our country is what has made us a great country and we seem to some where along the way lost sight of that. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Woo hoo! ScubaJane!!! You are my hero!!! Makes sense to me! Love it, love it, love it!!♥♥♥ |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Yee haw, Scuba Jane! I b'lieve there are good idees on both sides an' they need to be listened to. The tactics Bush an' that bunch have been usin' to demonize the opposition as unpatriotic if they question his madness is just another form o' terrorism. It ain't doin' America any good. Pappy don't like bein' lied to neither. Sure is convenient to have a war on hand to use as a excuse fer ever'thang you want done. I want a leader with a conscience an' a sense o' responsibility to ALL the people an' to the constitution. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
FatPappy wrote: I wish I could share y'all's enthusiasm fer W, but personally, I think Bush is probably the worst President this country has seen in a long time, regardless of what Reagan did or Kerry might have done. Amen Pappy, Amen. I always knew you were a fine fellow and now I understand another reason why. I don't intend to be drawn into a political debate. I have many friends of every political persuasion and appreciate all citizens who fully participate in the democratic process to include not only voting but staying informed of the issues, ideas and ideologies. I am proud to be both a Democrat and a liberal. Being a Democrat was good enough for my Mama, Daddy, and all 4 Grandparents and it's good enough for me! |
|||||||||||
|
Waytago Member 
|
FatPappy wrote: I wish I could share y'all's enthusiasm fer W, but personally, I think Bush is probably the worst President this country has seen in a long time, regardless of what Reagan did or Kerry might have done. Pappy I also think Bush has pushed himself into a corner he can't get out of. I sometimes wonder if he has isolated himself away from reality, to the point his staff is afraid to bring him bad news. What would you think if Rumsfield was pushed out and John McCain put in his job? |
|||||||||||
|
Waytago Member
|
FatPappy wrote: I b'lieve there are good idees on both sides an' they need to be listened to. The tactics Bush an' that bunch have been usin' to demonize the opposition as unpatriotic if they question his madness is just another form o' terrorism. It ain't doin' America any good. Pappy don't like bein' lied to neither.Wow Pappy...........well said !!!!!!!!!! |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
McCain in Rumsfeld's position? Hmm... Rumsfeld's way past due in my opinion. He's in denial or somethin'. I reckon I'll leave it there fer now... |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Well, well, well..... me and the Peachman were tryin' to get you all out from under those tin foil hats and I reckon it worked didn't it??? tee hee! I guess I'd have to agree with Jane on this one. In a perfect world we could find a president who wouldn't lie or mislead the American public and could solve all of our problems in the paltry 4-8 years that are allotted. I think they all (Republican or Democrat) start out with good intentions. I am pretty sure that we have NEVER had an administration that didn't lie or mislead the American public though. Whether it be a health issue, a marital indescretion, the Yalta accords, the Cuban missle crisis, Watergate or Vietnam. It's a shame. We've almost come to expect it and worse than that, we accept it. That is what needs changing in my opinion. IMHO Bush was the better choice at the time he was elected and it's a shame that he or any president was dealt the hand that he was, and has had to deal with this issue that I think has snowballed and now, they don't know how to stop it. Do I think he was the best person to handle the issues that have come to the surface during his administration? No, I do not. I'm just not sure that we had a better choice put before us at the time. I've recently changed my affiliation to the Independent party. I've always voted for a candidate based on what he could potentially do for the USA, and have never voted along party lines because there are issues on both sides that I agree with. Just depends on the candidate and his platform. I promise I'll do my homework on John McCain before I hit the polls.... Just in case! |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
You're right, Crackah, even all-American, good-lookin' Kennedy lied to us. If we could hold 'em accountable an' somehow keep money out of the political process, we'd have us somethin' then. I also think blind allegiance to a party, any party, is not a good idee. I've never thought Bush was stupid. Far from it. I do think he's been stubbornly short-sighted and egotistically closed-minded at a time when we desperately needed much more. I was proud of him durin' 9/11. It lasted about a week. What Kerry might have done has nuthin' to do with what Bush has done. Bush knew better and still did what he did. He was going into Iraq one way or another before 9/11 even happened. |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member 
|
Just wanted to jump and and say thanks to y'all for keeping this discussion civil on such a controversial subject. Y'all are great !! Blog onward............. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Why Steve we can be civilized if we need to be. It is we just don't need to be real often. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member 
|
Steve Adkins wrote: Just wanted to jump and and say thanks to y'all for keeping this discussion civil on such a controversial subject. Y'all are great !!We can all get along.....come on it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote......Ok GROUP HUG.... |
|||||||||||
|
PeachMan Member
|
Just a reminder, for those that may have forgotten: "the Senate early Friday, 10/11/02 voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq...." & "The Senate vote divided Democrats, with 29 Democrats voting for the measure and 21 against." -from CNN.Com Also, about the non-existant WMD's: The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month. “This operation was a major achievement,” said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement. He said it would keep “potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists”. Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” were also removed. The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department’s secret laboratories. It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility. -from various sources including, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm , "The UncooperativeBlogger.Com" & more.... 1.7 tons of enriched uranium.....I wonder what that was going to be used for & I wonder why this wasn't plastered all over the television(s), newspaper(s), and magazine(s)? |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member 
|
liberals = media. redundant. oh- 500. woo wee. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
bama80 wrote:liberals = media. redundant. Excuse me.... Have you ever read The Rhinoceros Times? |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Changed my mind. Last edited on Sep 20th, 2006 06:45 pm by FatPappy |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
There a huge difference between the Rhino and the "normal" media outlets. The Rhino has never hidden the fact that they are a conservative newpaper, and that they intend to report from that base and stand-point. TV news and daily papers claim to be unbiased and neutral. If you can read, you know that's not true. Proof of that is when you read the Rhino, you can see an obvious difference in their reporting and thought process vs. the other outlets. The fact that they admit they are conservative and then you can read their conservative approach is called honesty. The other papers claim neutrality, but they are filled with left-leaning, liberal, bash-America-every-chance-you-get in practically every report. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Dang liberal media! You cain't depend on 'em to tell you what's a-goin' on. Fer example: Did they ever catch them fellers that made that big hole in the ground where 3,000 human bein's an' two big buildin's used to be? I heard they were holed up in Afghanistan -- y'all remember that place? Wonder how it's goin' over yonder these days? I heard we 'bout had them fellers cornered a few years ago, but the High Sheriff (real tough guy, ex National Guard drop out) got a good chunk o' the posse to cut an' run over yonder to Iraq to do a little shockin' an' awein' (or was it shuckin' an' jivein'), in a country, by the way that had no connection with Al Queda or 9/11. Y'all heard anything from there lately? I also heard top military an' Senate leaders in his own party were fed up an' decided to split with their fightin' he-man leader over whether America stands fer torture or not. I don't watch The O'Reilly Factor so I don't know if that actually happened or not. |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member 
|
I won't get into Bush-bashing or Democrat Dunking, but MStone does make a good point about the papers. I like to read opinions that differ from mine - that's the way we broaden our views - but what I don't like is reporting that is presented as neutral when it's not. Do we have a forum for radio rage? Another disappointment is NPR, my favorite liberal radio station which I have often enjoyed. In the past, it was interesting and varied, but in the last year or so, it has become so slanted that it's too tiresome to tune in. The liberal views, for the most part are acceptable, but the way every guest is led to express only the views of the host should be embarassing to the station. If someone is brought in on counterpoint his opinions are rudely dismissed. Why can't we get comments equally from both sides so that we can try to form an educated opinion? Most of us don't like to be force-fed any one viewpoint and surely both liberals and conservatives have some good to offer. The Dianne Rheim(sorry, spelling) show is the one that drives me to distraction. Her leading questions are unnecessary and she is just not profesional enough to host a two-sided show. Oh, well, I still like to keep up with the doings of the Lutherans! |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
Starcatchr wrote: Do we have a forum for radio rage? Not yet, but you are welcome to start one. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Steve Adkins wrote:Just wanted to jump and and say thanks to y'all for keeping this discussion civil on such a controversial subject. Y'all are great !! PeachMan wrote: Just a reminder, for those that may have forgotten: |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted. In her 43-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." To me, having a Federal Judge use such language in describing George Bush and his Administration's unconstitutional actions, speaks ever so clearly to the lack of respect and regard that Bush and his cronies (Cheney comes to mind) have for our democratic ideals and constitution. There is no shame whatsoever in their abuse and abrogation of the constitution when it suits their purposes or meets their ends. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
Sen. Rockerfeller from West Virginia has been on tv lately complaining about how Bush lied to everyone about Iraq and FOX8 news went back 4 years to a speech Rockerfeller gave,he was on the Senate intelligence committee that has access to everything the Pres. sees. Anyway 4 years ago the esteemed Sen. from WV was imploring his fellow Sen. about how we did not have time for all the evidence on saddam to come out, we need to go after him. i guess time can cause amnesia or is it election time that causes it. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Lets see , Dems have Skip Alston and Reps have Billy Yow. Do we really want to go there? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Star catchr I for the most part love Kiane Rhem's show. I know she is liberal and expect her bent to be that way but she does have the best news round ups each week I spend a lot of time in my car. My only other choice at that time of the day is Neil Bortz and I just get infuriated with his bashing of public ( government as he calls them) schools and the pushing of home schooling and private schools as being the answer to all our problems. I try to listen to his side of things but just for the most part can't. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Another thought I have about liberal media. Have you watched fox news? They tout themselves as conservative. I think to paint W as a victim of the liberal medium gives way to much credit to the media. I think the other thing would we be better off with a conservative media or would we essentially have the same problems? Editaorials have to start from some point. Everybody has a leaning and comes to an issue with certain understandings. I don't think the news producers are in cahoots with each other to keep us citizens from knowing things. Too much news competition these days, to many ads to sell, too much money to be made. I think the issue is credible information. Were those news stories listed about credible. I know there are a world of stories that are not credible that would cause a great deal of killing and sorrow if they were widly run as true. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
When people say the liberal media is bashing America, I think they need to understand they're actually bashing the failed policies of the American administration. They're not bashing America. Bush is NOT America. I'm not particularly fond of Democrats or Republicans or most of the so-called media. I do like NPR though. I think Dianne Rheem is great. I think NPR provides a very thoughtful balance. Neil Bortz and his kind do more harm than good with their tiresome and predictible regurgitation of the party line approach. Four years ago when our elected officials voted on the war, they did so for unity, or out of trust...whatever. What about today? Has anybody learned anything from the mistakes that were made? Do we need to look at where we are and maybe change our perception of what's going on instead of blaming everything on liberals. That's just ignorant. Yep, must be an election comin' up... |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Good point, Mr Jim. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
macca wrote:Steve Adkins wrote: |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member
|
Yep, shows like Neil Bortz, which I have only caught bits of a few times, seems to cater to people who love to hate. Listen carefully to the D.R. show and find any comment that puts the opposing party in a favorable light. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Bush fan and am strongly against war in any country, but there must be a Republican somewhere who serves well for the American people. I guess I'm just weary of hearing "the Bush administration" precede every negative comment on the show. Ol' Dianne is becoming more and more a Neil B. lookalike. She needs to suck up and play fair.  |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Good points, Starcatchr. To be fair I do hear the slant you're referring to when I don't have my guard up, although I'm not ready to put DR in the Neil Bortz category just yet. To me, it's the difference between giving listeners thoughtful views to think about (DR), or just reciting today's lesson which is the same as yesterday's (Bortz, et al). |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
The real deal on the media is this... I like having NPR voices on the airwaves. I like having the liberal views in the printed media. By the same respect, I like hearing Bortz, Limbaugh and Fox News. I want to hear both sides. What I don't want to hear is some blow-hard spouting off his views and opinions while reporting them as unbiased facts (either liberal or conservative). The other part that bothers me are these folks that complain that America (not the Bush Admin) are bullies, we kill randomly, we attack countries without provocation, we violate international law, we torture, we destroy, we kill the environment, we are the cause of all social, political, and environmental ills that the world has to endure. That's bull. Name another country as compassionate and generous as America. Name one country that sends more support and aid all over the world than America. Heck - we even send aid to countries that feel compelled to destroy us. Then, the news media reports all of this tripe as fact, shows our flag being burned, and hate-filled speaches are broadcast over and over as if to drive the point home. That's the problem with the liberal media. They are quick to report this junk, but wouldn't dare point out all the good America is doing in the same countries. You also won't see them pointing out that these hate-filled entities are murdering people, starving them, and attacking our country. Man, I feel better for unloading that! |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
mstone wrote:I want to hear both sides. What I don't want to hear is some blow-hard spouting off his views and opinions while reporting them as unbiased facts (either liberal or conservative). Exactly. I agree. You also won't see them pointing out that these hate-filled entities are murdering people, starving them, and attacking our country. Then how do we all know about such things? The other point I want to make is I like to hear good news too. But if you're driving down the road and you're staying in the lane and everything's going fine, you don't expect your passengers to constantly say you're doing good. But if you're about to run off the road, you expect somebody to make some noise about it. It's not so much that you want to hear it, but you definitely need to hear it. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
EXACTLY RIGHT! I want to hear what's going wrong, and the sooner the better. However, when we're doing something right, that should be acknowledged too. I don't expect this balance to happen on the network evening news, but when you have 24/7 news networks on cable, they could provide the balance needed. They have the time and resources to tell both sides of the story - they just don't have the will to do what's right. Using FatPappy's analogy, if I'm driving down the road in my lane, I don't expect kudos for doing what I'm supposed to do. However, when I go to France where they drive on the wrong side of the road (American bias), and I put forth the effort to stay in the proper lane against all reasoning that I've learned over the years, then maybe I should get a pat on the back for not causing an accident or running into a building. Americans have been going all over this world to provide relief, aid, and security to others (other people's roads). It's simply the right thing to do, and maybe we shouldn't expect a pat on the back for not turning our backs on the world. But I don't expect people to hijack planes and kill innocent people because they don't agree with our policies, government, of religious beliefs. Let's hear the liberal media run THAT story. |
|||||||||||
|
PeachMan Member
|
I love how my last post was seemingly overlooked....just like in the "real world".  |
|||||||||||
|
Bubba Guest
|
Do you ever wonder what is pulled from our media and reported in other countries as truth and the example of ALL Americas? |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
The IAEA had the uranium under seal before the invasion. Many of the “Radioactive Sources” were medical and industrial sources used in testing. After the invasion many of the radioactive sources were looted and started showing up in scrap yards. Since this source of uranium and radioactive materials was known before the invasion, unlike the purported WMDS, it highlights how little planning GB did for the period after the initial invasion. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Rasin is correct. Most radioactive sources were previously identified - MOST. Also, most were medical and industrial in origins. However, if you are riding on a bus, airplane, or subway and a "dirty bomb" is detonated with this material, do you really care if it's medical or industrial waste? Or is it your main concern going to be exposure to radioactive materials? Think about it - go to the dentist and get an x-ray and they'll cover you with a lead lined apron.... that medical radioactive material is well controlled, but they still are taking precautions to protect you from exposure. I don't think the Islamic-radical-terrorist are going to hand out led lined coveralls prior to using such materials. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
I think rasin's point concerened the poor planning after the invasion that allowed such dangerous material to get out. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
PeachMan wrote:I love how my last post was seemingly overlooked....just like in the "real world". Nice avatar, PeachMan. Ain't that the Emperor's buddy? |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
Exactly, we knew about it and didn't plan for it. Rummie just about forbid any planning for after the invasion. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Are you saying that the administration knew there was medical and industrial radioactive material in Iraq, but we didn't have a plan for stopping people from stealing it? We also didn't have a plan for stopping the looting of the museums, palaces, and businesses. But think about it - we're in a war. Are we going to fight terrorists or are we going to protect furniture in a hotel? Perhaps my priorities are a little off kilter on this one, but since my Marine is on the front lines, I want the bad guys dead first. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
mstone wrote:Are you saying that the administration knew there was medical and industrial radioactive material in Iraq, but we didn't have a plan for stopping people from stealing it? Yes, I think that was rasin's point, that after the invasion, the known nuclear material became less secure due to poor planning. I don't understand what furniture has to do with it. |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
We knew where the material was and did not have a plan to protect it. We are not talking about furniture here. Protecting this material would have been something to have done. All the military planners knew the initial fighting would be over quickly. Quite a few of them tried to raise the issue of dealing with the reconstruction. Expecting looting in general and having a plan in place to address it would have been wise. Allowing an atmosphere of lawlessness to exist only made the job of reconstruction harder. Having a complete plan to deal with the reconstruction would have made it safer for your Marine. GB and Rumie thought we could waltz into Bagdad, be welcomed as liberators and everything would fall into place. One reason other administrations including the first GB didn’t take over Iraq is they knew there wasn’t anyone to replace Saddam and run the country, which meant we would need to run it. Blowing up a country is the easy part, putting it back together is the hard messy part. Considering that planning for the invasion pretty much started in earnest just after 9/11 they should have had enough time to have in place a solid reconstruction plan. After the invasion just as in a company take over there is a small window of opportunity to establish a positive relationship with the citizen/employee. If they see you have no plan chaos tends to fill the vacuum. Employees tend not to resort to civil unrest, in a war it tends to be seen as an option. This chaos has turned out to be more deadly than the invasion itself. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I also think we are confusing two issues here. Saddam was not the person responsible for 9/11 so we have deposed a dictator, reduced a country to rubble in places with anarchy. Had no plan to protect legitimate nuclear material so that the terrorists could get a hold of it and use it against us. Who besides Haliburton hasbenefitted from all this? There is probably a moral here somewhere. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Let's see... In addition to Haliburton, there are 117 American companies that have contracted with either the American government or directly with the Iraqi government to provide goods and services to Iraq. There are 6 North Carolina companies on this list. There are over 20,000 private contractors (individuals) on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan from the US alone that are not Haliburton employees. The number of private contrators in Iraq and Afghanistan from other countries dwarfs the American private contractor presence. Iraqi citizens have electricity, water, and open markets that were not available prior to the invasion. Iraqi citizens have security forces on their streets (both international and Iraqi forces) to protect them. They are provided with food, clothing, and shelter from the military and private companies. They are given jobs by private contractors that pay more in a month than what they earned in a year under Saddam. That's who is benefitting from all of this. DOGGETTJA wrote: Who besides Haliburton hasbenefitted from all this? |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Has anyone else heard about how a majority of the Iraqi people have welcomed us? Most people that have been there say that is true. The truck driver from Louisiana that was kidnapped and rescued by our soldiers told in the Progressive Journal(this is a farm publication , he is a farmer who took the job to get out of some debt) how he was welcomed by most everyone he met. Even one of his captors helped fre him. |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
ff12 wrote: Has anyone else heard about how a majority of the Iraqi people have welcomed us? Most people that have been there say that is true. The truck driver from Louisiana that was kidnapped and rescued by our soldiers told in the Progressive Journal(this is a farm publication , he is a farmer who took the job to get out of some debt) how he was welcomed by most everyone he met. Even one of his captors helped fre him. Yes, I have seen photos of folks that went there, gave balls, bats, soccer balls, etc to the kids and had some really good times. |
|||||||||||
|
PeachMan Member
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4 < video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI < video link http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060925/D8KBR21G0.html < article I've always thought that people act really defensive when what they're being accused of is true.(see Bill Clinton) How can he compare 8 years of literally letting Bin Laden go to Bush sending thousands of US troops after him post-9/11? & how in the HECK can he make the statement about the current Administration not being questioned about such things?, the current Administration is questioned, trashed and ran through the ringer constantly/every single day about UBL and Iraq and anything else bad that happens in the World. Last edited on Sep 25th, 2006 01:52 pm by PeachMan |
|||||||||||
|
PeachMan Member
|
Yep, it's Mr. Maul....the Lib's would compare him to VP Dick Cheney. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Speaking of liberals we only have to look at our own State goverment. Democrat Jim Black who in the face of proof of bribery will not step down. People on his staff connected to lottery games,but that would not cause any undue influence. No more so than former Ag Comm Meg scott Phipps campaign accepting contributions from the company that just happened to get the contract for the NC State fair after she took office. Besides she only had a token relation to Agriculture operations which is a requirement for office. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
We also had the former absentee Sen. John Edwards. He even claimed he was one of the common people. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
We started out so well without criticizing people, just discussing issues..... If you want to talk about this kind of thing, examples can be cited from either side.... What about Trudy Wade (I don't think she'd appreciate being called a "liberal"), who even though the voters elected her opponent refused to give up the seat?? ♥♥♥ |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
We was all out o' raw meat an' gunpowder fer breakfast, so I reckon I'm gonna crawl back up on the porch fer a bit an' let the big dogs have at it. Meanwhile, here's a poem I found y'all might have fun maulin' while I'm gone. The Blind Men and the Elephant It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined, who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind), that each by observation, might satisfy his mind. The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall, against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!" The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here, so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear, this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!" The third approached the animal, and, happening to take, the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he, the elephant is very like a snake!" The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he; "Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree." The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!" The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope, than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope, "I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long, each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong! So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen! John Godfrey Saxe (1816 - 1887) |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
As usual, Pappy, you have a way of putting things into perspective.... Thanks!♥♥♥ |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
boy pappy, you singlehandedly made all of stop and think about things. thanks |
|||||||||||
