Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said President Obama invoking the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in his prime-time TV speech to win health-care reform was "bad form" and a "political tool."
"I'm sorry, but I just felt a bit unnerved by it, in the sense he just passed," Mr. Steele told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show on Thursday.
Mr. Steele was not surprised when Mr. Obama began talking Wednesday night about a letter Mr. Kennedy wrote to him in May that was to be delivered after his death. But hearing excerpts was tough, he said, because Mr. Kennedy's grieving wife, Vicki, sat crying in the audience.
Mr. Obama delivered his speech to a joint session of Congress about two weeks after Mr. Kennedy died from brain cancer.
"His wife was still clearly emotional," Mr. Steele said. "I just thought that was bad form. We all understand and appreciate the role Sen. Kennedy has played in this debate and the passion he brought to health care. I just thought that was a little bit much for me, so soon after his death, using that as a political tool."
Courtesy of The Washington Times, for contrast, the text of Ted Kennedy's letter:
May 12, 2009
Dear Mr. President,
I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me -- and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.
On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.
You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.
When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me -- and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.
There will be struggles -- there always have been -- and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat -- that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.
And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will -- yes, we will -- fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.
In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign -- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.
So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend -- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.
At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.
And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.
Every time I think it is safe to read some drivvle in this section, I need to get the umbrella out to keep my hair clean. Mr. Steele is hardly a compassionate conservative.
Do you really think the entire Kennedy clan wasn't given a copy of the letter to Obama? Do you really think that Obama would have quoted the letter if there were any objections?
Except for the TV cameras looking for tears, was there anything WRONG with reading a portion of the letter in front of the public?
Obama has the right, as did his predecessers, to use tragic events to get legislation passed. With the extremely low amount of common sense of our congressmen, that is the only way to reach them.
Klaus
--
I am not a mechanic, so can you trust what I type?
Does anyone really believe that Ted Kennedy would NOT use his own demise as a tool to advance the cause that he was so associated with??
Oh puhleeeeze!
Of course he would!!
I don't say this in criticism of the late Senator... it is just our natural inclination as humans to have an impact even outside of our lives (In life I considered him fair game... I prefer to let the dead rest). I know I would use it, and anyone who says they wouldn't.... is a lying sack o' sh#t.
As to Mr. Steele.... his reaction seems very disingenuous to me. At one time I thought of him in a fairly positive light... the reality seems to be, he is just another political hack.
Why should I be surprised, EH?
mike
--
64 220 (RIP, now he's parts on the hoof) - 65 220 - 68 220 (almost ready for the road), and a 66 130 (35k miles last year)
This weekend the right wing will be exploiting the deaths of three thousand people for their own political purposes during their 9/12 festivities and that is okay, hunky-dory and just fine. Standing on a pile of three thousand corpses of your countrymen to promote your political agenda is just the American thing to do I guess when grass roots "conservatives" like Glen Beck and Fox News are doing it. But for the left to carry on the cause of a dead man in his name and in his honor in an attempt to achieve what he sought to achieve during his lifetime is "bad form" and shameful exploitation. You know I wish there was enough money in the Federal coffers to build enough sanitariums to house all of these lunatics, these people are just plain mentally ill and need to receive treatment.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
nstead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.
Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
That moving piece of reality was written by Author Ralph Peters.
I know his sentiments are lost on you, but I figured why not give it one more shot.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Why not crack down on ALL extremists? The KKK, America's oldest terrorists are still in around, sort them out first. There are doctor killers still around too.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
What terrorists have been freed? None that would be guilty under American law.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
You'd have to increase troop levels in Afghanistan 10x & move the war in to Pakistan to accomplish that. There's a reason that Russia was stuck there for 20 years & in the end achieved nothing.
Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
So you feel that we should lower ourselves to their level? Maybe we should move in to mud brick house or caves too?
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
There's only one reason for that, you need their oil.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Palestinians are Wahhabis?
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly
Middle East civilization has failed? Bullshit.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Torture doesn't work, it never has & it never will.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan.
They are two completly seperate things. Building woes at the former WTC site wasn't Bushes fault & it isn't Obama's fault either.
as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens
America has nuclear weapons, has sponsored terrosim, has tortured & sending armed forces to their deaths + killing 100,000's of innocent civilians unneccessarily is pretty much murder IMO.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Baptists have armed forces at their command.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago.
I'm sure no one has forgotten it, but the average American has worked out war was not the answer.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children.
What we owe our children is certainly not forgotten, that's why there is such a swing towards things which are green.
That moving piece of reality was written by Author Ralph Peters.
Ralph Peters = a wanker who bends the facts to make dickheads like you happy. Thankfully, you are now the minority.
--
Three 164's, Two 144's, One 142 & a partridge in a pear tree.
Who taught afgans to fight and who armed them, this is not to discount their idependent spirit. Pakistan itself promoted extremism to support their fight against India. This is what they call, a low intensity warfar instead of a full fledged war. It was born out of a desire to have a separate land for muslims, is this not what the Taliban want to achieve? a society based on the book, so what is the surprise there, except that now it is biting back everbody in the rearend.
--
DD-1990 240 DL SW M47II FI 3.1 234 K miles
Yup, the Colonel is a real charmer. Now we know where you got your world-view from. Based on what you told us, I was under the impression it came from your father. I guess that was a mistake.
From Wikipedia:
Regarding Iraq, he wrote, "might it not have been wiser - as several of us suggested in 2003 - to shake off Europe's vicious legacies and give Kurds their state, Iraqi Shias their state, and the country's Sunni Arabs a rump Iraq to do with as they wished?" Regarding all these countries, he wrote, "We needn't launch an endless war to fix the mess Europeans in pinstriped trousers left us - but we'd damned well better accept that, when we expend blood and treasure to prop up phony states, we're standing on the tracks in front of the speeding train of history."
Now that's interesting. He and Joe Biden were actually on the same page at that time! Who would have imagined that? Actually, I happen to agree with both of them. I wonder, however, how come you so enthusiastically supported getting over 4250 US military personnel killed to keep the whole mess together.
--
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many unhappy people? (With apologies to Thos. Gray)
The Westboro Baptist Church sent a news release dated Saturday to the News-Leader that said “Thank God for sending more killer whirlwinds” to Missouri. The group said it will picket funerals of “those killed today, with a gospel message for Missouri’s living.”
The small church believes disasters and tragedies are God’s way of punishing the country for tolerating homosexuality. The group earlier announced plans to picket in Columbia, Missouri May 14 because of support for domestic partnerships. The same day the church says it will be protesting at the Jewish Community Center in St. Louis and the Jewish Federation in St. Louis, as well as the Elton John/Billy Joel Concert.
There's a religion of peace for ya.
And then a bit from our Lt. Col Peters
…The age-old lesson of religion-fueled rebellions is that they must be put down with unsparing bloodshed—the fanatic’s god is not interested in compromise solutions. The leading rebels or terrorists must be killed. We, on the contrary, want to make them our friends.
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.
-- Frank Zappa
"…The age-old lesson of religion-fueled rebellions is that they must be put down with unsparing bloodshed—the fanatic’s god is not interested in compromise solutions. The leading rebels or terrorists must be killed. We, on the contrary, want to make them our friends."
He was speaking about religious fanatics. Which part of his opinion do you take umbrage with? Ask Daniel Pearl how reasonable, and open to negotiation they are. He kinda lost his head over this topic, but it wasn't his fault.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
Sorry, I've been under my Volvo for a while so I could not respond.
What I take umbrage with is the "kill em all" mentality of everything I read by this guy. I am sort of a "why can't we all just get along" kind of person.
Am I a liberal? I don't think so. But I don't like violence. Violins are OK.
But we are all individuals on this earth, whatever tribe we belong to, and I would wager that I could make friends with just about anyone you put in front of me, including several religious fanatics here in the US that I am friends with although I am constantly trying to convert them as they do the same to me. But the complete and utter lack of understanding of Western minds of people 10,000 miles away makes it very easy to just plain hate.
I agree with Snoot with regards about the twin towers. If a crazy person comes to your front door with an axe ready to kill, then Hell Ya, take him out. But go to Alaska and wonder why grizzly bears want to kill you, eh. They live there that's why!
Yes I know the crazy people DID come to OUR door with some airplanes ready to kill, first of all they're all dead themselves, and second, to continue my bear analogy, I would stay the hell out of the woods and make sure I had enough whatever it takes to deal with them if they came knocking, again.
So why are we fighting in these faraway lands? Revenge?
Unless you want to admit that it's all about the oil....
which ANY president past or present would never say. TRUTH.
A random thought....
In the second presidential debate, John McCain said that he knew how to get Bin Laden. Now I know he's busy, but, couldn't he delegate that to someone if he doesn't have the time? I mean, he really said he knew. He could tell Barack. It's kind of important don't you think?
03V doesn't like the competition of having other ideological fanatics around and he sees his preferred method of dropping fire from the sky as somehow superior and more honorable than suicide bombing, he doesn't understand that the only difference is access to expensive technology. 03V doesn't realize that he is a charter member of the American Taliban along with the bible thumping assholes that you mentioned he is a zealot sans the religion yet equally convinced of his own righteousness and every bit as undeterred by reality. The fantasies that inspire his brand of faith don't come from preachers or imams they come from politicians, talk radio and internet bloggers but he is still willing to kill or die for those fantasies (especially kill) every bit as much as the jihadist expecting his seventy virgins upon his arrival in paradise. 03V's biggest gripe with the radical Muslims is that he has too much in common with them they are different sides of the same lunatic extreme coin.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
Snoot I saw you were bad mouthing the south in another thread. You must have never spent any quality time there. You truly have no idea what it is that you are missing. Southern food, southern women, and a laid back lifestyle with a much slower pace.
You see you don't have all the answers, or even some of the answers. You are wrong about biscuits & gravy for breakfast, and you are just as wrong about who I am. Just like the south, there is much you haven't seen. Maybe it was there and you just weren't looking.
Our "tossing of fire from the sky" wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been provoked. We don't hide from the fight in churches, schools, and hospitals or among civilians. We don't blow ourselves up in cafes or buses. We don't subjugate women. We want peace and would gladly accept it. You need to look in the mirror on this day. The 8th anniversary of the day that changed to world. You see you hate your nation, your military, and maybe even yourself. You think we deserved it. Our chickens came home to roost, as Rev Wright pointed out. That is the real bottom line.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
Had any heed ever been paid to the Constitution the twin towers would still be standing. Stop making excuses for bad behavior stop excusing that which is wrong, pay attention, see the whole picture, stop indulging your ego, but most importantly obey the best credo of true conservatism ever conceived; WALK SOFTLY and carry a big stick. (Don't forget the "walk softly" part as it is a full half of the equation.)
Clinton didn't get Bin Laden much cheaper than Bush didn't get Bin Laden and with far less loss of American life, suck on it.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
"Had any heed ever been paid to the Constitution the twin towers would still be standing."
That takes the cake.
I had to read it several times and contemplate whether the ignorance it emanates was more offensive than the complete and utter disrespect for the innocent people that lost their lives in those buildings. I concluded the disrespect was more offensive. Bush had been in office a mere 8 months on that fine late summer morning. You have alleged here many times that this incident was the gateway that allowed him to shit on the Constitution. Now you are saying they anticipated his disregard? Or are you saying Clinton's shitting on our Constitution is what pissed these guys off? I mean this was planned for years not weeks, so the idea was hatched on his term. Bush, Gore, it really wouldn't have mattered to them who won in that election in 2000.
Obviously, any sane mind can conclude that the flying of aircraft into civilian structures as missiles is not a response to constitutional disagreements. Again, your hatred clouds your intellect. You make bizarre and truly outside the box of normality statements because your ideological hate eclipses your considerable cognitive abilities. You need to proof read every now and again. Wow! That was stupid.
NOTE: All the above criticism aside, if you forward that hunk of crap to MSNBC I'm quite certain that it would earn you a job on Keith Olbermann's writing staff. That is the kind of inspired delusional misguided crap that makes his show work. Good luck.
--
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.' Albert Einstein
"Had any heed ever been paid to the Constitution the twin towers would still be standing."
Guess you need to read that sentence some more, read it enough times repeatedly and you might just come to understand it some day (though I rather doubt it). Read the Constitution, compare what the Constitution says (not what you want it to say but what it ACTUALLY says) to the history of American foreign policy, note the discrepancies, those discrepancies are why the towers are no longer standing.
Your inability to comprehend simple subject matter is what is truly offensive here, I would have expected your kindergarten teacher to do a better job.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
"Had any heed ever been paid to the Constitution the twin towers would still be standing."
"Had any heed" Heed, as in pay attention. "ever been paid" That seems pretty self evident. So we link the first two sections of your verbal diarrhea with the last few words and we have: "had anyone ever paid attention to the constitution the twin towers would still be standing"
Jeez, it would seem that your analysis of your own sentence seems skewed. I think the sum of your analysis exceeds the total of the parts. I see no mention of foreign policy. Your delusions not withstanding, what you said was offensive. You are trying to re-write history to fit your agenda, which is also offensive. Own it, say it wasn't what you meant to say. Say that you words were poorly chosen. But please don't try and pass that hunk of crap off as so deep and esoteric that I couldn't understand your Jack Kerouac level symbolism. Please.
I know you can't stand Bush, but you can't possibly articulate your over the top hatred into blaming 9/11 on him. In fact you you know very well at best he is batting third in the blame order. Obviously militant Islam is batting in the lead off spot. Followed closely by Bill Clinton who didn't recognize the danger posed by these nuts, and failed to nip the matter in the bud.
Ok, now you will rant on about adventurism, dabbling in foreign governments and deposing and imposing heads of state. I can hear your response before you type it. But the fact is you have a naive child like outlook on foreign policy. We could be an isolationist nation, as I'm sure you would prefer it. But the fact is great leaders from both the right and left in our nation's history have understood that with great power comes great responsibility. Would you have us allowed Israel to be raped and literally cease to exist as a nation? Would you be happy to see militant Islam overtake the region one nation at a time and thus control the economy of the west by shutting of the flow of energy?
Guess what every president since WWII, on one level or another, has said we need to be a player in this region. It wasn't Bush that installed the Shah. It wasn't Bush that laid out the borders of the current Israeli state. Lets take LBJ as but one example. As you may or may not have read Ike wasn't too keen on getting sucked into the region. It was LBJ that fought against his sanctions on Israel over their meddling in Egypt. It was Kennedy that criticized the Republican Ike over being too hands off in the region, specifically Algeria. Although Kennedy had views more in line with Ike than he did with LBJ, he was no dove. LBJ was the one that not only essentially ignored the Israeli attack on a U.S. warship that caused the deaths of 34 U.S. naval personnel, but he also worked hard to downplay it.
Snoot you get all worked up over Republicans and specifically Bush. The fact is the game looks real easy from the sidelines. The left has no answers. It is easy to snipe, but absent having policy answers that result in success it just looks and sounds foolish. The GOP can take credit for at least taking actions and having at least some success every now and then. I love the left bad mouthing our nation, our military, our foreign policies (*Including those they voted for and lionize the architects of.), but failing to get the job done every time they get the reigns. Every major policy initiative Clinton tried ended in abject failure. N. Korea, the Middle East, Bosnia/Kosovo. All of them. Do you constantly yell about his "adventurism"? How many young American lives got snuffed on foreign soil during LBJ's watch? Tens of thousands more than during Bush's 8 years. Where is your outrage?
You see Snoot your words are hollow. They have no meaning. If you set a standard and only apply it to one person it isn't valid. You focus on Bush, but you never credit him with anything, and you don't have the same rage at the other side for policies that were far worse that Bush dreamed of. I listen to all your corporate lackey crap about Bush, but didn't anyone profit from the Democrat incursion into southeast Asia in the 60's & early 70's? It seems to me that we lost a lot of aircraft over there. I pretty sure they got new ones to replace them. More bodies, more money, less Snoot outrage.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
The US working with the CIA created Bin Laden. We taught him everything he knows. You might want to look up Charlie Wilson and his role in that bit of history.
Bill Clinton got closer than anyone in catching Bin Laden. Bill Clinton recognized terrorism as the new threat to national security. He created a terrorist czar - Richard Clark - whose entire focus was on Iran and Bin Laden.
When Bush went into office, he chose a Cabinet that blatantly ignored the advice of Clark and didn't even know who Bin Laden was. Their primary focus was on Getting Saddam and Iraq.
Bush is responsible for choosing his cabinet and their level of competence. He is responsible for the results of their bad choices. Paying attention to Clark would have made a big difference. Remember we had the information we needed to get the attackers. They were being watched and in the US.
Tort your version of reality is based entirely on Dick (as in head) Clark and his fairy tale novel, which is often found in the fiction section of your lcoal library. Talk about self aggrandizing writing. Others present dispute his version, Dr. Rice principle among them, and even the 9/11 Commission didn't go as far as to blindly accept the Clark version of events. But I suppose you know more than the 9/11 Commission because you read Clark's book. I'm pretty sure the three people that bought one were you, him, and his mother.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
Lot's of ink there ADD boy but it doesn't change the essential truth of my original statement. Had our government (you remember the government, that thing that Republicans don't trust) played the foreign policy game by our own rules, the rules from whence that same government derrives its authority, then the towers would still be standing. It's a simple concept really, not too hard to follow with only the slightest bit of effort.
Just to be clear and because I know you like things nice and simple I will say here that the previous statement should in no way be construed as excuse making for Bin Laden and is in no way intended take away from the fact that he should be killed as slowly, painfully and violently as possible. See, when you don't oversimplify things it can be tough because you have to be able to hold onto ideas that seem mutually exclusive by really are not, it takes effort but I think the cause of reality deserves just that level of attention.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
"Had our government.... played the foreign policy game by our own rules, the rules from whence that same government derrives its authority, then the towers would still be standing."
Specially? What rules were broken? By whom? What course of action would left the western world safe and able to conduct commerce, thanks to affordable energy, but would have prevented these attacks? Any ideas? It seems you can type, and make words, but complete thoughts seem to be in short supply. Call me ADD but I supplied verifiable historic fact to back up my opinion. You supply neither facts, nor specific data to reinforce this notion that you have. Yes, we get it U.S. bad and evil, well the white ones anyway. People of color who kill random civilians are fine and noble, and were drawn into this murderous lifestyle by our actions. Now, just what actions, and who is to blame besides Cheney/Bush is where your theory kind of falls apart.
--
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.' Albert Einstein
I've been feeding you specifics for what going on three years now? The fact is you don't want to hear anything that conflicts with what you assume to be true; "rah, rah, we're number one (insert red, white and blue pom poms and 03V doing the splits here) that is all you want, that is all you will hear because that is how you have been trained.
The fact is that our foreign policy was hijacked in the 1870's/80's by institutions that originally weren't even supposed to have a "right" to exist. Since then our country has largely been behaving like a big drunk stumbling around a bar spilling drinks, grabbing asses and snatching hot wings off of everyone's plate. We've been popped in the jaw a couple of times along the way but for the most part we have gotten away with it and all for the benefit of a select few. You wan't details? Go back and read everything that I have written since you started posting here or you can go back several more years further and read everything that I have written since I started posting here. But you don't really want details, you don't want facts, you want violence and jingoism that's what you want and that's all you really want. The guy who didn't even realize that Islam is an old testament religion feels qualified to condemn Islam; the guy who thinks that the weight of the atmosphere causes gravity is going to tell me all about how it is! Hah!
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
"The fact is that our foreign policy was hijacked in the 1870's/80's by institutions that originally weren't even supposed to have a "right" to exist."
OK, more vagueness; followed by a lengthy paragraph that does nothing to explain why Bush is a war criminal and others (like LBJ) who by far did worse things never get a mention from you. No matter how you slice it; lives lost, corporate masters that were fed with war dollars, and a war waged with a nation that posed us no harm. LBJ comes out way ahead on the indignation scale. Why does he get a pass?
Your statement about 9/11 was callous and insensitive. You take no ownership, and haven't owned up to it. Your anti Bush obsession is way over the top because it isn't rooted in factual reality. If it were you would by crapping on LBJ's headstone every year on his birthday, because you can't give me the reasons you do for hating Bush, and then ignore his presidency. And I'll save you the trouble of giving me the stock Flab Teddy Kennedy style reply: "Well I once made a droll passing comment about LBJ that my grandfather often said while smoking a Cuban and having a cognac". Silence, or a passing comment does not equate with fanatical condemnation and assault, which is what you give Bush.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
The discussion about war crimes by Bush and Cheney are not new. No one here is going to continue placing an argument to have you run away and return with the same crap, after contradicting yourself.
The water boarding discussion about torture is a classic example. Your complete reversal on yourself in the same thread can be fed back to you if you care.
You know, for a man who went to a private college ( isn't that elitist by the way?) , you don't have a lot of skills when it comes to making an argument and defending it.
You want my opinions on Johnson then start a Johnson thread 'til then try staying on topic or shutting up.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
How marvelously appropriate! It is preposterous to expect that problems that were eight years in the making can be unmade in eight months, even if a totally different level of thinking is applied.
Bush had been in office a mere 8 months on that fine late summer morning.
You & your redneck buddies waited about eight minutes before blaming the financial crisis on Obama & his pinko policies.
Bush was told ON DAY ONE that Bin Laden was the biggest problem he had to face & they all knew it, that's how they knew Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 the day after. What did Bush do about the Bin Laden threat before 9/11? He went & had a holiday on his ranch, cut down some trees, etc.
Your kind is becoming extinct fast, inbreeding being the main cause.
--
Three 164's, Two 144's, One 142 & a partridge in a pear tree.
"Bush and the GOP was such an abject failure that there was discussion to move the Inauguration sooner."
Where was this discussion taking place? At the 50th reunion of your prep school, St. Betterthantherest school? You are so far out of touch with mainstream America that you needn't bother washing your hands to avoid swine flu. Our germs won't be able to survive at the altitude your nose rests at.
--
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.' Albert Einstein
At that rate, I'll way out-perform even my incredible inherited longevity, and hit 170 or so.
Of course, because I live in reality world, and know that what are writing is fiction, I don't think that's likely. You do realize though, that making up stories about me or anything else doesn't alter reality?
How do you know that she is telling the truth? She did not post any reference material for what she had to say. Or do you only require that from those with a differing opinion from yourself? Nor has she posted any pertinent information concerning herself, such as education, and from where etc. You only surmise that she is truthful.
First of all, neither my educational background nor private life are any of your business and I am under no obligation to post it for you or anyone else if I choose not to. My silence on such matters means nothing other my wish to remain silent in a public forum.
As I said before, parts of my educational background has been posted on this forum in the past. You'll or 03V will have do some research if you want to find it but thatś really up to you. The unwillingness both of you exhibit to do basic research is not a reflection on my character or my 'honesty', it's a reflection on you guys and your own intellectual laziness.
I don't demand your personal background, you volunteer it when you choose to.
Second of all, no one, or at least those of use whom you love to label, judges you based on what they think your background is, or where you went to school. They judge you by what you put down here.
If you want to make defensible arguments, you have to be able to back it up.
If you continue to make statements that research shows are inaccurate, then you lose credibility.
If you choose to attack the referenced and verifiable statements by going after something that is irrelevant and none of your business - like whether someone went to an inner city school or private one - instead of on the issue, you lose credibility.
If you choose to say something blatantly untrue- such as saying a statement is not referenced when it has four references, you lose credibility.
If you choose to use profanity and crude statements as a way of dealing with referenced arguments, you lose credibility. Nor can you complain when your vulgar behaviour gets you ridiculed.
Itś really up to you guys to decide. What you choose to put down here to make your case is what you are judged on. Just handing out thumbs in a Pavlovian way doesn't change any of it, just like it won't change the truth of what I am stating here.
That's only one example of your vulgarity to me. And you still are vulgar and profane on this forum.
You talk plenty about the personal and professional lives of those with whom you disagree.
I never said I don't. I just don't talk about anything they don't bring up voluntarily, much less demand it. Everything I know about you, you decided to tell on your own. Nor do I belittle y'all's professions, I comment on your conduct about it. However, the same courtesy is not given to me.
Just because you use a reference, does not make that reference a true statement, just one that you choose to buy into.
You make references to either being or being closely related to someone in the State Department service. How about some reference to that?
Both these statements are very revealing Stickbuilder. They show the horrible sort of conflicted and fundamentally 'mentally ill' sort of world you live in. You don't think a reference is valid or true because you don't buy into it, but you demand that some one give you a reference that you will 'buy' into because it meets the criteria of the world you want to believe in. If it doesn't meet your world view, then itś false, which means no one should bother, because you have already made up your mind.
Facts are not subjective sticky. Truth doesn't lie between the moon is green cheese and the moon is a space rock. The moon 'is.'
Though you project this subjective test to facts on everyone, most of us here don't suffer from it. We start from the basis that when you tell us about yourself, or what you have done, you are telling the truth. No one has asked who you served with, or to hand out a resume. I certainly haven't now, and I won't in the future.
Nor will I give you mine. I definitely won't give you information that violates the privacy of relatives, colleagues, or anybody else, just to satisfy your perverse need for 'buy' in.
Had you been paying attention, you would have seen the references I have already made over an immediate relative and the State Department.
I've seen the comments that you have made concerning your connections to someone in the Department of State.
It follows that 03V70 has been on the money with his thoughts that you grew up with the silver spoon. You choose to not respond, therefore you must be guilty as charged.
If you've seen the references, then you would have seen the links in different posts, and know who I was talking about. If you missed it, too bad. I guess youĺl just have to do some research on this forum. Your lack of initiative isn't my problem. Maybe if you spent a little more time reading, and little less time thumbing, you might have noticed.
You choose to not respond, therefore you must be guilty as charged.
All you do is bitch and blame everyone for your own ignorance. Flab's point is simple:
When you want to know something you have to go found out. You can't expect to be spoon fed. Many people on this forum know the answer to the question you asked about the State Department.
All your thumbs tell us is how much you hate Flab. She's a Southern woman with brains,education, that shoots and votes and won't let you bully her. That scares the piss out of you and all angry conservative white males.
You better understand something.
Women like her are the future. They are out there hustling getting things done and keeping informed, while you sit at home pretending you are learning through osmosis. You can either become a part of it, or you can be a fossil and part of the past.
Oh but it sooooooo much easier to pound on the thumb button and pretend to be as legitimate as those who apply effort to understanding.
--
"The truth is an offense but not a sin"- Bob Marley
Stick, here is my theory. It has nothing to do with her privacy. It has nothing to do with our "intellectual laziness" as she put it. It has to do with two other things. First we are right. She was, by all indications, born into privilege, and she just can't bring herself to admit. It would be unseamly especially with her criticism of GW for him having had the world handed to him on a silver platter. Secondly, how dare we question her? She wants us on a scavenger hunt because she in unaccustomed to common riff raff like us questioning her, and she doesn't seem to care for it. It is like they let common folks into the country club, and now the place has gone down hill. Just my take. She is free to set me straight wherever my opinion is inaccurate. I get the feeling that I'm not far from the mark.
--
"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy'
Now that's more information than I ever want to even think about. No Thanks!
How about you quit covering for her, and let's allow her to give some honest answers about herself. She has been vague to a fault. I would like to see some bona-fides.
She has been vague to a fault. I would like to see some bona-fides.
Flab's bona fides were well established here before you (or I, for that matter) joined the fray. There's no reason why she should repeat the exercise just to satisfy your prurient obsession.
--
Fossil fuels + fossil politics ≠ a brighter future.
And as previously stated, you are the antagonist in this stupid conversation. But since you are a Libertard, the others here will continue to applaud you. What a joke you are. The best part of you ran down the corner of your Mother's mouth.
Did you read what you listed? Have you forgotten it was Bin Laden that attacked us, and that he still is free? Have you forgotten that is was Bush who said that he will not stop making a hit on a suspected terrorist even if it means innocent US Citizens may die?
You echo all these supposed sentiments like you echo everything else in your life without knowing what they mean, or caring. When you swear an oath you are responsible for knowing what that oath is. When you make a promise you should know what you have promised.
"Words mean something"- Only to sane people. He lives in a state of perpetual delirium and is the poster child for why we need more sanitariums.
The irony is that by posting his little fact-deficient rant he did exactly what I was criticizing right wing jack-asses for doing; he stood on the corpses of the fallen to make his inane political point, he shat on the victims of 9/11 to push his lunatic agenda. I doubt that Michael Steele would agree but I consider that to be "bad form".
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
As usual you don't let reality get in the way of your gut, you don't let facts interfere with your prejudice and you take the short cut around thought, good job.
--
“If at first you don’t succeed redefine what you did as success.”- Stephen Colbert
Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/25006307/moran.0.jpg)
