[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: must agree on maher (no Who - in other words POLITICS!)



You folks better watch it. I hear Paul about to scold you folks. ;-)

magik

"O'Neal, Kevin W." wrote:

> >From: Crouching Intern Stolen Sofa <emerald.eyes@rcn.com>
> >Subject: Re: must agree on maher (no Who - in other words POLITICS!)
> >
> >To be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap what "motivated" them.
> >They nearly killed me and almost destroyed my home, so I have no
> >intention of validating their atrocities by pondering what compelled
> >them to do so.
>
> Like I said, you're not the only one hurting here, and trying to understand
> where this deep hatred is coming from is in no way validating this atrocity.
> But, if we perhaps want to consider avoiding similar hatred in the future,
> don't you think it's important to analyze what started this?
>
> >Not really. Suicide isn't uncommon.
>
> And each one takes courage.
> And each one has a reason.
> Consider for a moment the amount of suicide attempts vs. successes.
>
> >That last statement is what really gets to me -- that we're somehow
> >responsible for what happened that morning.
>
> It could be argued that had the Bush Administration not retreated
> politically from involvement in that "region", and had continued to try and
> lead this region to peace, that the need for such a devastating action would
> not have been necessary.
> These people didn't want to be ignored.  We're not ignoring them now, are
> we?
>
> >As far as I'm concerned,
> >once a group engages in this type of activity, their agenda is taken
> >off the table and not even looked at for decades to come.
>
> Seems like what you feel isn't shared by Bush.
> Sorry, but I can't keep track of what his agenda is these days.  First kill
> all terrorists, then negotiate with them.
> Crazy.
>
> >To turn around after the attacks and start "considering their
> >motivations" just tells them that massacring us gets results that they
> >want.
>
> Hmmmmmmmm, Powell meeting with Arafat.....
> Need I say more?
>
> >That's it's not a particularly brave death, what the hijackers did.
> >It's over in an instant. No suffering, no agonizing.
>
> Yet dropping bombs from aircraft miles away is?
> Don't look now, but the Bush Administration today admitted screwing up by
> not engaging humans into the Tora Borra region earlier.  The result?  The
> probable escape of Bin Laden.
>
> Please don't get me wrong....I support the war.  But, I also was pissed that
> we were doing it all from a safe and cozy distance.  Where was our bravery?
> We talked big, yet didn't act that way.
>
> >On the bright side, I'm acquiring lots and lots of stuff in
> >trades that I never would have otherwise gotten. :-)
>
> Isn't that more fun than this stressful political shite.
>
> >I just haven't thought of a new handle yet, and I don't want to change
> >too often and piss off the people who have me killfiled. :-D  But I am
> >open to suggestions and am considering some Who-related ones.
>
> Sorry, can't help you there.
> I find a persons name to be the best "handle".
> Why hide?
> A personalized license plate would be much better!  :-)
> How about "who betty"?
>
> >>Never crossed my mind.  Are the text of the speeches written in advance?
> >
> >Yes. And usually rehearsed, as well.
>
> I was being facetious.
> All that rehearsal, and he still ef's them up that badly.
> tisk-tisk.
>
> >I wouldn't bother with you if I thought you're stupid.
>
> Sorry to be such a "bother".
>
> >Yes, but it was very publicized at the time, and since then too.
>
> Not publicized by the administration until forced by the press.
>
> >Yes. And I don't think that that ability is the most important thing.
>
> To a laborer perhaps not.  But if you want to be taken seriously in this
> world, you better be able to speak publicly.
>
> >And I don't place all that high of a priority on it.
>
> You don't place a high priority with being comfortable with the country's
> business?
> Ummm, you do realize we're are still talking about the President of the US,
> right?
> Come on.  What then is an important criteria for being President?
>
> To me, mastery of *all* the issues is what is desirable.
> Oh yeah, and agreeing with my take and stance on them.  ;-)
>
> >Really? But they seem to like and trust him a great deal.
>
> I think that's a stretch.
> Like? Perhaps.  I wouldn't mind snorting a line or two with the guy.
> Trust?  Got to wonder about that.  Enron will be the tell-tale.
> Think he's doing a good job?  Please, please keep in mind that war-time
> approval ratings are a far different creature from peace-time approval
> ratings.
> Care to guess what Georgie-boys approval rating was on 9/10 ?
> Come on, take a stab.
>
> >My diehard Republican dad is too pissed off at him these days.
>
> Let me guess, cause of his flip-flop with policy toward terrorists?
>
> >Like all Presidents, he has significant input regarding what goes into
> >his speeches and can take out anything he wishes.
> >He gives the speech writers the basic ideas he wants to get across,
> >they write up drafts, he goes over them to point out what he likes and
> >what has to go. He adds notes and suggestions, and eventually they all
> >come up with a speech that he likes.
>
> Come one. This is nothing new.
> What is new is that the President then can't deliver the speech he was so
> involved with *unless he's very familiar and comfortable with the contents*.
>
> >Or just very tongue-tied. That sometimes happens with people who think
> >much faster than they speak.
>
> Saying the US and Japan have had a century and a half of cooperation (or
> however that quote
> went) is not an example of being tongue-tied.  Making goofs like not knowing
> the Mid-East is a region in and of itself is not being tongue-tied.
> I hear coke makes you think faster than you can speak.  ;-)
>
> >I see no reason to get all hysterical over not inserting some gaffes
> >or "ums and uhs" into the text of a speech. Like I said, newspapers do
> >it every day.
>
> Your characterization of "hysterical" isn't being appreciated by me.
> But, altering historical records to cover W's obvious inability's is.
>
> >Then you should be pretty distraught about the 41 previous
> >administrations that undoubtedly did the same thing.
>
> Clinton Administration didn't.
> Can't speak for the others.
>
> >Because it's a standard practice that far pre-dates him.
>
> If you're comfortable with that rationalization, I give up.
>
> >And I wasn't a liberal then. :-D
>
> You're a liberal now???  ;-)
>
> >Name one administration that altered prepared texts to show "ums" and
> >"uhs" and gaffes, to present as some sort of official record.
>
> You are making the assumption that these records are based on texts.
> They're not.
> They are recorded records that are transcribed to text.  The Bush
> Administration is deleting parts that they don't like.  Period.
>
> >Many times, prepared text is handed out to the media *before* speeches
> >are even made.
>
> News flash!
>
> >>>Please don't ask me to defend Clinton and the whole Monica-scank debacle.
> >>
> >>I didn't ask you to defend it.
> >
> >Did I say you did??
> >
>
> >You brought it up...
>
> I know you are but what am I?
>
> >Yeah, but they're *below* my name. Since yours was above your name, I
> >thought it was part of your response.
>
> Sorry for *your* confusion.  Guess I'm not up on the latest type setting
> rules regarding signatures.
>
> >If I wanted to use the word "uncomfortable," I would have used it. :-)
>
> I don't think you would have.
> Hey, you're the one who is arguing that Bush is "uncomfortable" giving
> speeches in front of a large audience.
> But you used the word "glib".  Glib does not equate to stupid.
>
> >Why not talk about The Who Leslie?
>
> >I have before, and will again. I just don't know as much about them as
> >most others here do, so I tend to sit back and read.
>
> until the opportunity presents itself to preach your republican agenda?
>
> >Unless, of
> >course, you want to start a Who-related topic.
>
> I'm sure everyone would agree that I've started *more* than my share of Who
> topics over the years.  It's your turn.
> I *promiss* it will be better received than political discussions.
>
> >Leslie
> >
> >
> >- --
> >"Every one of the innocents who died on Sept. 11 was the most important
> person on earth to >somebody.
> >Every death extinguished a world." -- President George W. Bush, 12/11/2001
> >
> >www.hillary-watch.org
>
> Alert!!!  Too many spaces between your name and quote!!!!!
> ;-)
>
> "The senator has got to understand if he's going to have-he can't have it
> both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."-To
> reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
> George "boy genius" Bush
> Kevin in VT