OT: The Worst Boxing Movie

Page 2 of 3  


Now it is all run by special interest groups and their campaign contributions which all have strings attached. I doesn't matter whether that campaign contribution goes to the Right or the Left, whoever gets put in the White House, goes there owing a lot of favours to a lot of people. That soul is sold long before inauguration.
And now with paper-less voting, I'm not so sure that voting matters any more. Never in history have there been such huge discrepancies between exit polls and 'counted' votes. And to think 'They' wouldn't do that to The People, makes one very naive.... so think again. First thing to do is to take the voting system back. Then lose the Electoral College. Only then does the Middle stand a chance. Right now the Middle is being split in two by the same tactics as 1933 Germany.
Then it's time to cook up some spotted owl on the BBQ and take the Hummer for a spin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

As someone whose ancestors inhabited the land subjugated by The Evil Empire, Reagan gets a big Thumbs Up from me. The Cold War was fought by many, but it was ultimately won by Reagan's deep belief in the power of markets to bankrupt a nonsustainable system. The debt he incurred in so doing has been more than paid back in a more stable world with a noticable diminished miltitary footing, notwithstanding today's excursion in the Middle East. Clinton benefitted directly from the resultant peace dividend. I also very much agreed with his ideas about economics and limited government. Pity the Republican Congress didn't actually manage to act that way as well.

Charlie -
Don't ever kid yourself. We get *exactly* the politics The Sheeple want. Whether Left- or Right-, the politicians are merely responding to the market forces of politics; they are doing what they need to for reelection. It is The Sheeple that line up for "free" stuff and elect people to get it for them. Robert Heinlein once suggested a taxonomy that all humans are one of: Makers, Fakers, and Takers. A depression portion of the population are Fakers and elect Takers to do their stealing for them.

Don't forget that marginal tax rates were over 90% under Ike - the raping of Other People's Wallets was well underway during his presidency. He also bestowed the legacy of Viet Nam upon us which was fulfilled by Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon, for all his sins, had the stones to get us out of that mess. For this and his improving relations with China, he should get some credit.

Again, I think you underestimate the pressure of The Sheeple. The desire to have gasoline at a price people feel like paying, without regard to the geopolitical consequences has driven 'internationalization' of our policy to a noteworthy degree, for example.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" said:

Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's goverment and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the world oil supply?
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, not exactly. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sorry Doug, that is what happened. Kermit Rosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson) led the infant CIA operation. It was then, as it is today about the oil. In fact Truman refused to OK the operation but that didn't stop Ike upon his taking office. DAGS http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-ajax
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What a bunch of crap -- Mossadegh was ousted by Iranian military officers loyal to the Shah. Eisenhower provides an excellent description of what happened in his book "Mandate for Change" (pages 159-166).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Doug Miller) wrote:

By the way -- that happened in August 1953, hardly "the first weeks" after Ike's inauguration.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

No to express an opinion either way but....
On the off chance that those military officers were aided by the CIA do you suppose Ike might have omitted that from his book, particularly if that involvement was still classfied at the time it was published?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Errrmmm... that would be sarcasm, right?

Holy fu*ck! I'm agreeing with Tim!! Now what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Yup.
He he he - now you'll get better lookin', richer, and happier ... uh, let me know if that works for ya, BTW ;)
Someday I'm gonna write a book called "Why The Right Is Wrong And The Left Is Worse" In the mean time - vote Libertarian ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd have to agree that phoney or not, W has to be on-scene with the perhaps the biggest natural disaster this country has witnessed on live TV ever. Those people are _still_ hurting like we can't imagine, and there's only one person they want to see (like him or not) and that's the President... and not some delegated cheerleader. They don't want a token "Hey... I showed up three times since the Hurricane" so I have to move on to other issues president.
OTH, while he has invoked a major energy-savings program at the white house, he should've got on a train in a special series of cars, and then once in the area he could comandeer a copter or whatever was needed to get to all the parishes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmelt.com wrote:

I wonder. Does he really have to go down there and hold hands once a ewek or more frequently? If he had given the impression of giving even a mild damn about things early on, he might have been able to save about five trips, at 20,000 gallons (or more: that's just AF 1 jet fuel) per trip.
It strikes me that people who call for caution in the use of whatever item, should do their best to reduce their own use of the item being conserved, particularly when said person is one of the largest, if not the largest, single consumers in the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thing is, if he had gone down right away, people would have been (correctly) criticizing him for diverting resources away from rescue and into protecting him. It was appropriate to stay the hell out of the way for as long as he did; there was nothing to be gained by having to, among all their other problems, suddenly have a presidential protection detail going on. Yet the same people complaining that he didn't go down right away, I guarantee, would be pointing out exactly that if he had gone down right away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They were already doing that kind of thing last week. After Katrina, they were lambasting Bush for not going down to NO personally and for not having been there making sure things were right before the storm. Then, before Rita hit, when he *was* in Texas, good ol' David (impartial no bias here) Gregory had the cajones to ask Bush if he thought that with Bush being down there before the storm, he and his entourage were "getting in the way" of the rescue workers.
There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure, unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

You'll see what you want to see and read what you want to read, of course, but I heard of no one criticizing Bush for not being their personally before the hurricane. And he was there, once his handlers decided his vacation was over, fairly quickly, for a quick flyover on his way home. The "hatred" you see for Bush stems from his use of things like that flyover at 300 MPH or so as a way to say, "Been there, done that" which a lot of the rest of us find unacceptable. At this point, Bush is wasting fuel, though, as he is, IIRC, making trip #5 or #7 (I lost track). One trip to each area should do it, but it hasn't. He's either a slow learner or someone saw more photo ops.
Oh, yes: don't mistake contempt for hatred.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to the present administration. But there is a method.
Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon. They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are guilty.
In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated hatred.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates freedom....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

Not exactly. It just happens that a good many of the Political Goobers that criticize the President happen also to have a very selective view of just who is entitled to freedom and how they get it. Specifically, these Political Goobers want to be the switchbox that decides who gets freedom, who pays for it, and on what issues freedom ought to apply. For example, they want people to be "free" to have abortions and simulaneously want me to not be free to avoid paying for them. They want people to be "free" to build and live 8 feet below sea level and then want to enslave me to pay for the rebuilding of these *private* homes and residences regardless of my objections to doing so. The list is endless.
IOW, these people had long been violaters of the idea of *equal* freedom for everyone. They want to decide who is free, just how much, and whose freedoms will be compromised to reach their goals. This all took place long before they started drooling all over themselves about this administration.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So those who disagree with you and Georgie Boy are goobers. Well, I'd guess gooberizing others shows a certain tendency to peanut-brainism of the gooberizer.
It might really be getting close to the time you quit ascribing an entire menu of beliefs and desires to people who are pesenting an opinion on ONE area. I know it's difficult. Stereotypes die hard, and stereotyping is a whole lot of fun and much easier than thinking, but give it a try.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

I don't agree with George on much of anything. I just dislike most all his critics (especially the class of critics herein described) far more than I dislike his ideas.

I did no such thing. I said "A good many of ..." This means I am specifically addressing myself to a subset of W's critics. All I said was that this subset of people opposed equal freedom long before GW showed up. They've been doing it for a long, long time. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, you are not in the class being critized (by me), so take a deep breath and relax. All this reflexive defense of George-beaters is bad for your health.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.