<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jun 17 2004, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jun 17 2004, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He didn't want "complete wastes of space" to keep their jobs at the expense of national security simply because the slackers belong to a union.
How is that smug and self-righteous?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you have a very good point.
I believe it was a bureaucratic mess that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, why create a new department and keep the same bureaucratic mess?
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jun 17 2004, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jun 17 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush Trenton, New Jersey September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He didn't want "complete wastes of space" to keep their jobs at the expense of national security simply because the slackers belong to a union.
How is that smug and self-righteous? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So it's ok to question the Senate's-- *ahem*, allow me to correct myself-- the Senate DEMOCRATS' sincerity here (I assume that's what you're alluding to), but Bush's is beyond reproach?
Ah, that WWF government, where all the conservatives wear the white outfits and fight bravely for the country (and the pretty--without being slutty-- maiden fair in their corner), and the evil liberals wear the black costumes, distract the refs, and hit people with chairs.
You actually believe Bush isn't 'interested in Special Interests'? AHAHAHAHAHAHA. I found it smug and self righteous that he would-- in the midst of co-opting someone else's plans-- make such a comically hypocritical statement.
Sorry, I'll compose myself and await a Clinton swipe, because you actually seem to think I give a rat's **** about that guy.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Um, wha?
I'm just glad he's willing to stand up against unions. I have no doubt that either party wanted a successful HSD or that either was pleasing their supporters.
Isn't 'Union Support' simply a codeword for 'Democrats'? I mean, if you make an attack on the government for supporting 'Big Oil', it's a pretty thinly veiled reference, isn't it? If that wasn't your intention, my apologies.
But I hope I have clarified why I found it smug and self righteous, and I believe there's a certain validity to it. I guess it all comes down to what we perceive to be our reps' motivation, which is certainly open to interpretation. Do I think it was entirely political? Of course not, but I do think his admonishment was intentionally smug, shaming, and condescending.
And I mentioned the Clinton thing because I <i>swear</i> a couple times now you've followed my posts up with a Clinton bash (lemme check the record on that), which has always left me shaking my head because I was never the biggest fan.
Might have just been a coincidental post timing thing, though. *shrug*
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jun 17 2004, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jun 17 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I mentioned the Clinton thing because I <i>swear</i> a couple times now you've followed my posts up with a Clinton bash (lemme check the record on that), which has always left me shaking my head because I was never the biggest fan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's just to keep up the spirit of being "fair and balanced".
...
...
woohoo! I can hear the groans and eye rolls from my comfy office chair <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As an olive branch offering, I'll offer you a nice piece of political ammo: Why would a President so adamant in battling the Federal Union inclusion in the HSD allow Sen Ted Kennedy, easily a greater political nemesis than John Kerry, to have virtual carte blanche in creating an education bill more bloated than the NEA's coffers? I give you my personal stamp of approval to call this particular policy a "flip-flop" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now you're putting me on Kennedy's team?!?!?!?! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Egad, just drop me somewhere in the middle of those two and I'll be content.
I swear, I have two hopes right now: 1) I hope Bush loses the coming election, and 2) I hope I can be impartial enough to judge the Kerry administration according to the rigid standards I've set for the Bushies.
First things first, though <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 17 2004, 09:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 17 2004, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How would you feel if they were the most powerful nation and invaded America and forced us to change to a totally despotic regime? If the people want to change, over time the government will change on its own and thats really how it should be.
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First off the gorvement in Iraq is not a "despotic regime"
I personally think they are better off with this then Saddam and his brutal dictatorship run on fear, but that's my opinion.
As for Homeland Security, they are doing a much better job of protecting us then was previously done before 9/11. I have seen that they are working first hand, in a story I find very interesting, because they may have saved my life. I live very close to the Berwick nuclear power plant, some time after 9/11 a man was reportedly tracked down by authorities and arrested. It turns out he had very detailed drawings of the aforementioned nuclear plant, and he was reportedly from Afghanistan. I heard this on the local news one night, and a small blurb about it on CNN, after that nothing.
Just because you don't hear about it does not mean they aren't working everyday preventing things like this. Whether or not anything would have happened I don't know, but it brought the matter much closer to home and I am grateful for their efforts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say the government we were imposing upon Iraq was a despotic regime I was refering to the one before it and the Middle-East countries in general.
Second of all, how can you not possibly like Saddam Hussein... I mean, we PUT HIM IN THERE!!! The United States has a lot of fun destroying governments by putting puppets in office or people that the United States agrees with. We do you think South America is mad at us?
As for that Homeland Security story... I am sure you and everyone else feels very safe and unscathed because we live in a country that doesn't experience terrorist attacks(oh wait I forgot about 9/11 nev mind). The Homeland Security defense wouldn't have been able to stop 9/11 what makes you think they will stop another. Lets say that story you said was true, even if he had plans of the nuclear power plant, there is no way he would have a chance of damaging it or doing anything to it. There was also no real motive behind his plan to 'attack' the nuclear power plant whereas the WTC towers showed the world the power of our economic grip. When they came down, the human cost was not the only cost we took.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, how can you not possibly like Saddam Hussein... I mean, we PUT HIM IN THERE!!! The United States has a lot of fun destroying governments by putting puppets in office or people that the United States agrees with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless Im horribly mistaken, we did not put saddam into power. We did, however, provide Iraq with much needed intelligence and weapons during their war with Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Homeland Security defense wouldn't have been able to stop 9/11 what makes you think they will stop another. Lets say that story you said was true, even if he had plans of the nuclear power plant, there is no way he would have a chance of damaging it or doing anything to it. There was also no real motive behind his plan to 'attack' the nuclear power plant whereas the WTC towers showed the world the power of our economic grip. When they came down, the human cost was not the only cost we took. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm the Department of Homeland Security was created <b>after</b> 9/11, had this department been created before hand we might have had a much better chance of stopping 9/11.
And if you can't understand the motive behind attacking a nuclear power plant then you shouldn't be posting in this topic. Their called terrorists, what could be more terrorizing then destroying a building that provides people with power and can spread radiation for miles around in highly populated areas. I just wanted you to realize that the government is doing things to protect us, whether you believe it or not.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 17 2004, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 17 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Homeland Security defense wouldn't have been able to stop 9/11 what makes you think they will stop another. Lets say that story you said was true, even if he had plans of the nuclear power plant, there is no way he would have a chance of damaging it or doing anything to it. There was also no real motive behind his plan to 'attack' the nuclear power plant whereas the WTC towers showed the world the power of our economic grip. When they came down, the human cost was not the only cost we took. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm the Department of Homeland Security was created <b>after</b> 9/11, had this department been created before hand we might have had a much better chance of stopping 9/11.
And if you can't understand the motive behind attacking a nuclear power plant then you shouldn't be posting in this topic. Their called terrorists, what could be more terrorizing then destroying a building that provides people with power and can spread radiation for miles around in highly populated areas. I just wanted you to realize that the government is doing things to protect us, whether you believe it or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know that the Homeland Security was created after 9/11, I wasn't denying that. I was saying that even if we had the Homeland Security, 9/11 would have still happened. Just because we created it doesn't mean its going to stop it from happening. I mean just look at the FBI, they are in charge of dealing with this sort of terrorism. Did they really know that this kind of attack was going to happen, and at this magnitude? If they did then why didn't they stop it? They couldn't even scramble Military Jets fast enough to get to the planes that hit the WTC towers.
You're right it might have made a difference if the Homeland Security was created before this but the chances are so little that its not even worth mentioning. The fact that we already had the FBI and they did nothing to stop this sort of attack should prove this.
As for more terrorist attacks, they will always be prevalent. Lets say the Homeland Security force does stop a lot of the terrorism it can't stop it all. It will never stop unless we completely remove our presence from the Middle East. We are seen as invaders and terrorists to them, they are just attacking us back.
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hate to quote myself here, but it seems people missed it. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, you all might be interested to know that all of the structural changes that Bush put into effect after 9/11 were actually ideas of the Clinton administration that were developed in the last month of his term. The plan was given to the Bush administration and subsequently ignored, that is, until after 9/11. <a href='http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.htm' target='_blank'>source.</a> So yes I do think you can blame Bush for 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again another quote of myself, but no one has tried to respond to this either. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For direct evidence of Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lying on camera for the president, watch this video. <a href='http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/' target='_blank'>http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 17 2004, 05:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 17 2004, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for more terrorist attacks, they will always be prevalent. Lets say the Homeland Security force does stop a lot of the terrorism it can't stop it all. It will never stop unless we completely remove our presence from the Middle East. We are seen as invaders and terrorists to them, they are just attacking us back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes let’s completely leave the Middle East, let’s leave the area with the world’s largest oil revenue completely, with no one but Israel to baby-sit them. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for trouble to me....nahhhh. Let’s give them what they want, let’s let them win. No matter who is president, Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, we're not going to leave the Middle East, and were not going to stop helping Israel. Facts of life.
You think we’re the only country sticking its business into Middle Eastern affairs? Look at Russia, look at France and Germany. They all have their own interests. Let’s just leave and let them monopolize on it. The terrorists won't care if we leave now, the damage is done, your romantic idea of "well if we just leave them alone then everybody can get along" is nice in theory, but it doesn’t apply to real life.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 18 2004, 11:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 18 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, you all might be interested to know that all of the structural changes that Bush put into effect after 9/11 were actually ideas of the Clinton administration that were developed in the last month of his term. The plan was given to the Bush administration and subsequently ignored, that is, until after 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much all governments that I observe are very reactionairy, especially when it comes to implementing widescale, highly expensive things like a Homeland Security department.
Imagine if Bush had tried to push for Air Marshalls on all flights, and amending the laws to help fight terrorism, without a major attack like 9/11. Que claims of Fascist laws and money wasting.
Then along comes a major terrorist attack, and suddenly everyone waves the naughty finger at Governments that didnt implement stuff like this years ago. Goverments implement what they think people will want and what they think will subsequently get them the most votes.
In Australia we had a semi-auto massacre in '96. From then on all semi-automatic rifles/smgs were banned. Then a year or so ago we had a pistol rampage (2 dead) in a university - most pistols banned. Any attempt to ban either without a trigger event would have been fruitless.
As for Rumsfeld lying - he's a politician. They ALL lie. And Americans dont care if their elected representatives lie to them. Must it be said?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Rumsfeld lying - he's a politician. They ALL lie. And Americans dont care if their elected representatives lie to them. Must it be said?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
End of discussion, "ignorance is bliss," only in USA.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I am an American? I am very proudly an Australian, and despite the fact that my admiration of Americans is higher then most of my countrymen, I'm not a Yankee by any stretch of the imagination.
The point of my little statement at the end there was that the highest ranking American, the President, once stood up and told the world firmly and deliberately something that he knew was an out and out lie.
Not something he was a little iffy on, something his intelligence people had got wrong, not something he suspected was wrong but said it anyway - it was a baldfaced and complete and utter mistruth involving him personally. No arguement, no debate - he lied on a VERY sensitive issue.
And he survived the move to impeach him. If, as the Leader of America, you can get away with that, then you should be able to get away with pretty much anything if you're merely the Head of Defence.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 19 2004, 06:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 19 2004, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No arguement, no debate - he lied on a VERY sensitive issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a distinct feeling that this is going to derail this thread, but I'll bite anyways.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 19 2004, 10:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 19 2004, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When it is preformed in the Oval Office on a president who is married and then lied about it in front of the nation, yes, yes it is.
Rumsfeld obliviously forgetting what he said in past speeches (which there have been many of) and messing up on a news interview he was most likely asked to do, not vice versa, is not as big a deal.
Besides everyone knows Rumsfeld is a snake, I don't need that video to confirm it for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 19 2004, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 19 2004, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 19 2004, 10:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 19 2004, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When it is preformed in the Oval Office on a president who is married and then lied about it in front of the nation, yes, yes it is.
Rumsfeld obliviously forgetting what he said in past speeches (which there have been many of) and messing up on a news interview he was most likely asked to do, not vice versa, is not as big a deal.
Besides everyone knows Rumsfeld is a snake, I don't need that video to confirm it for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They aren't gonna fire Steve Job for having a blow job with an intern in his office.
The whole media fiasco is stupid, stupid, stupid and shouldn't have been blown out of proportion like that...
I will be very happy if Bush is gone. Name me one thing that has improved since he became the president.
Don't be picky right now. What choice do you have? There's no choice, it's Bush or Kerry. Right now, it's the lesser of the two evil.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 20 2004, 03:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 20 2004, 03:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a distinct feeling that this is going to derail this thread, but I'll bite anyways.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I made that point to illustrate American attitudes towards their politicians lying, not their sexual dalliances. That was the most extreme case of 100% lying, hand in the cookie jar, no escape, no excuse, no one else to blame, no way out LIED I've ever seen. I honestly felt for the poor guy - he had been caught soooo bad it wasnt funny. I'm sure other high ranking politicians have lied about similar things, but I dont any of them have been caught like Clinton was.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 19 2004, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 19 2004, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 20 2004, 03:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 20 2004, 03:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a distinct feeling that this is going to derail this thread, but I'll bite anyways.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I made that point to illustrate American attitudes towards their politicians lying, not their sexual dalliances. That was the most extreme case of 100% lying, hand in the cookie jar, no escape, no excuse, no one else to blame, no way out LIED I've ever seen. I honestly felt for the poor guy - he had been caught soooo bad it wasnt funny. I'm sure other high ranking politicians have lied about similar things, but I dont any of them have been caught like Clinton was. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> True, and if it had made the slightest diference in the way americans live their lives somebody might have given a damn. Frankly the only people who really gave a damn were the republicans, who needed some dirt on clinton to make dems look bad. Thats just polotics though, I'm sure it'd work the other way around if the situation was reversed... Whats that you say? The situation IS reversed? Well sorry, not quite. Certainly the dems are taking this oportunity to make Bush look bad (the reps would do the same of course), but Bush is accused of lying about something that costs americans and iraqis their lives, not to mention several billion dollars. Big difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 20 2004, 12:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 20 2004, 12:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rumsfeld obliviously forgetting what he said in past speeches (which there have been many of) and messing up on a news interview he was most likely asked to do, not vice versa, is not as big a deal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, come on-- that's like pardoning Clinton by saying that he simply forgot that the girl gave him a BJ, so he <i>thought</i> he was telling the truth.
I mean, does Rumsfeld look like he's saying, 'well, I might have said it, might not, can't know for sure' in that video? Nope. He mockingly dismisses it as 'folklore'.
More troubling-- and I will have to find the quote and date-- is that Rumsfeld recently told the Senate-- under oath-- that all prisoners in Iraq were being held and treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention.
FFS WE are talking about a **** here... all you fat republicans need to calm down.... no one's getting killed (which is much different in the Bush administration).
The question was far out of line anyway- and unprompted....since when has a president had to answer to a court about their bedroom activities (other than to the tabloids)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bugler+Jun 21 2004, 01:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bugler @ Jun 21 2004, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> FFS WE are talking about a **** here... all you fat republicans need to calm down.... no one's getting killed (which is much different in the Bush administration).
The question was far out of line anyway- and unprompted....since when has a president had to answer to a court about their bedroom activities (other than to the tabloids) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. You’re the only one talking about a **** here, you may want to reconsider your sexual orientation. 2. I'm quite skinny. 3. A president has had to answer to someone for almost every action he has ever done since the beginning of the presidency. You really shouldn't be surprised that it was blown out of proportion, mainly by the MEDIA, not Republicans. However if it was Bush caught doing the same thing, both the media and the Democrats would be a making a hellstorm about it.
Also I believe he went to court mainly for lying to the entire nation, and then being caught with absolutely no way of backing out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->FFS WE are talking about a **** here... all you fat republicans need to calm down.... no one's getting killed (which is much different in the Bush administration).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its sooo nice when arguements breakdown into verbal assualts. Isn't it?
Comments
How is that smug and self-righteous?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you have a very good point.
I believe it was a bureaucratic mess that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, why create a new department and keep the same bureaucratic mess?
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what I don't like-- look how smug and self righteous he gets at the end, there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He didn't want "complete wastes of space" to keep their jobs at the expense of national security simply because the slackers belong to a union.
How is that smug and self-righteous? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it's ok to question the Senate's-- *ahem*, allow me to correct myself-- the Senate DEMOCRATS' sincerity here (I assume that's what you're alluding to), but Bush's is beyond reproach?
Ah, that WWF government, where all the conservatives wear the white outfits and fight bravely for the country (and the pretty--without being slutty-- maiden fair in their corner), and the evil liberals wear the black costumes, distract the refs, and hit people with chairs.
You actually believe Bush isn't 'interested in Special Interests'? AHAHAHAHAHAHA. I found it smug and self righteous that he would-- in the midst of co-opting someone else's plans-- make such a comically hypocritical statement.
Sorry, I'll compose myself and await a Clinton swipe, because you actually seem to think I give a rat's **** about that guy.
I'm just glad he's willing to stand up against unions. I have no doubt that either party wanted a successful HSD or that either was pleasing their supporters.
But I hope I have clarified why I found it smug and self righteous, and I believe there's a certain validity to it. I guess it all comes down to what we perceive to be our reps' motivation, which is certainly open to interpretation. Do I think it was entirely political? Of course not, but I do think his admonishment was intentionally smug, shaming, and condescending.
And I mentioned the Clinton thing because I <i>swear</i> a couple times now you've followed my posts up with a Clinton bash (lemme check the record on that), which has always left me shaking my head because I was never the biggest fan.
Might have just been a coincidental post timing thing, though. *shrug*
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just to keep up the spirit of being "fair and balanced".
...
...
woohoo! I can hear the groans and eye rolls from my comfy office chair <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As an olive branch offering, I'll offer you a nice piece of political ammo: Why would a President so adamant in battling the Federal Union inclusion in the HSD allow Sen Ted Kennedy, easily a greater political nemesis than John Kerry, to have virtual carte blanche in creating an education bill more bloated than the NEA's coffers? I give you my personal stamp of approval to call this particular policy a "flip-flop" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Egad, just drop me somewhere in the middle of those two and I'll be content.
I swear, I have two hopes right now: 1) I hope Bush loses the coming election, and 2) I hope I can be impartial enough to judge the Kerry administration according to the rigid standards I've set for the Bushies.
First things first, though <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the Homeland security, do you really think thats going to protect us? I think the easiest way to protect us is to get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them alone, maybe if we stop giving Israel billions of dollars a month aswell.
The thing about our Homeland security is that it creates a false sense of security. It really couldn't stop terrorists from doing something really bad like 9/11. There are a lot of weaknesses in our government and just looking at 9/11 you can see how much damage they can do with minimal amounts of cash put into the destruction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off the gorvement in Iraq is not a "despotic regime"
<a href='http://news.google.com/news?q=Iraqi+government&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn' target='_blank'>http://news.google.com/news?q=Iraqi+govern...F-8&sa=N&tab=nn</a>
I suggest you read up on it.
I personally think they are better off with this then Saddam and his brutal dictatorship run on fear, but that's my opinion.
As for Homeland Security, they are doing a much better job of protecting us then was previously done before 9/11.
I have seen that they are working first hand, in a story I find very interesting, because they may have saved my life.
I live very close to the Berwick nuclear power plant, some time after 9/11 a man was reportedly tracked down by authorities and arrested. It turns out he had very detailed drawings of the aforementioned nuclear plant, and he was reportedly from Afghanistan. I heard this on the local news one night, and a small blurb about it on CNN, after that nothing.
Just because you don't hear about it does not mean they aren't working everyday preventing things like this. Whether or not anything would have happened I don't know, but it brought the matter much closer to home and I am grateful for their efforts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say the government we were imposing upon Iraq was a despotic regime I was refering to the one before it and the Middle-East countries in general.
Second of all, how can you not possibly like Saddam Hussein... I mean, we PUT HIM IN THERE!!! The United States has a lot of fun destroying governments by putting puppets in office or people that the United States agrees with. We do you think South America is mad at us?
As for that Homeland Security story... I am sure you and everyone else feels very safe and unscathed because we live in a country that doesn't experience terrorist attacks(oh wait I forgot about 9/11 nev mind). The Homeland Security defense wouldn't have been able to stop 9/11 what makes you think they will stop another. Lets say that story you said was true, even if he had plans of the nuclear power plant, there is no way he would have a chance of damaging it or doing anything to it. There was also no real motive behind his plan to 'attack' the nuclear power plant whereas the WTC towers showed the world the power of our economic grip. When they came down, the human cost was not the only cost we took.
Unless Im horribly mistaken, we did not put saddam into power. We did, however, provide Iraq with much needed intelligence and weapons during their war with Iran.
Umm the Department of Homeland Security was created <b>after</b> 9/11, had this department been created before hand we might have had a much better chance of stopping 9/11.
And if you can't understand the motive behind attacking a nuclear power plant then you shouldn't be posting in this topic. Their called terrorists, what could be more terrorizing then destroying a building that provides people with power and can spread radiation for miles around in highly populated areas. I just wanted you to realize that the government is doing things to protect us, whether you believe it or not.
Umm the Department of Homeland Security was created <b>after</b> 9/11, had this department been created before hand we might have had a much better chance of stopping 9/11.
And if you can't understand the motive behind attacking a nuclear power plant then you shouldn't be posting in this topic. Their called terrorists, what could be more terrorizing then destroying a building that provides people with power and can spread radiation for miles around in highly populated areas. I just wanted you to realize that the government is doing things to protect us, whether you believe it or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that the Homeland Security was created after 9/11, I wasn't denying that. I was saying that even if we had the Homeland Security, 9/11 would have still happened. Just because we created it doesn't mean its going to stop it from happening. I mean just look at the FBI, they are in charge of dealing with this sort of terrorism. Did they really know that this kind of attack was going to happen, and at this magnitude? If they did then why didn't they stop it? They couldn't even scramble Military Jets fast enough to get to the planes that hit the WTC towers.
You're right it might have made a difference if the Homeland Security was created before this but the chances are so little that its not even worth mentioning. The fact that we already had the FBI and they did nothing to stop this sort of attack should prove this.
As for more terrorist attacks, they will always be prevalent. Lets say the Homeland Security force does stop a lot of the terrorism it can't stop it all. It will never stop unless we completely remove our presence from the Middle East. We are seen as invaders and terrorists to them, they are just attacking us back.
He has created the office of Homeland security, and helped make the country an overall safer place then it was before 9/11.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hate to quote myself here, but it seems people missed it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Actually, you all might be interested to know that all of the structural changes that Bush put into effect after 9/11 were actually ideas of the Clinton administration that were developed in the last month of his term. The plan was given to the Bush administration and subsequently ignored, that is, until after 9/11. <a href='http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.htm' target='_blank'>source.</a>
So yes I do think you can blame Bush for 9/11.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again another quote of myself, but no one has tried to respond to this either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For direct evidence of Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lying on camera for the president, watch this video.
<a href='http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/' target='_blank'>http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes let’s completely leave the Middle East, let’s leave the area with the world’s largest oil revenue completely, with no one but Israel to baby-sit them.
That doesn’t sound like a recipe for trouble to me....nahhhh. Let’s give them what they want, let’s let them win.
No matter who is president, Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, we're not going to leave the Middle East, and were not going to stop helping Israel. Facts of life.
You think we’re the only country sticking its business into Middle Eastern affairs?
Look at Russia, look at France and Germany. They all have their own interests.
Let’s just leave and let them monopolize on it.
The terrorists won't care if we leave now, the damage is done, your romantic idea of "well if we just leave them alone then everybody can get along" is nice in theory, but it doesn’t apply to real life.
Pretty much all governments that I observe are very reactionairy, especially when it comes to implementing widescale, highly expensive things like a Homeland Security department.
Imagine if Bush had tried to push for Air Marshalls on all flights, and amending the laws to help fight terrorism, without a major attack like 9/11. Que claims of Fascist laws and money wasting.
Then along comes a major terrorist attack, and suddenly everyone waves the naughty finger at Governments that didnt implement stuff like this years ago. Goverments implement what they think people will want and what they think will subsequently get them the most votes.
In Australia we had a semi-auto massacre in '96. From then on all semi-automatic rifles/smgs were banned. Then a year or so ago we had a pistol rampage (2 dead) in a university - most pistols banned. Any attempt to ban either without a trigger event would have been fruitless.
As for Rumsfeld lying - he's a politician. They ALL lie. And Americans dont care if their elected representatives lie to them. Must it be said?
"I did NOT have sexual relations with THAT woman"
End of discussion, "ignorance is bliss," only in USA.
The point of my little statement at the end there was that the highest ranking American, the President, once stood up and told the world firmly and deliberately something that he knew was an out and out lie.
Not something he was a little iffy on, something his intelligence people had got wrong, not something he suspected was wrong but said it anyway - it was a baldfaced and complete and utter mistruth involving him personally. No arguement, no debate - he lied on a VERY sensitive issue.
And he survived the move to impeach him. If, as the Leader of America, you can get away with that, then you should be able to get away with pretty much anything if you're merely the Head of Defence.
I have a distinct feeling that this is going to derail this thread, but I'll bite anyways.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is.
When it is preformed in the Oval Office on a president who is married and then lied about it in front of the nation, yes, yes it is.
Rumsfeld obliviously forgetting what he said in past speeches (which there have been many of) and messing up on a news interview he was most likely asked to do, not vice versa, is not as big a deal.
Besides everyone knows Rumsfeld is a snake, I don't need that video to confirm it for me.
When it is preformed in the Oval Office on a president who is married and then lied about it in front of the nation, yes, yes it is.
Rumsfeld obliviously forgetting what he said in past speeches (which there have been many of) and messing up on a news interview he was most likely asked to do, not vice versa, is not as big a deal.
Besides everyone knows Rumsfeld is a snake, I don't need that video to confirm it for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't gonna fire Steve Job for having a blow job with an intern in his office.
The whole media fiasco is stupid, stupid, stupid and shouldn't have been blown out of proportion like that...
I will be very happy if Bush is gone. Name me one thing that has improved since he became the president.
Don't be picky right now. What choice do you have? There's no choice, it's Bush or Kerry. Right now, it's the lesser of the two evil.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I made that point to illustrate American attitudes towards their politicians lying, not their sexual dalliances. That was the most extreme case of 100% lying, hand in the cookie jar, no escape, no excuse, no one else to blame, no way out LIED I've ever seen. I honestly felt for the poor guy - he had been caught soooo bad it wasnt funny. I'm sure other high ranking politicians have lied about similar things, but I dont any of them have been caught like Clinton was.
Fellatio is not a sensitive issue. National Security is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I made that point to illustrate American attitudes towards their politicians lying, not their sexual dalliances. That was the most extreme case of 100% lying, hand in the cookie jar, no escape, no excuse, no one else to blame, no way out LIED I've ever seen. I honestly felt for the poor guy - he had been caught soooo bad it wasnt funny. I'm sure other high ranking politicians have lied about similar things, but I dont any of them have been caught like Clinton was. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, and if it had made the slightest diference in the way americans live their lives somebody might have given a damn. Frankly the only people who really gave a damn were the republicans, who needed some dirt on clinton to make dems look bad. Thats just polotics though, I'm sure it'd work the other way around if the situation was reversed... Whats that you say? The situation IS reversed? Well sorry, not quite. Certainly the dems are taking this oportunity to make Bush look bad (the reps would do the same of course), but Bush is accused of lying about something that costs americans and iraqis their lives, not to mention several billion dollars. Big difference.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, come on-- that's like pardoning Clinton by saying that he simply forgot that the girl gave him a BJ, so he <i>thought</i> he was telling the truth.
I mean, does Rumsfeld look like he's saying, 'well, I might have said it, might not, can't know for sure' in that video? Nope. He mockingly dismisses it as 'folklore'.
More troubling-- and I will have to find the quote and date-- is that Rumsfeld recently told the Senate-- under oath-- that all prisoners in Iraq were being held and treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention.
I'll try to track that one down.
The question was far out of line anyway- and unprompted....since when has a president had to answer to a court about their bedroom activities (other than to the tabloids)
The question was far out of line anyway- and unprompted....since when has a president had to answer to a court about their bedroom activities (other than to the tabloids) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You’re the only one talking about a **** here, you may want to reconsider your sexual orientation.
2. I'm quite skinny.
3. A president has had to answer to someone for almost every action he has ever done since the beginning of the presidency. You really shouldn't be surprised that it was blown out of proportion, mainly by the MEDIA, not Republicans. However if it was Bush caught doing the same thing, both the media and the Democrats would be a making a hellstorm about it.
Also I believe he went to court mainly for lying to the entire nation, and then being caught with absolutely no way of backing out.
The door swings both ways.
Its sooo nice when arguements breakdown into verbal assualts. Isn't it?