SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neeka who wrote (300320)9/25/2002 2:28:11 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
moe,

I'm impressed. You actually wrote something. That's a first.

Not that I find that you have a clue, but at least it was a more genuine effort than in the past. Is your side feeling squeezed? Are you feeling weak? Like you actually have to justify your positions? If so, I'm ready to continue the attack, because your entire belief structure lies on a bed of sand, a hollow vessel of hypocrisy laced with lies to attempt to distort the discussion and debase democracy. But you do know when your kind is cornered and you do know how to at least sound sincere, in spite of the reality of who you are and what you represent.

Shall we begin, then?

Re: Are you beginning to feel betrayed? If not, why not?

No, I'm not.

Because I understand the world of politics very well.


Point out one single post on Silicon Investor where you have clearly stated a complex thought and a real understanding of the world of politics. I dare you. I've never seen a single one.

Re: Mr. Bush represents more of my beliefs than not.

The problem with both you and the boy-king is that you live in a world of superstition and myth. Beliefs is too kind a term for the dangerous misperceptions that you feel compelled to believe are "real". They are not. And you are deluded.

Re: President Bush signed the McCain/Feingold bill because it had overwhelming support in congress. He said it himself and this is not a direct quote; I will sign this bill because the American congress has overwhelmingly supported it.

Strunk & White give you a failing mark. If you are making a direct quote, one like "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good men to do nothing", then you must actually quote your source and put the quote in quotatition marks. Please do not let the thread know how little you understand about grammar in the future. You are embarrassing yourself. BTW, that quote was from Edmund Burke.

In fact, Bush was lying to you when he said that he signed the bill because of an overwhelming Congressional mandate. I'm shocked at how naive you are. He signed the bill, without fanfare and with his tail between his legs because he was about to have a veto overturned if he didn't sign it. He was cornered in one sense. But he did have his "get out of jail free" card handy. Because he has the FEC stuffed with corrupt hypocrites who simply disregarded McCain-Feingold in FEC hearings and regulations and dismissed the will of the people. I'm shocked that you are so naive that you don' understand how Bush completely disregarded the McCain-Feingold intent with his regulatory ploy. Shame on you for being so gullible.

Re: What took place in the recent German elections is a prime example. Gerhardt Schroeder switched politics mid election to get elected and it worked.

You really got to get some real news into your life. You've been far too brainwashed by the Faux News. Shroeder never deviated from his anti-war attitudes. Who's lies are you believing? Good god, quit reading the junk media's propaganda and do yourself a big favor. You seem to enjoy and embrace being lied to, don't you feel foolish about this?

Re: Any more questions?

Yeah. Can you read and comprehend these two very important items about how the Bush family is betraying America and the world once again:

IRAQGATE: NY Times Wm. Safire on the criminal conspiracy in the G.H.W. Bush administration to subvert export regimes and prop up Saddan Hussein. Investigation eventually suppressed by pardon of Sec. of Def. Weinburger, among other maneuvers.: (Archival: Publication date 18 May 1992)
security-policy.org
ALSO: Henry Gonzales amazing speech laying out the utter deceit of the U.S. realpolitik sales of arms to Iraq during the GHW Bush reign, this is long, comprehensive and completely damning.........
fas.org

If you read all 23 pages of Henry Gonzales incredibly damning speech you will finally comprehend why George Bush is betraying America. Can you do that?

Peace, Ray



To: Neeka who wrote (300320)9/25/2002 2:45:12 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Hi M....Did you see this Michael Kelly article today re Gore?

washingtonpost.com

Look Who's Playing Politics

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page A27

Distasteful as it may be, some notice should be paid to the speech that the formerly important Al Gore delivered Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

This speech, an attack on the Bush policy on Iraq, was Gore's big effort to distinguish himself from the Democratic pack in advance of another possible presidential run. It served: It distinguished Gore, now and forever, as someone who cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power. Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts -- bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with "those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it." Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, "those who attacked us on Sept. 11"; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban, which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; and has imprisoned hundreds more and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.

Well, perhaps Gore was talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: "The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized." If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody-shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it.

And, again, this sentence is a lie. The men who "implemented" the "coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized.

Although Gore knows that Bush has been publicly trying to move the nation toward war with Iraq since at least January, he pretended to believe the president was only now -- "in this high political season" -- pushing for war in order to gain electoral ground for his party and to divert attention from his administration's failure against al Qaeda by attacking "some other enemy whose location might be easier to identify." I see -- Bush is risking his presidency on a war with Iraq because it is the easy thing to do.

Although Gore knows that the Democratic leadership insisted (and both practical politics and constitutional imperatives demanded) that Bush seek the congressional support he is now requesting, he pretended this too was something the president was doing simply for political gain. Although Gore knows that Bush is also seeking, as Democrats also demanded, United Nations approval, he pretended this represented a failure of leadership as well because "thus far, we have not been successful in getting it." True enough -- because the Security Council hasn't voted. Thus far. Cute.

Probably the purest example of the Gore style -- equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm -- occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over "the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration." And then added: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have."

What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.