's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Please add Ms. Albright to the Democrat list of idiots.(49 posts)

Please add Ms. Albright to the Democrat list of idiots.94Nole
Dec 17, 2003 11:19 AM,2933,106012,00.html
Does she get her "news" from Fox too? (nm)czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 11:24 AM
Apparently so - she was in the Fox Studio when she said it (nm)TJeanloz
Dec 17, 2003 11:29 AM
Tsk tsk. . .(nm)czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 11:33 AM
Impossible! Why would Fox interview a liberal ?!HouseMoney
Dec 17, 2003 12:51 PM
Don't you know that Fox is a one-sided propaganda outlet?!?!

Seriously, even if Madame Albright believed what she said, she showed bad judgement in voicing it where/when she did. (I would've expected more, even from one of the long line of dimwits in the Clinton Administration.)

She should've saved it for the cocktail parties she attends with the likes of Michael Moore, another liberal who holds same opinion.
I don't know - it was "off the record" in the green room,TJeanloz
Dec 17, 2003 12:55 PM
Not on the set. Sounds like it was just chit chat / gossip - and who hasn't thought or heard the same theory previously?
Therin lies the "bad judgement".czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 1:06 PM
Ostensibly "off the record" chit chat and gossip is a mainstay of the tabloid journalism peddled by Fox.

Albright should have known that her every utterance on the premesis would be filtered through Fox's ideological prism such that her rabid, loony liberalism could be confirmed in the minds of Fox's viewers.
The Clinton Admin. had a penchant for .Live Steam
Dec 17, 2003 2:05 PM
Bad judgement. Bubba himself made quite a few of those "bad judgements" when he was ... Ah, never mind. She was in a "NEWS STUDIO" where news is the theme of the minute. She opened her big mouth and made news. What would she expect? I am sure she couldn't control herself. Not a great trait to have when responsible for our nations diplomatic corps.
I knew this had something to do with Clinton.czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 2:11 PM
I wonder if the bathrooms at Fox News are also part of their news forum?

Albright just couldn't control herself. Good thing our diplomatic corps is in better hands now. Our improved standing in the international community speaks for itself.
Looks like the International community is kissing our ...Live Steam
Dec 17, 2003 2:52 PM
rings to me. I don't believe we have any problems in that department no matter what the liberal gentry want to say. I'd say our diplomatic corps are very much stronger than under Madame and Bubba. Oh the foreign press and diplos all poopoohed Clinton, but they had no respect for us. I don't care about poopooh, I care about respect.
Your type wouldn't know respect if it kicked you in the . . .czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 2:58 PM
. . .ring. The world thinks that Bush is a foolish, ignorant man with his finger hovering over some dangerous buttons. That isn't the same as respect.
Wrong againLive Steam
Dec 17, 2003 3:02 PM
They only thing these foreign leaches respect are greenbacks and they are pouring on the love to get them. They have no dignity or pride. They certainly don't show respect or honor to longstanding alliances. So you can take the poo while the resy of us go for respect - whether that is for our military prowess or our money. The rest is just BS.
Sounds like HB is Dr BooHoo 2. nmNo_sprint
Dec 17, 2003 3:04 PM
But you just proved my point!czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 3:06 PM
You think that financially motivated toadying is equal to "respect". How embarassing for you! A real paragon of dignity and pride, you are.
Gee you're a sharp one aren't you?Live Steam
Dec 17, 2003 5:06 PM
You missed my point! There is no such thing as respect in International affairs. The only thing these "taods" bow to is military might and greenbacks. Haven't you seen the news? As for me being a paragon of dignity and pride, thanks. I accept your complement!
Sharp enough not to accept facetiousness as a compliment!czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 5:17 PM
I got your point. You suffer from the self-serving delusion that if Bush (or yourself) is incapable of marshalling genuine respect, it must be because it doesn't exist.

It simply couldn't be because Bush is a corrupt little man who's manichean view of the world is dismissed with ridicule and contempt outside or his parochial, ignorant and insecure base of support. No way. We are talking about "real men" after all, with "real man" values and principles.
Goodness gracious, Steam.OldEdScott
Dec 18, 2003 6:28 AM
All these years of trying to build a civilized world for naught, eh? God knows I'm no dewey-eyed idealist, but I kind of, SORT of, thought we were trying to rise ABOVE the law of the jungle in building human society.

Now that I know everyone who's not American (American Republican, probably) is a 'leach' with 'no dignity or pride' who doesn't show 'respect or honor,' I can better understand why we don't give l'âne d'un rat for their opinions.

Animals. All of them.

Us too, though, if that's the way we propose to live. And that's the sad underbelly of your 'philosophy.' You ever really read what you write, and wonder what the world generally would be like if you had your way?
Do you want to dispute what I wrote?Live Steam
Dec 18, 2003 7:26 AM
I didn't see you deny it. The problem I have with the likes of Czar and a few others here, maybe even you, depending upon your response, is that they so easily condemn the US. And their tacit indictments of Bush are immensely hypocritical in light of the facts. Why is it OK to abstain from engaging Saddam because of self interest on the part of the countries outlined? Why aren't we able to expose their agenda for what it really is, without being labeled a barbarian? Is it because doing nothing is easier in hope that it will go away? That is what caused the problem in the first place. Things fester when not dealt with.

Yes I admit I am a hawk. That doesn't mean I don't want, like or appreciate peace. It just means that I am a pragmatist who lives in the reality of the World. There are nasty people in the World. There are nasty people who have more means, money and technology to do nasty things. On September 11, 2001 they started to do those nasty things here in my city and in my country. We now have a President who has put aside politics and decided that we must be proactive in this fight. I along with many other appreciate this for what it is. Others like maybe yourself, have chosen to use it as a political weapon to regain the perceived power that you have lost. That is not unifying or productive.

It is a nasty business we are doing, but it needs to be done. Those countries whose respect and admiration you so crave, have not helped the current situation. They recognize the problems, but not only have they ignored them, they have selfishly put their own interests ahead of the greater good. If you want to be indignant about something, be indignant about those leaders who have put us all in greater jeopardy by dealing with the likes of Saddam Husayn. What ever was the case of our relationship with Saddam Husayn back in the early 80s is history. Maybe it was a mistake or maybe it was the lesser of two evils. We constantly see that stupid picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam. Can anyone find picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini with Russian military leaders? How about more recently of Saddam with Russian, Chinese and French military leaders?

If you want an early end to hostilities and the nasty business of ferreting out terrorists, I would suggest you put the pressure where it will have the most effect and do the most good - on those that oppose getting to the bottom of it and those that aid and abet it. A unified front is strongest. I look at what you and Czar represent as a threat to the safety of our armed forces and to our borders. Sorry, but that is how I see it. I am sure you look at me as some militaristic menace. The problem with that assessment is we do not pillage and plunder, we liberate from despotism and communism. That is the history of the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese.
I just wish you would argue this point withoutOldEdScott
Dec 18, 2003 7:46 AM
using a blunderbuss.

And -- on a serious note here -- I will once more state for the record that given my life history I don't need to put up with any nonsense about being a treasonouts 'threat to our armed forces and to our borders.' So I won't, and I'll say this:

I've done a bit more in service to America and American ideals than spout jingoistic billshyt on a freakin non-cycling discussion board, if you really want to get down to comparing the length of our patriotism dycks, Steam my friend. I let a lot of that McCarthyite crap go by here, but about every three or four months I have a bellyful of it and have to vent.

If you really want an 'America' where people can't disagree with the President without being accused of treason, then, my friend, you do not want America at all, but some kind of fascist police state that may be CALLED America, but has nothing to do with that dream.

I'm very familar with the phrase "We destroyed the village in order to save it," and I'm afraid that very impulse is at work in the New McCarthyism I see at work in George Bush's America. And that's a whole lot more important to me than sticking my tongue out childishly at a few European counties who didn't play ball with Bush. Sorry.

You weighed in. I weighed in. We're still pals. Now go pick on czar and leave me the hell alone. My ulcer is acting up.
We're all very proud of youLive Steam
Dec 18, 2003 8:32 AM
Now tell us did you get drafted or was it a voluntary enlistment? If you were drafted you did what the law required of you. No more no less. If you enlisted, you went above the call and should be commended for it. I registered as required when I turned 16 I believe, but fortunately or not, there was no draft by the time I came of age. I did not enlist as I decided to go to college instead. I have since had regrets, especially at times such as this, that I didn't enlist when I had the opportunity. I'm 43. I believe that 35 is the limit.

I never said I didn't want to debate the facts or discuss what to do with them. But, I won't stand for altering them to suit the needs of a political party. I won't tolerate nasty assault upon our President and this country because of political expediency.

Where are we "destroying the village in order to save it"? Also those countries not only didn't "play ball" with us they slandered us for their own selfish interests. There is a tremendous difference. They also put us in jeopardy by doing business with Saddam. That in and of itself is reprehensible, but to then take a stance against us when they claim to be allies, is unforgivable. Yet you and others tolerate and support that stance.

Again the US is not in the business of pillaging and plundering. That is the recent history of the countries you want to belly up to the bar with. I wonder, were you as indignant and concerned when the Russians were taking on satellite states in the name of communism? They pillaged and plundered their way around the globe. We were forced to fight them at every turn. Do you think that was a noble cause? Should we have let communism go unchecked too? Where do you stand on that?

So far you and every opponent to the war in Iraq have been WRONG! That's right. You have been wrong with your prognosticating. You will be wrong about the success of the democratization of Iraq too. And you and the other pacifists have still not offered an alternative plan for what to do about the spread of terrorism and what to have done about Saddam Husayn. Was your plan to do nothing again? That's not a plan. That is doing nothing. That is allowing the problem to grow.

I would like to know what you achieve by your high and mighty proclamations that Bush is a Nazi? What good comes from that? How is it productive or help the betterment of the US? Your party is out of power. Your party is in the minority and shrinking by the minute. You all sound desperate in your proclamations of doom and despair. And don't judge me if you don't want to be judged!
I'm just going to let it go, Steam.OldEdScott
Dec 18, 2003 8:39 AM
Res ipse loquitor.
That's fine, but I would much prefer .....Live Steam
Dec 18, 2003 9:12 AM
that you answer some of the questions I posed. Maybe we could discuss them like gentlemen instead of impugning one another's character and intellect. Discussing the issues without allowing emotion to overtake the conversation, is usually how people reach an understanding of one another. Not necessarily agreement, but an understanding. Happy Festivus!
Steam, you owe OES an apology, IMO (nm)Dale Brigham
Dec 18, 2003 9:22 AM
+ amout 8 semesters worth of lecture fees128
Dec 18, 2003 11:50 AM
b/t czar and oes you should have been in ap poli sci by now.

Res ipsa indeed.
LOL Worthless... it's just spinning wheels!No_sprint
Dec 19, 2003 9:58 AM
I'd get my money back if that were the case!
another devastating critique and contribution - nmMJ
Dec 19, 2003 10:00 AM
Wow, that offensivemickey-mac
Dec 18, 2003 3:55 PM
"If you were drafted you did what the law required of you. No more no less. If you enlisted, you went above the call and should be commended for it."

Are you telling me that my grandfather and all the others who were called up for service in WWII did only what the law required of them: no more, no less? US soldiers in Vietnam, no matter how much bravery they displayed, are not to be commended if they were drafted into service? That's really offensive.
My dad was drafted in WWII, got to the ET, and darn near died.Dale Brigham
Dec 18, 2003 9:53 PM
He made it to France, Belgium, and then Germany by early 1945. Then, he contracted spinal menengitis on the front lines (the only thing he will tell me to this day, is that there were so many dead bodies around, both human and animal, that disease was rampant), he was evacuated to field hospitals, and he spent months in Paris recovering until he was able to be sent back to the U.S. for further treatment. He still has a partial disability from that time in WWII.

In my opinion, anyone who serves in the Armed Forces has my full respect. If they obeyed orders (even those that may have been nonsensical to them), they gave their full devotion to duty, regardless of their role in the war. I cannot judge their valor beyond that specification.


P.S.: BTW, My dad has nothing but good things to say about French doctors, nurses, and people in general. DB
do you lump cheney and halliburton in with them?rufus
Dec 18, 2003 8:58 AM
you know, the french, germans and the russians who were doing business with saddam to further their own monetary aims, despite their being US and UN restrictions on such activity? it's well documented that halliburton, under cheney, was selling oil equipment to saddam throughout the nineties, and former halliburton officials have said that cheney had to have known about such deals.

of course, they were oh so clever enough to do it through foreign subsidiaries so they could maintain the aura of deniability. and provide a forum for people like you to denounce all those "foreign scum" who put their financial interests ahead of morality, while continuing to believe that americans are principled enough to refrain from such dealings.

"I am sure you look at me as some militaristic menace. The problem with that assessment is we do not pillage and plunder, we liberate from despotism and communism"

yeah, we sure liberated the iranians when we overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the shah in its place. what about just last year when we attempted to destabilize the democratically elected government of venezuela because the reforms they were attempting to carry out were threatening their oil production and supply, and their cushy deals with american oil interests? what about somoza? what about noriega? he was a US ally much like saddam, until the political winds changed and the US decided it would be better to dump him, also just like saddam.

you say you are a pragmatist? then why is it so difficult for you to see that the US does not always act out of the benevolence and good will that you wish to assign to it. the US government has done many despicable things, supported many men just as bad as saddam, who treated their people just as he had, all in the name of political expediency. it has happened in the middle east, and in latin america for centuries. a lot of people brush that off as "the realpolitik", which may be so. but it doesn't change the facts of what happened.

the middle east in particular has had occurence after occurence of western powers(not necessarily the US) interfering in their countries, establishing governments and political alliances "for the good of the country's people", and the end result was the exact opposite. the people were held down by dictatorial rule while their natural resources were plundered. it's easy to see how after centuries of this behavior they have learned to distrust the west's intentions, no matter how noble, and to see any intervention as simply more of the same.

and it's also hard to see how this administration's actions will end up any differently than any other western interference in the past. perhaps it will, perhaps bush's intentions are especially noble, but with the parcelling out of contracts to corporations it's easy to understand why it's seen by some as "to the victor go the spoils". but it doesn't change what the US has done in the past, and why those nations may distrust what we're doing now. and it doesn't erase the aspects of our past where we haven't "liberated from despotism", but in fact, created that despotism.
Maybe I wouldLive Steam
Dec 18, 2003 9:19 AM
This is the first time you have responded without revile. I have to meet a contractor in about 20 minutes and then I am heading into Manhattan for the evening, but I will respond in kind at first opportunity.
This is the first time you have responded without revilerufus
Dec 18, 2003 9:32 AM
yeah, right.
respond to this tooMJ
Dec 18, 2003 10:19 AM
MJ "Should Saddam be made to talk?" 12/16/03 8:16am
Another of Steam's heartfelt appeals to decorum.czardonic
Dec 18, 2003 11:00 AM
Strength in diplomacymoneyman
Dec 17, 2003 3:45 PM
Has nothing to do with who likes us. It is not a popularity contest. That's where those of you on the left get it absolutely wrong.

Right. It is all about who you can buy off. (nm)czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 4:02 PM
Yep, Bill Clinton would agree with you on that one ...HouseMoney
Dec 17, 2003 4:40 PM
North Korea, with a little "help" from Jimmy Carter, and China come to mind.
I was being sarcastic there, buddy.czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 4:54 PM
Sorry if it was over your head.

The North Korean situation has certainly improved under Bush's deft diplomacy. They really came around when they found out that Star Wars was back in town.
He and his type don't get it. They ...Live Steam
Dec 17, 2003 5:19 PM
never will. Or they are just plain foolish. Does anyone really think the French give l'âne d'un rat about our affairs? The same goes for the rest of the International community. The only thing they are concerned about is their own welfare. I understand that. They didn't oppose the war because they thought Saddam was agood guy. They didn't even oppose it because they thought it was wrong. They opposed it because it conflicted with their interests. It's really a simple matter to understand. That's why I have trouble with the likes of Czar. He seems to be smarter than the average bear, but he still doesn't get it. I hope he doesn't handle his professional life the same way he believes the US should handle it's International affairs. He'll get run over and stepped on quicker than you can say "l'âne d'un rat" :O)
Oh, we "get" your corrupt, self-serving rationalizations.czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 5:39 PM
We just don't respect them.
Who's corrupt?Live Steam
Dec 17, 2003 5:53 PM
Your Euro buddies? The ones you want to bow down to and who you believe will bow down to you?

Again, you fail to grasp the obvious. They were set against removing Saddam because of GREED, not any virtuous reasons. Now that he is toast, they are kissing up to us again. What reality are you living in? Man, I'd love to play poker with you.
According to you, everybody.czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 6:20 PM
Self-interest uber alles. Of course, I maintain that this is a projected illusion stemming from your need to rationalize the unspeakable acts that you endorse. If you believe that everyone is corrupt, well you are just a face in the corrupt crowd.

Are the Europeans greedy? Certainly likely. But in your world, so what? After all, by your reckoning we are just as greedy, and our talk of liberation and democracy is simply a cynical facade. Of course, you are talking about yourself and corrupt men like Reagan and the Bush clan who allied themselves with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and turned a blind eye to the depravity of the Baathists and the Taliban as long as they remaind useful to your interests.

I know that there are decent people in the world who rejected this deeply immoral world-view from the get go. Just because you aren't one of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Add me too, Nole.OldEdScott
Dec 17, 2003 11:39 AM
Given the Bushies' penchant for that sort of manipulation, it's a legit question. Not to raise formally and publicly, but to mutter privately as kind of a bitter joke. I did it myself just this morning. May do it again later today.

It's not outside the realm of possibility. And of course if called on it, they would just say "We couldn't release the fact that we caught OSL six months ago for national security reasons, and no we can't tell you what those security concerns were, and if you doubt us, you're against us and committing treason."

Sort of SOP with them.
Several people have suggested that, Ed........NMTri_Rich
Dec 17, 2003 11:57 AM
Ya' mean like Clinton's "Wag the Dog" bombings :O) nmLive Steam
Dec 17, 2003 2:02 PM
Yep. Many similarities between Bush and Clinton.czardonic
Dec 17, 2003 2:17 PM
Most of the severly unflattering. How many others can you name?
If it actually happens and OBL is caught in September or Oct.bboc
Dec 17, 2003 1:38 PM
Would anyone here really believe that it is coincidence?
about as far fetched as Iran-Contra nmgtx
Dec 18, 2003 9:52 AM
Oh, c'mon...jtolleson
Dec 18, 2003 1:56 PM
that was so obviously a joke. Whether she appeared to be "smiling" or prefers a deadpan delivery. This is a non-story.

And I felt the same way when folks gave Ronald Reagan a hard time about "the bombing will begin in 10 minutes." ... I'm not being partisan.

Politicos ARE allowed to kid off the records.
Unfortunately, they're not.OldEdScott
Dec 18, 2003 2:41 PM
It is UNGODLY the standards of consistency the media holds pols to. Joking is NOT allowed. Nor off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the-hip comments.

That's why it's so refreshing when a candidate comes along who transcends all that and successfully says 'Screw you, I say what I think and I might misspeak, but I bet the people get it.'

Reagan had some of that. McCain certainly does. Dean does too. They all survived gaffes that would sink lesser candidates.