TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Inaugural
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inaugural - Page 3

post #61 of 83
Thread Starter 
I also have these silly delusions about quality of life, and hope and the spirit of America and not just "surviving".
post #62 of 83
Thread Starter 
You know I was thinking about it, this may be the first time in American history that Alcohol is the reason a President got elected. Let me explain:

If George W hadn't been such a flaming booze hound, he never would have screwed up like he did in his youth and he
never would have been cornered into turning his life over to Jesus. All drunks go to God at least at first, now do they stay there is the question... Hie greatest base has always been the Christian coalition.

Since we know his Dad lost the evangelical base cause he never won them over like W did (becuase he never so dramatically became a born again), then let's deduct that if W wasn't a drunk, he wouldn't be President.

It's just surreal enough to be true.
post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
With respect, Tricia, and I think you know that I really mean that, Russia, Germany and China, as nations, may have "survived," but millions and millions and millions of women, men and children did not survive.

Jim
I think the casualties are currently being counted in hundreds of thousands. I've yet to see reliable figures for Afghan civilians and Iraqis in general. I did not, and do not, object to the invasion of Afghanistan, although I find fault with the way things are being dealt with there, and realize that civilian casualties are inevitable. Iraq is an entirely different matter, as far as I'm concerned. The U.S. lost 59,000+ service personnel in Vietnam, so I'm rather cynical about where the "breaking point" in Iraq will be. Will it be at the end of the month, following chaotic, and nonrepresentative, elections? Two or three years from now, following a very bloody civil war? I was 5 when the U.S. got involved in Vietnam, and, in retrospect, can say that that's when I lost my political innocence. (I remember it well, because my uncle (USMC), who lived with us, was one of those "military advisers" sent at that time).Things will probably get much worse before they get better; I didn't have the heart to say that to Hope, because she's already in despair.
What a world we live in, where the number of digits seems to determine how "tragic" disasters, whether man-made or natural, are. If Kerry had been elected, I doubt that he would've been able to get us out of the mess we're in. Bush won't clean up the mess during his second term, so at least those people who opposed him can feel some small justification in knowing that the "history books" are going to condemn him. Unfortunately, all those who hold U.S. citizenship will be damned right along with him.
post #64 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I think the casualties are currently being counted in hundreds of thousands. I've yet to see reliable figures for Afghan civilians and Iraqis in general. I did not, and do not, object to the invasion of Afghanistan, although I find fault with the way things are being dealt with there, and realize that civilian casualties are inevitable. Iraq is an entirely different matter, as far as I'm concerned. The U.S. lost 59,000+ service personnel in Vietnam, so I'm rather cynical about where the "breaking point" in Iraq will be. Will it be at the end of the month, following chaotic, and nonrepresentative, elections? Two or three years from now, following a very bloody civil war? I was 5 when the U.S. got involved in Vietnam, and, in retrospect, can say that that's when I lost my political innocence. (I remember it well, because my uncle (USMC), who lived with us, was one of those "military advisers" sent at that time).Things will probably get much worse before they get better; I didn't have the heart to say that to Hope, because she's already in despair.
What a world we live in, where the number of digits seems to determine how "tragic" disasters, whether man-made or natural, are. If Kerry had been elected, I doubt that he would've been able to get us out of the mess we're in. Bush won't clean up the mess during his second term, so at least those people who opposed him can feel some small justification in knowing that the "history books" are going to condemn him. Unfortunately, all those who hold U.S. citizenship will be damned right along with him.
My conscience is clear, I mean it's hard to see all the mess but I know I didn't support it anyway. But I am still depressed as heck.
post #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I think the casualties are currently being counted in hundreds of thousands.
Tricia, Tricia, you do surprise me and shock me. Weigh them in a scale.

Hundreds of thousands vs. millions and millions and millions. No problem, it's all relative.

The 59,000+ American lives uselessly lost in Vietnam vs. "only" 1,370 in Iraq at last count -- just this morning. Not to mention the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives in both conflicts. No problem, it's all relative.

After following your posts on TCS with the greatest of respect, I would have thought more of you. In the Middle Ages some Crusaders might have said "After all, they are only Muslims," and today I see that one or more of our TCS'ers might feel that way, but I hasten to say that I do not suggest that you are one of them. I am concerned, however, when I think about who your students are.

Jim
post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
Tricia, Tricia, you do surprise me and shock me. Weigh them in a scale.

Hundreds of thousands vs. millions and millions and millions. No problem, it's all relative.

The 59,000+ American lives uselessly lost in Vietnam vs. "only" 1,370 in Iraq at last count -- just this morning. Not to mention the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives in both conflicts. No problem, it's all relative.

After following your posts on TCS with the greatest of respect, I would have thought more of you. In the Middle Ages some might have said "After all, they are only Muslims," and today I see that one or more of our TCS'ers might feel that way, but I hasten to say that I do not suggest that you are one of them. I am concerned, however, when I think about who your students are.

Jim
Jim, I'm not that cynical - I'm trying to comprehend my compatriots' attitude, and that's really the only explanation I can come up with! I don't understand it. The thought that people in the U.S. can say that they've benefitted from tax cuts, or like the current administration's emphasis on "family values", or can complain about gas prices, but can ignore the fact that people very like them are dying in droves, drives me insane. So I distance myself - I live thousands of miles away, my taxes don't contribute to the slaughter, and I didn't vote for our current "fearless leader". It's a matter of self-preservation, and I really find myself unable to comprehend Bush's supporters. I've come to think that they've set certain quotas for military and civilian casualties, and weigh them against the COL and taxes. It's not logical to me, but there must be some explanation.
post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Jim, I'm not that cynical....
Agreed, Tricia. Peace -- forgive me and all is forgiven. I made my living with the sweat of my tongue and the sweat of my pen for many, many years, and it is hard to change when retirement comes along. I have some strong beliefs about individual and societal rights and liberties which are easily offended, so my fingers sometimes get out of control on the keyboard and I often become intemperate.

Ann, Samwise and I are off to a cat show in San Antonio early tomorrow morning and we will be gone for a four-day weekend, so I am sure it is with pleasure that some learn that they will not be hearing from me for a while. Even worse, when I am gone that long I cannot cope with the postings which accumulate on TCS, at least on working days,** so I am compelled to just delete them without reading them, so please do not think that I am ignoring you.

Cheers,

Jim

** PS It would be interesting to see what proportion of postings on TCS come from (a) computers at the job, and (b) computers at home.
post #68 of 83
Thread Starter 
** PS It would be interesting to see what proportion of postings on TCS come from (a) computers at the job, and (b) computers at home.[/quote]

Tee hee, I do both. It's a good way to distract at work, but also at home I like to log in.
post #69 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I watched several past inaugrual speeches rerun on CSPAN the other day. From Kennedy to the present, sigh, they were men of substance and could tell had their own visions. All of them, including his Father, made a whole lot more sense that's for sure. Bush's will be so predictable, in fact i am thinking a good drinking game could be take a shot everytime you heard the word "freedom", you'll be drunk in ten minutes.
You know your Papenheimer. According to today's paper, Bush used the word "freedom" 47 times in 19 minutes. Somebody should give his speechwriters a thesaurus.
post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
You know your Papenheimer. According to today's paper, Bush used the word "freedom" 47 times in 19 minutes. Somebody should give his speechwriters a thesaurus.
Jon Daily did a spook on this last night. He actually used freedom 27 times and libery 16 times in less than 20 minutes. They edited the speech and only had him saying those words in the clip. It was actually pretty funny!
post #71 of 83
Doesn't the song say, 'let freedom ring?'. So, like many excellent bells, the tone goes on and on and on.
post #72 of 83
Thread Starter 
He's creeping me out with all this "it's out duty to spread freedom" , I mean what's next Iran? There are rumors about it, but I don't know if even they are that stupid.

And how does he define freedom? I really seriously want to know. I mean we go to war when there are young mothers without health care, we don't let cheaper meds from Canada in the country for our seniors. So is it freedom for rich white people only? He is so childish.
post #73 of 83
Hate to say this, but I have seen the news reports starting about Iran having weapons of mass destruction. Haven't we seen this before? Keep your eyes open on this topic.
post #74 of 83
Here's an excellent article from the Washington Post pointing out that his rhetoric and policies are a bad fit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email
washingtonpost.com
Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies
U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations
By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A25

President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.

Bush's speech "brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U.S. foreign policy," said Thomas Carothers, co-author of a new book, "Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East."

"The rhetoric is seamless, but the policy is very muddled. In fact, the war on terrorism has pushed the U.S. to be friendlier with nondemocratic regimes," said Carothers, director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Administration officials say Bush's goals are a "generational challenge" and should not be judged by the results of one or even two terms. In the speech yesterday, Bush said that "success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people." But often in the first term, Bush's objectives on democracy were set aside for more pressing and immediate concerns, such as need for cooperation in the war on terrorism.

Autocratic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, moreover, would be likely to be replaced by opponents of U.S. policy if free and fair elections were held there today.

Since shortly before the invasion of Iraq, the president has advocated democracy in the Middle East in a series of bold statements and speeches. But the follow-up has often fallen short. In a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy on Nov. 6, 2003, Bush pointed to Egypt, ruled for almost a quarter of a century by President Hosni Mubarak, and declared that the Arab country "should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

But Mubarak, who appears likely to run for president this year in yet another tightly controlled election, has sidestepped possible U.S. pressure to reform by providing key assistance in bids to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To this day, the government of Egypt retains veto power over which nongovernmental groups can receive any of the nearly $2 billion in annual U.S. aid.

Egypt has helped the war on terrorism in less savory ways. Bush expressed support yesterday for "democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile." But in late 2001, U.S. authorities forcibly transferred an Australian citizen to Egypt, where, he alleges, he was tortured for six months before being flown to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Human rights experts said Bush's commitment to freedom is undercut by such actions, as well as the administration's treatment of detainees and terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, was struck by the fact that Bush mentioned "liberty" repeatedly but did not use the phrase "human rights" as an overriding goal.

"The decision to speak in terms of liberty instead of human rights was deliberate," Roth said. "Liberty is an abstract concept, but human rights bind everyone, including the Bush administration. It's easy to say I'm for liberty but difficult to say I'm for human rights when he's overseeing what we know is a conscious policy of coercive interrogation, including inhuman treatment and sometimes torture."

During her confirmation hearings this week, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice also stressed that she would focus on spreading democracy and freedom around the globe. Several senators questioned her on the inconsistency of the administration's approach, notably Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). He challenged her to explain why the administration looks the other way when it comes to countries with near-dictatorships, such as Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, while heaping scorn on nations with some level of elections, such as Venezuela and Iran.

"Some of this is a matter of trend lines and where countries have been and where they are now going," Rice replied. Countries are "going to move at different speeds on this democracy test. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But what we have to do is that we have to keep this item on the agenda."

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup, reneged last month on a promise to give up his title as army chief of staff, eliciting little protest from the administration. At her hearings, Rice said she felt that Pakistan has "come a long way" in recent years because Musharraf broke ties with the Taliban, which had ruled Afghanistan, and assisted in fighting al Qaeda.

The State Department, in its annual human rights report, has cited Uzbekistan for its "very poor" human rights record, including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or of the press.

Yet Bush met with Uzbekistan's president in 2002 and signed a declaration of "strategic partnership," and senior officials such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have visited the country. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region," the State Department said late last year.

Jennifer L. Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, said Bush's goals are laudable, but "my sense from the first four years is that you didn't see that consistency of message in all parts of the administration."

She noted that the administration signed free-trade deals with Morocco and Bahrain, which, after some promising steps toward political reforms, have begun to crack down on human rights groups.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company
post #75 of 83
Thread Starter 
Well inaugural speeches aren't really more than grandstanding, but still he just said publically how words have consequences, and here he does this.

I heard there usually isn't so much global speak in inaugurals, not since Kennedy has there been so much. It's creeping me out, I mean another messed up military action
isn't what we need.
post #76 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
You know I was thinking about it, this may be the first time in American history that Alcohol is the reason a President got elected. Let me explain:

If George W hadn't been such a flaming booze hound, he never would have screwed up like he did in his youth and he
never would have been cornered into turning his life over to Jesus. All drunks go to God at least at first, now do they stay there is the question... Hie greatest base has always been the Christian coalition.

Since we know his Dad lost the evangelical base cause he never won them over like W did (becuase he never so dramatically became a born again), then let's deduct that if W wasn't a drunk, he wouldn't be President.

It's just surreal enough to be true.
Marge this is brilliant...if I could I would give you an academy award, a pulitzer and a nobel prize for this theory..all rolled up in one....keep up the good work!
post #77 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
Marge this is brilliant...if I could I would give you an academy award, a pulitzer and a nobel prize for this theory..all rolled up in one....keep up the good work!
Tee hee, thanks.
post #78 of 83
The fact that Bush's inaugural speech was less than impressive to you is nothing new. The commentator I listened to on NPR yesterday noted that there were only 4 memorable inaugural speeches in the country's history: Thomas Jefferson's, Lincoln's 2nd, FDR's first, and JFK's.
post #79 of 83
I love the Squirt and Joey poems!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb25
The fact that Bush's inaugural speech was less than impressive to you is nothing new. The commentator I listened to on NPR yesterday noted that there were only 4 memorable inaugural speeches in the country's history: Thomas Jefferson's, Lincoln's 2nd, FDR's first, and JFK's.
post #80 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by batgirl2good
I love the Squirt and Joey poems!
Maybe I ought to write presidential speeches!
post #81 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb25
Maybe I ought to write presidential speeches!
It would certainly improve them. He needs to acquire a more tactful image.
post #82 of 83
[quote=CharmsDad]Ah yes, now we have the fashion police. I'm sure we're all just shaking in fear that you'll think something we might wear isn't stylish enough to suit you.


CharmsDad...I'm a born New Yorker...it is my job to be the Fashion Police....you are forced to sign up at age 16...or the Mayor can deport you. There's a nice tax break included in the job as well....and you get to ride the subway as much as you want...watching and reporting the fashion mishaps! It's a tough job...but hey we NYers are tough! GRRRRRRrrr! Hiss, Hiss!
post #83 of 83
[quote=Mom of Franz]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
Ah yes, now we have the fashion police. I'm sure we're all just shaking in fear that you'll think something we might wear isn't stylish enough to suit you.


CharmsDad...I'm a born New Yorker...it is my job to be the Fashion Police....you are forced to sign up at age 16...or the Mayor can deport you. There's a nice tax break included in the job as well....and you get to ride the subway as much as you want...watching and reporting the fashion mishaps! It's a tough job...but hey we NYers are tough! GRRRRRRrrr! Hiss, Hiss!
Along these lines, here's a quote from today's "Stuttgarter Nachrichten" (my translation): "What does George W. Bush have to do with the devil? A photo showing members of the Bush family with raised right hands and extended index and little fingers really upset Norwegian TV viewers, since the "horns" are considered a sign of the devil in Scandinavia; members of the "death metal" scene greet each other in this manner. In fact, the gesture made during the inaugural parade was simply a greeting addressed to the University of Texas Longhorns' band."
He can't win, can he?

P.S. The text says "photo", but what was meant was "footage".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Inaugural