Reagan actually did that during an important national security meeting (it took him much longer). I wonder if thats where they got the idea from.
As far as Rumsfeld, good riddance. To some degree i pity the fool for being the whipping boy in a cabinet full of people with bad ideas, but on the other hand- the job he did (or didn't do) is unforgivable. If the democrats don't do anything else the entire time they are running congress, the political pressure for Bush to finally do SOMETHING about the catastrophe that is Iraq was worth electing them.
People are saying this is the end of neoconservatism. "Not short enough it was." -Yoda
The new guy they've got, Robert Gates, is expected to be a lot better- less of an idealouge- more a pragmatist. He served as head of the CIA in the Bush 41 years and was, like most of that administration, fairly apolitical and pretty good at his job. Of course, he only has the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history to clean up, so he may deserve a bit of a honeymoon.
Of course, if W was looking for a boost after cutting that deadweight, he's still at 31% approval. At least he's not in the 20's anymore.
Posted: 13 Nov 2006 18:27
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
It was just supposed to be funny not a opportunity to bash Bush and Rummsfield. __________________
Like I have always said, Bush & Co. would be hilarious if their poor decision making didn't kill people.
Ever catch "That's My Bush"? Hilarious! Will Ferral as the Prez? Genius. Your video- very funny, but still a culturally relevant moment worth making a snide comment or two about. What can I say? It is hard not to look at the guy and think about all the dead people that didn't have to be. But to be that rational all the time is the mark of a crazy person. It is no way to go through life, so we have to laugh about him. Getting any closer to the truth makes one go Hamlet.
Also, thats just we political smartasses for ya. We never can shut up, and maybe we shouldn't. Hunter S. Thompson spoke about humorus contempt in his eulogy for his old enemy, Richard Milhouse Nixon, who was actually in on the joke:
"I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, and I am a better person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.
Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said. "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."
Thompson goes on to say,
"These are harsh words for a man only recently canonized by President Clinton and my old friend George McGovern--but I have written worse things about Nixon, many times, and the record will show that I kicked him repeatedly long before he went down. I beat him like a mad dog with mange every time I got a chance, and I am proud of it. He was scum."
and finally,
"Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man--evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him--except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship."
Compared to that, Rummy gets off easy by anything I could write. I will even go so far as to say that he wasn't always wrong and could be quite articulate when making excuses for himself.
This is one of my favorite quotes ever. I actually think this is an odd little truth about life, courtesy of the lame duck Secretary of Defense.
"...because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know".
Posted: 23 Nov 2006 18:16 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Okaaay. But tell me does Bush being a Republican or proclaiming himself to be Born Again have anything to do with your judgements of his wartime strategy?
And isn't hate really a part of evil? So wouldn't that make a person evil for hating Nixon? __________________
No, Bush screwing up beyond all rational belief kind of made that call for me.
Carter was religious, and I liked Carter's personality despite recognizing him as a deer in the headlights as a foreign policy leader. He also didn't mislead us into stupid decisions, he made them honorably.
Gotta go- more on this later.
Posted: 23 Nov 2006 22:37
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
So your saying Carter was honourably stupid and as opposed to being dishonorably stupid?
I think people appreciate Carter's religious behaviour on the Dem side because he never allowed his religious nature to overcome his political ambitions. Me on the other hand, I would take just the opposite outlook and applaud someone for standing by their religious beliefs despite the persecution that might occur. __________________
Sigh. You even go after Jimmy Carter. That man has done more for humanity in God's cause than either entire politcal party. You need to read up on him before you talk like that.
What you said was wrong and I hope you regret that statement.
Now, Carter's policies (right or wrong, this is a matter of opinion) were eventually copied by Reagan after he screwed up in Beirut, so I was trying to be concilatory in answering your question.
Also, nobody and I mean nobody would have wanted to be President after Watergate and Vietnam if they knew what was good for them. Whats worse, Carter was not a vicious politican, but a stand up guy. It is unfortunate- but that is simply not how Washington woks.
But this gets away from what you were asking me.
Quote: But tell me does Bush being a Republican or proclaiming himself to be Born Again have anything to do with your judgements of his wartime strategy?
No- and I am damn sure of that. If he were getting results, I'd be forced to accept that, for whatever reason, what he had done was working and I was wrong. I would have to just assume that he knew something I didn't or that I was looking at things from the wrong angle.
But that isn't the case. THIS is today's news:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A car bomb exploded in northern Iraq on Friday, killing at least 22 people and wounding 26, police said. It was the first major attack by suspected insurgents since bombings in Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite district killed more than 200 people the day before during widespread sectarian violence in the capital."
I wish this were an isolated inccident, but it isn't the first couple of days like this and it won't be the last. This didn't have to happen, because Iraq was not a threat to our security. But even if it was, it STILL didn't have to happen because the occupation should not have been bungled so badly. The borders should have been secured in 2003, the troop force should have been overwhelming. The world should have been there with us and the Iraqis should have been using thier own businesses, which were plentiful, instead of our Defense contractors. thats IF we should have been there at all. There are and were more pressing threats against America.
Carter was a bad example to answer your question.
Getting closer to home, I can tell you that I generally DO think Bush 41 (that is the father, not 43 the son) was a good president.
The public didn't rally around him and he did not manage to capture the imagination the way Clinton or Reagan did, but that wasn't his style and furthermore- that wasn't what the situation called for.
He wasn't into sentimental statements or vanity (at least amongst politicans, who are vain by definition) he was simply a realist in the foreign policy sense of the word, not the often misused common language version.
He looked before he lept, he shifted tactics, he listened to his people, he did not surround himself with idealouges and he made decisions that weren't popular when he knew they were the right ones.
Now you know I'm a Clinton fan, but given how a lot of Clinton's first term went down anyway- we would have been fine, possibly even slightly better off had Bush 41 stayed President in 92 and Clinton have come along in 96. (Running against Quayle anyway, that would have been a cake walk). Either way, we did well in the 90's because we had two moderate, realist presidents, moderate congresses, and a good balance between the public and private sector.
People always say that the Clinton economy was really Reagan's doing. I say that Reagan made all his changes before 82, then raised taxes back up in 87. I also say that the economy is only partly the President's doing, but one should be accountable for one's own tenure. Still, nobody ever admits that the 90's could be partly or even mostly the Bush 41 economy. He raised taxes a lot- breaking a campaign promise, because he knew it was the right thing to do.
Also, a war ususally pumps up the economy initially, but what is lost puts a drag back on it that people only feel later with the loss of loved ones and people no longer in the workforce that would have been. If a territory is occupied or needs to be rebuilt, then that ends up costing us. But a war fought so well that there are almost NO consequences, even as Saddam was left in power- well that is something else. Bush 41 made that happen and gets little credit for the effects cheap oil and succesful warfare had on the 90's economic boom.
He wasn't flawless, "oh yeah, the vision thing...", but he was generally a good leader.
So it isn't that I dislike Christians in the White House, Republicans in the White House or even rich people named BUSH in the White House. I just don't want someone in that job who can't perform and I really get steamed when I feel that person is not honest. You can hardly fault me for that.
Posted: 24 Nov 2006 19:14
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Sigh. You even go after Jimmy Carter. That man has done more for humanity in God's cause than either entire politcal party. You need to read up on him before you talk like that.
You brought him up. I still remember all those booze parties he threw at the White House with Willy Nelson smoking joints at the party.
Besides when I think of Carter I think of Reagan, and comparing the two is like comparing John Wayne to a bald headed heavy set car insurance salesman.
Reagan come across a big hero and Carter as a big I don't know. I don't hate the guy, he's just not what I look for in a President. He wasn't that great with leading the country. Inflation was out of control with Carter etc etc. Hey, I'd invite him to my Church or whatever. It's not like you have to hate somebody because you think they did a terrible job at whatever you hired them for and that's all a President is. A high payed employee of we the American people.
Quote: I'd be forced to accept that, for whatever reason, what he had done was working and I was wrong. I would have to just assume that he knew something I didn't or that I was looking at things from the wrong angle.
So are you admitting that you have to be forced to like Bush, then? Just asking?
Look at this point I'm ready to get out of Iraq too, but it's not like your view that it the stupidest thing to have ever done. It's easy to say that from our perspective. You also have to acknowledge we don't know what the world would be like today or 10 years from now if we hadn't taken action in Iraq. Saddam might have attacked us. He wasn't exactly a stable personality if you know what I mean.
But right now I wouldn't be mad at the Prez a bit if he starting actions to redraw. I'd do it slow though. I wish we could have a presence while sort of staying out of the shooting and bombings somehow. Just let them kill each other till the only ones left are the good guys. Unfortunately, the good people that live there are going to get hurt too.
Raising taxes is never a good thing. If they kept them right where they are now and not let the tax cuts of the Bush adminstration time out then I'll be satisfied. But you have to explain to me how taking money away from businesses and individual workers is a good thing for the economy. Tax cuts have always spurred the economy forward.
Old Bush would have been Prez for 2 terms if he hadn't listened to the Dems and raised taxes. That was dumb. He listens to them, and they use it against him. __________________
AGAIN, you select what you want from my quote! How do you sleep at night?!!
Quote: If he were getting results, I'd be forced to accept that, for whatever reason, what he had done was working and I was wrong. I would have to just assume that he knew something I didn't or that I was looking at things from the wrong angle.
THE FACTS, THE ACTUAL REALITY, THE CONCRETE RESULTS OF HIS POLICIES WOULD DETERMINE MY ANALYSIS OF HIM AS A GOOD OR BAD PRESIDENT.
yeesh.
Would i have to be "forced" to accept he did a good job...? Only by the truth, you nut! That is why YOU are forced to admit he sucks. Because he DOES.
But really, what interests me the most is this:
Quote: Look at this point I'm ready to get out of Iraq too, but it's not like your view that it the stupidest thing to have ever done.
For the record, you are proposing to leave Iraq. I have not.
But I wanna know- now the "Defeatocrats" WERE right?! So all those people DID die for nothing? So now we should "cut and run"?!
Amazing. You are ready to bounce from Iraq and somehow, you're saying it must be the Iraqis fault. It must have been Saddam, oh he was crazy. We'll just never even know how smart it was to invade.
I want to know how Saddam could have hurt us and with what. I want to know WHY Saddam would attack america if we had the ability to easily knock him out of power.
What a bunch of BS. You can't even admit you were wrong as you're backing out the door from a fight your guy started.
The fact is sir, that you supported and voted for these greedy, pompous boneheads to put us in a gigantic trap in the middle east and got a lot of good people killed doing it. The LEAST you could do is admit you were wrong.
If this wasn't the biggest foreign policy blunder of all time, i want to know what was! Even Vietnam was not in the middle of the global oil supply!!!
Please Lord, do not let the entire country be thinking (or NOT thinking) like this.
Ya know, its always Carter had paties, or Bush 41 listened to the awful democrats or Clinton cheated on his wife. W never did a damn thing wrong, because he's your guy. No matter what the results, YOU STILL won't look in the mirror on your politics.
But oh, you can ignore it when Bush gets our people killed for nothing and still wave the flag and say he's great. Just lower your taxes, thats all you want, regardless of results. Me, Me, Me.
Posted: 25 Nov 2006 00:34
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: AGAIN, you select what you want from my quote! How do you sleep at night?!!
The same way you do when you selectively ignore points that I don't think you can argue very well. How do I sleep at night he says. As if you never stretched and pulled at the truth to argue points with me.
I've always said I don't like being in Iraq just that I thought the prez had a reason to be there. It's just that people like you keep screaming leave so much it's getting old. Heck maybe we'll get lucky and the terrorist won't follow us back home and start attacking us and you'll shut up about it at the same time. Win, win situation. At least I hope and pray that the bad guys don't come after us if we leave. From what I see lately when are more or less being in the way of fighting between Iraqis and we aren't getting after the terrorist as much as we were anyway. I'm for playing it safe, but like I said I would like to have a presence there and still keep after the terrorist groups when they get some good intel on where to smash their strongholds. But I don't want us to be in the middle of a bunch of dumb mule heads that just keep shooting at each other for no good reason.
Quote: Only by the truth, you nut! That is why YOU are forced to admit he sucks.
Now you went and did it, you hurt my feelings. I've never once called you a nut. I've called you a liberal several times and a evolutionist, and maybe a monkey boy, but never a nut. Now you say your sorry.
Dude, listen I'm ready to argue up to a point, but you are just looking to prove your right vs getting at the truth. This is the way of the liberal, you attack until you get your way, and when you do, you attack and say, "see, see, I told you".
The truth is I'm for whatever is the best policy for the current climate. I'm not against Bush for going in, and I don't hate stupid liberals for wanting to get out. I don't like soldiers getting killed and I don't like letting terrorist win either. I think the truth of it is, if I were President I have my own way of doing it that didn't fit perfectly in Bush's plan or the Dems. I think Reagan would have probably blew the place all the heck and got out, probably leaving a small CIA presence to try and edge the new government into the right direction. Just a guess.
Quote: I want to know how Saddam could have hurt us and with what. I want to know WHY Saddam would attack america if we had the ability to easily knock him out of power.
Did you not read my previous post, dude had his own plans for a nuclear device. All the other dudes needed was our own airplane. What makes you think he couldn't figure out a way?
Quote: What a bunch of BS. You can't even admit you were wrong as you're backing out the door from a fight your guy started.
Whatever dude, you just want to win an argument. Dude you'd suck as president if you started anything you wouldn't back down either till we all got killed.
Quote: The fact is sir, that you supported and voted for these greedy, pompous boneheads to put us in a gigantic trap in the middle east and got a lot of good people killed doing it. The LEAST you could do is admit you were wrong.
It was the right thing to take out a evil dictator. I'm just saying it might be ok to change strategy now. It might save some lives at this point. Give it a rest. Dude you sound like me after I lift weights. You been drinking too much caffeine. I know you don't work out. You don't sound like the type.
Quote: But oh, you can ignore it when Bush gets our people killed for nothing and still wave the flag and say he's great. Just lower your taxes, thats all you want, regardless of results. Me, Me, Me.
Ok I'm really thinking you want me to get mad. What? You like getting other people ticked at you. Thank God you aren't a diplomat or the world would be big hole in the ground.
When you get all angry and smarty pants you put the other person into a position of defense or attack. Right at the moment I'm not in the mood to be mad, so sorry. I know it's funner when I get ticked. But you really need to work on your diplomacy. If you want to make a point or convince someone else of your position then you need to be a little more friendly don't you think?
If you were me what would you do? Just how would you respond. And be honest. Personally, I'm tempted to just say your a big turkey and forget about it, but I'm trying to be nice. Just calm down a little. Sure arguing is fun, but you go overboard just a little. __________________
Quote: The same way you do when you selectively ignore points that I don't think you can argue very well. How do I sleep at night he says. As if you never stretched and pulled at the truth to argue points with me.
Like what? I have not lied to win a point with you Tim. I don't HAVE to, the truth is all ver the news everyday.
Besides, I don't come on here just to insult you. I come on here to counter the things you say that have no basis in reality.
I don't care if Saddam Hueissin had plans to bring King Kong to New York, he would STILL have to contend with a second strike from the United States. I hope this is just an ignorance regarding foreign policy on your part and not a flat lie, such as those told by the President and his cabinet. They were all very aware that Saddam was not a terrorist by definition and could not benifit by striking the United States, ever. Furthermore, he had no means of delivery, something you will find in any book on the Cold War. Getting a nuclear warhead to America takes an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. If you don't have an ICBM and you don't have enough nukes to erase the US, or if you aren't a non-state actor like Al-Queada, then you cannot benifit from an attack on the United States. That is why we have been so rarely attacked by other countries in the past 400 years.
I'm sure you're thinking "Oh but Saddam was crazy". Well as a matter of fact, Saddam wasn't and isn't crazy, but extremely ruthless and cunning. The only move he ever made that was unanticipated by our national intelligence was lying to us about the weapons he didn't have in an attempt to scare us away from invading. Of course, plenty of people including President Clinton suggested that we should hold invasion over Saddam's head, but continue with weapons inspections before doing anything stupid. Had we followed this policy, or even bombed him- what COULD Saddam have done?
We actually have had two nuclear seeking enemies in the Bush years in Iran and North Korea. N Korea actually has a nuclear device and a leader that des occasionally show signs of dementia. Why did we not invade North Korea? If you say it isn't feasible, I want you to first look up a map of Iraq and tell me why this was a better place in the world to cause instability. Here's a clue, it is the country wedged in between Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
As far as dictators go, stop kidding yourself. There are people all over the world crying out for help and we have ignored them on many occasions. That goes for both Democrats and Republicans. You can say what you will about him, but if you want a human rights president, then your man would be Jimmy Carter.
The Bush administration has tried every possible rationale for doing what they did. The sheer number of conflicting arguments for us being there should convicne you they are not telling the truth.
If we're liberators, then why don't we leave and let them govern themselves? Why have we told them not to have a religious government? Why are we babysitting the civil war? The tyrant is gone.
If it was security, then why didn't we leave as soon as we realized there were no WMD? Why did we comprimise a victory in Afghanistan by sending our troops to the mideast country with the fewest number of islamic fundamentalist terrorists? Why did we just give up on Bin Laden for a toothless old dictator in an isolated, weak country?
If as some say, it was oil, then why didn't we do a better job with the entire world economy hanging in the balance? Well, I guess you could say because Bush is a poor President, but it seems like SOMEONE would have stepped up in the cabinet. Oh right, they kicked him out....
-----------------------------------------------------
Reagarding personal attacks, I should try to keep cool, but I am absolutely blown away by your thinking toward this war. What you said in that post does make me mad.
Saying we should just pack up now regardless of the sacrifice or the consequences is bad enough, but would at least be tolerable if you admitted it was wrong to go. To insist that you were still somehow right all along is flat out irresponsible and I don't mind telling you so.
As a matter of fact, The President, the Republican party and any number of its followers have all said on numerous occasions that people with MY point of view on Iraq just didn't care about America's security they way they did- that we were weak or irresponsible on matters of defense and most famously, that we did not support the troops.
So Tim, if you want to go against the grain with American public opinion you'd better cowboy up. It isn't my fault the tide turned, it was the fault of those you trusted.
But you aren't sorry. Somehow you still work in a shot at a Democrat, albeit a rather pathetic attempt. You want my sympathy for your disasterous ideology after the same post in which you demonize Jimmy Carter? Dream on.
Quote: I know you don't work out. You don't sound like the type.
And that is just lame. Who are you, the bad guy from an 80's movie? Though it is the dumbest argument I have ever heard in an Iraq debate, I will refute this last point.
I'm in great shape, thanks for asking.
Posted: 26 Nov 2006 21:56
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: If you don't have an ICBM and you don't have enough nukes to erase the US, or if you aren't a non-state actor like Al-Queada, then you cannot benifit from an attack on the United States. That is why we have been so rarely attacked by other countries in the past 400 years.
I stand by my argument that Saddam was a threat, but neither you nor I are in a position to affirm one way or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote: As far as dictators go, stop kidding yourself. There are people all over the world crying out for help and we have ignored them on many occasions. That goes for both Democrats and Republicans. You can say what you will about him, but if you want a human rights president, then your man would be Jimmy Carter.
I think my point was that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. So something good did come out of all this. Not rocket science here, bud.
Quote: If we're liberators, then why don't we leave and let them govern themselves? Why have we told them not to have a religious government? Why are we babysitting the civil war? The tyrant is gone.
Well I'm not going to say anything because no matter what I say you'll just go on another angry rant. Even if I agreed with you, you'd have a cow. So I'm not saying a word.
Quote: I'm in great shape, thanks for asking.
Hit a sore spot, huh? It's ok nobody my age is in shape, anymore. Everybody's lying around watching the tube. Nobody would dream of going outside and playing some ball. Me, I love good competition.
I'm going to try and explain one more time what I think about Iraq war in as few as sentences as possible, and if you blow chunks again, that's it I quit.
I believe it was a good thing to get rid of a ruthless murdering tyrant.
I believe it was a good thing to take the war to the terrorist in the middle east.
I think the initial plan of creating an ally and a democracy in the middle east was a logical idea.
However there are never any guarantees that if you have a good idea and your hearts in the right place that you'll succeed. So you have to be willing to rethink where you are at the moment.
Right now I see a lot of good soldiers dying and a lot of civil war in iraq that we can't control. I know the terrorist Al-quaidi's are still out there, but if we can't get to them through the warring iraqi's then we need to get the troops out and do some strategic bombing or wait for an opportunity to get the bad guys, not stand around in the street waiting to get hit.
That's it, now let's be honest I like discussing politics and religion, but you aren't listening and if you are just going to blow your stack it's pointless to keep repeating myself. You believe I'm evil incarnate because I support Bush, then fine. I guess I'll go join Doc Doom and the Red Skull and we'll have a big party.
One more try, to summarize, my opinion, iraq was a good goal, we accomplished a lot, now I'd rather get the troops off the streets of Iraq and use a little more strategy. Bomb the heck out of terrorist if possible but not run around with targets on our chests. I don't know if I can make it any plainer, but if not. You don't like it fine, but I don't want to hear any more angry crap accusing me of being evil or whatever. You think I'm wrong fine, tell me I'm wrong but it's a waste of my time and yours if I'm going to call you names and you are going to call me names back and forth. You just can't get any good out of a discussion if it becomes an angry rant.
Just show some respect, a little ribbing is fine, as you smile when you write it.
The only thing we as Americans can do besides making our opinions known and voting is to pray that our leaders are given the wisdom to deal with these most difficult of times.
Now I'm going to read some comics, work on my comic book story, check my oil, and eat some pizza. __________________
Been out for awhile. Also, This seems increasingly pointless.
I don't see why I owe you any wonderful protocol when you won't even admit you were wrong about something so serious. Like we've both said, this wasn't a close football game. The decision to invade Iraq was a life or death decision that effected a remarkably large number of people. I wouldn't blame you for scurrying away from the President, since after all it was his decision and not yours. But trying to divert attention from your own irresponsible assertions by talking sh1t about humanitarians like Jimmy Carter- that is disgusting. Why be civil with you when you pull that?
With regard to your lame try at a personal attack, you have again missed the mark. I am not your age and I really am in good shape. How you live your personal life is none of my business.
But then, there is your logic. I'm extremely fortunate that I was taught good habits, but that is irrelevant. I'm sure there are plenty of 400 pound people who have a better or worse understanding of foreign policy than I do.
In fact, last I heard, the President was 60 years old and running a 7 minute mile. Not bad, but he's still one of the worst decision makers to ever live in the White House and no matter what you bench, you voted for him. Plenty of people lift weights, Tim. Most of them don't validate themselves or their politcal opinions that way. If you're going to try to insult me, stay on topic.
Posted: 07 Dec 2006 15:55 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
I'm just trying to give you a hard time. I guess the point is there is more to validate ones self worth then what they think they know about politics or don't know.
I'm not scurrying away from the President. I try to be upfront with what I think based on what I've read or saw on the news. You think the President has made bad decisions. That's your opinion. I've got mine too. I don't always agree with him, but I never feel the need to mercilessly blast him as if I knew more than a sitting President.
Please remember one thing Danny, I'm not a politician. I love to yack about politics, but there is a lot of other stuff worth our time as well. So read the other stuff too would you. You act like your tired of arguing well let's not argue politics for a little while. Let's argue about who would make the best Captain America. Just for a little while anyway.
I'm never going to change my political opinions drastically. My basic principles are going to stay constant if I can help it. You know, I think a lot of people actually agree on their major principles too. It's just the details that get in the way of common ground.
Bottom line a tough situation in Iraq doesn't automatically equal bad decisions. If we all had crystal balls we wouldn't make mistakes. Your ideas could have been twice as bad. We just don't know. Sometimes there are no easy answers, if you would just be honest about it. The only one who knows the exact perfect plan for every issue we face is God.
I'm really in the mood to discuss evolution still if you want to tackle that one again.
Iraq is just a wait and pray thing as far as I'm concerned now. At least until the next election.
And just how much do you bench press? __________________
Come to think of it, maybe we should call a truce till Christmas is over. Tis the season of brotherly love after all, right. So Merry Christmas. __________________
Fair enough. By the way, it doesn't bother me a bit if Willie Nelson parties at the White House. I think Willie Nelson is great.
Honestley, I have no idea what I bench. I think I could do around 250 in highschool but that might be my imagination. It was a long time ago. Since then I've only focused on speed and endurance- football season is now permanantly over for me.
Heavy weights are okay if strength or size is what one is going for. I will also say they keep you from getting hurt in sports by strenghtening up tendons, especially in the legs, especially in the hips and knees. But I wasn't a lineman and played basketball and ran track, so power lifting all year wasn't going to happen. I guess it just stayed that way.
I shoot for 100 pushups in combination with running, rope work, dumb-bells (if at home) and situps. I'm on the road a lot- so there's really no chance of joining a gym, but I'm not sure I would if I could. I'd rather get pushups and sit ups out of the way and go for a run to relax.
Lately, I've been into rope work, something we used to do a lot in basketball season. A weighted jump rope is really the greatest thing ever invented for people who need a quick workout- your whole body is tired in a half hour. It can put anybody in good basketball shape in a couple of weeks.
Posted: 09 Dec 2006 00:24 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
That's cool sounds like you are into working out. I'm really needing to get into some bball games. I love to compete but I just don't want to go driving a long way to an indoor court. Winter drives everyone inside. So I'm stuck working out in my gym with the weights, treadmill, and other machines.
The only thing I don't like to do is compete with weights I always end up pulling out my ligaments in my arms trying to keep up with the big dogs.
I'm bout at 275 once I think maybe more. I was working out with 260 3 times per set the other day as part of my strength training.
As far as Willie goes I've never really liked him. He sings a little whiny to me. It's like his only popularity comes from his rep as a wild country boy. Cause he sure can't sing. If I had to listen to country I go with the old dudes like Hank Sr. and TN Ernie Ford. The new guys are too fake.
Nelson ticked me off when he made Uncle Jessie look like a druggie on that Dukes movie. I wish they would have just called it something else beside the Dukes. It was funny, but it ruint what the original guys had did on their show. __________________
I can see why some people don't go for Willie's voice, same as some people have a hard time with Dylan- but if I always wanted a perfect voice, I'd only listen to Sinatra. Thing is- its hard to ignore that caliber of song writing. There's nothing like "On the Road Again" or "Pancho and Lefty", to say nothing of the Highwaymen album(s) for cool lyrics or stories. I mean geez, the guy wrote "Crazy", Patsy Cline's most famous song. He ain't dumb.
Also, I have nothing against Willie for his substance abuse preferences- but to each his own on that one. I'm not going to get cornered into giving pot a ringing endorsement, but it is simply not that bad, certainly not as bad as alcohol which we still advertise on TV. The hypocrisy around that drug is nuts. Anybody who has either been or run for President in the past 10 years has smoked plenty of it and our first President even grew it!! It wouldn't be a boogieman at all if the brewing companies hadn't lobbied against it since prohibition ended. (Unfotunately right at the same time automobiles became prevelant in the US.) I sense another debate coming on...
But before THAT giant gorilla busts loose, I'll be happy to agree with you on the sorry state of modern country music, though its popularity has gone through the roof. I think now its just become rock for the red states in the same corrupted way rock has become pop for college kids or guys who can't dance. I wish the market was as efficiant as they say and we'd have some better music these days on FM stations instead of 25% Nickelback, 25% Kenny Chesney, 25% car commercials and 25% annoying dj's.
That being said, in neither medium will we see somebody top the accomplishments of Hank Sr. or the Beatles. Maybe they were just too good too soon or maybe artists are not encouraged to seek that kind of depth, even from the beginning of their careers. Again though, I chalk this up to the business (greed) side of things.
My guess is that the fame thing really distorts who gets in- can't make it without great business sense, and business tells people to water things down as much as possible to reach the broadest swath of people. I mean I love Hank Sr, but I don't know anyone else who does who isn't a white middle class male with redneck roots. I am somewhat apathetic toward Justin Timberlake or the rap star of the week, but people of every persuasion seem to care just enough to buy their new song on itunes. Lots of old people like the Beatles, but only something like 2% of the people who like modern rock bother to trace its roots back to Liverpool. Those people are usually just other musicians! (Cobain, Ozzy, Bono, me...) Besides, they can only repackage and sell but so many Beatle songs so many times. Same with anyone else of that generation. How many times can we rearrange the same greatest hits?
And finally, You are again correct. The artistic disaster that was the Dukes remake sickened us all. Why is Luke a whiney straight man? Why is Bo borderline retarded? Why does Daisy get dialouge now that she's played by a terrible actress? And of course, why is Uncle Jessie turned into a standerdized weed joke instead of bootlegging moonshine? I guess thats because the Dukes movie was more a reflection of how America sees itself than how we think it oughta be. This is not a "blame America first statement", it is just a sad fact- the stereotyped people that movie was based upon now roam among us unchecked, and Hollywood is on to it. To back that up- "Dukes" made a killing- SOMEBODY saw it twice and bought the DVD! What would people have thought if the same lame script had appeared in the late 70's early 80's? It would have vanished in a week or two.
It should piss us off that the dumb stereotypes from Dukes have worked often enough to make market researchers sell it to us yet again in a beloved franchise (read: recognizable format). Maybe people will disagree with me here, but the 5 minutes I saw just made me want to find the producers and scream "You can't say this about us!! America is not dumb!!!" But then, just like the crappy pop music... it somehow made a lot of money. Can ya blame them?
Posted: 09 Dec 2006 16:01
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
I actually like Sinatra and Dean Martin, and I grew up on Van Halen and Motley Crue. Dylan is ok, his early stuff anyway.
Crazy was a good song, but Patsy Cline was singing it.
I do like Nickleback, about the only group I know of nowadays. Don't seem to hear very many new songs. They've been playing extreme radio at the gym lately and it drives me nuts. Sounds like phycho disturbed individuals trying to catch a tune. Scary makes you feel way too aggressive and actually makes me lose my ability to concentrate on the weights.
I think the new groups may just be spoiled brats screaming their lungs out for mommy instead of tough guys trying to put out some hard rock. Heck, I can scream. Maybe, I should be a extreme rock singer.
Justin Timberlake is boring and his sissy buddies. I thought they were ok for a little while, but I think the New Kids were actually more talented. That old New Kid Warburg guy actually plays on some good stuff like Band of Brothers.
Quote: Why is Bo borderline retarded?
Now that was funny. That was even politically incorrect. There is hope for you yet, bud.
I thought they should have called the Dukes movie something else and left out the drugs and the swearing. I liked the slapstick and the car chases and the ACDC music. The Bo love for cars was way overdone. Made him sound really just plain wierd.
Just saw the Miami Vice movie last night and it sucked. It was just boring. I'd rather watch the original pilot TV episode another 5 times. I've already seen it more times than I can count.
Visually impressive, but the story could have been done in 20 minutes, and a waste of the song, "In the Air Tonight". No Ferrari ride in the movie just a run of the mill boat dock shoot out at the end that made me feel dizzy. The rest of the movie was dialogue in one monotone. Crockett acted like he was trying to be Castillo. Why make a movie like this and spend millions of dollars for no story? The only good actor was the guy that played Rico Tubbs. Couldn't even read the credits. The time on my vcr was easier to read. Maybe they were ashamed. __________________
Nickleback=good? How dare you Tim, how dare you....
Posted: 21 Dec 2006 15:45
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Sorry dude, I'm hip to the latest jive.
Well as long as it isn't screaming extreme music or turned up loud enough to hurt my ears. Music shouldn't be heard outside of the building or the car it originates from. __________________
Does Busch get any credit for the strongest ec onomy in the history of this country. How well do you think the war would have gone if we didn't have to fight it with the democrats tied around our waists. From the very begining our enemies have said that to beat America, all they had to do was hang on and keep spilling our blood. They believe, after Viet Nam that we are cowards. Electing the Democrats to congress, is proof positive to them. Isn't it strange that, that if you didn't know who wrote an article about Busch or America, You wouldn't know if it was from Iran, Ben Laden, Hamada, or the Democrats.They have become our worst enemy.
Posted: 08 Mar 2007 16:58
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
I know what you mean. I've supported Bush since he got in, but right now where I find it hard to keep backing Bush is his policies on border security specifically the arrest and prosecution of the two border agents, and the Deputy Sheriff. All prosectuted by a Bush prosecutor, all only doing their duty. Bush refuses to pardon them. It makes me doubt the man's judgement in other areas I'm sorry to say.
I think we only got half a conservative in the White House, and half isn't good enough.
But on the other hand it is hypocritical for the Dems to not admit the economy has been good under Bush for example. __________________
You know, I went through a period of time where I thought I was conservative, but I'm not. I'm a republican. There is a differance. Republicans didn't come into existance to be conservative. Did you know most Democrats think Abe Lincoln was a democrate. Most think tha Dems were responsible for civil rights legislation in the 60s. But the truth is they were the ones blocking it for years. They had super majorities in both houses,and the presidency, and could have passed it anytime they wanted, even if every republican in the country was against it.It took the constsnt pressure of the republicans to get it passed. I believe the dems. to be the greatest threat to freedom the world has ever known. They constantly are attacking our personal freedoms and then saying that thats what republicans are doing. Dems have attacked our rigut to have guns,the freedom of religion freedom of speech. They use propaganda better than the nazis. For instance, since they can't compete on talk radio, they want to stop it, but they don't just say that, they want to force people to have to listen to them,by demanding that radio stations carry equal time for their nonsense. Their problem is that when confronted with truth on their call in shows they melt like wax in a fire. And thats with them paying to be on the air. when they have to explain their points of view, they become transparent. I agree with you about the problem on our borders. But when soldiers come dack from Iraq, they tell a differant story than the democrats, or news media. I believe the soldiers. If we keep alowing illegals into our country, the president of Mexico will have more powe in the US than any governor or congressman.I assure you it will be republicans that will solve the problem, not conservitives or democrats. Gotta go, but thanks for listening....MIKE
Posted: 08 Mar 2007 19:01
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Interesting I say we agree on too much to argue a whole lot on anything, but the reason I say I'm conservative is just try and point out my idealogy of right and wrong overcomes my party affiliation. The Republicans have been much more conservative in the past than they are right now even as short time ago as the 90's.
Americans have to stand on principles first. Parties second. There's so many good people out there that vote Democrat just because their father and grandfather voted Democrat. If political parties know there are a certain number of folks that will vote down party lines no matter what their stance then we won't get politicians that believe in the values we care about. We'll just end up getting the candidates the political parties want us to get. __________________
I don't mean to sound argumenative, but I guess I am. I understand what you mean about conservatism, it's just that I don't think it's a better philosophy. For instance, if you were on a football team that played conservativly, by defying the plan and working against it, you only weaken the team, even if your right.Being conservative doesn't make the party right or wrong, being right is what makes the party right. Not being afraid to call a spsde a spade, standing on principles that are right, because there right, not being afraid to be politicaly incorect, those are what make the republican party great. But if they loose their backbone , we'll have to create another party to replace it.Thats how the republican party got started, and it can be done again if we have to.But remember, it won't be a third party,it will be a fourth party,because the republicans were the third party. I have democrat friends, that live in a run down mobile, their car is 20 yrs. old and has to be jump started every time they want to go somewhere,and yet to hear them talk about the nations economy you would think they were fiancial geniuses. But if you gave them 6 mths. they couldn't come up with 500 dollars. And their also military genuses.The problem was after we got control of congress, we didn't have the guts to be leaders. Trent Lot and Denis Hastert are good examples of what I mean.I mean how stupid could you be, wanting to share power with the Dems, because we only had a one vote margin. How could anyone in their right mind think the Dems would ever have done that? That was the beginning of our defeat. When Hastert tried to intrfere with the law excersising a warrant on a democrat for true crimes, I knew we didn't have a chance in the next election. I was right. Gotta go, but I enjoy your web site...MIKE
Posted: 08 Mar 2007 22:34
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
I don't have much to disagree with you on, funny though I have rich democrat friends that are pretty conservative in their thinking. I know you have to pick the best candidate available, but you know I think if Republicans get mad and demand candidates with good conservative values morally and financially then the party will be strengthened because I believe right makes might not might makes right. In other words we need another Ronald Reagan, and we aren't going to get one if those in charge just pick a candidate based on what they think is needed to win. All we need is a guy that's conservative and honest, and knows how to communicate his values clearly to the public. That's what Reagan had, and it worked. Back in the 90's Dole should have beat Clinton, but he didn't have the ability to articulate his position as clearly as Clinton who of course had a different position for every need. Put super campaigner together with great ideals and you've got a winner, but you got to have both to win an election and have a strong Presidency.
Glad you are enjoying the site. Keep coming back. __________________
