Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 8/9 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6075 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 256 of 271 (287529)
02-17-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by randman
02-16-2006 4:24 PM


Consistency and Honesty and integrity lacking in Bush administration
It's that he is not very conservative at all in many ways.
While I agree with this, I would neither call him a centrist, nor would I believe he ran on anything other than a conservatiive platform. He talks one way and then does something else.
He is for Big Gov spending; said he was during the campaign;
I want to see the quote for that one... and I want to see it from his 2000 campaign as well.
Maybe you are now for tax increases?
I would be on a certain portion of wealth, especially to get the books in balance and remove the debt we have incurred.
Clinton, if he had the backing of Congress, probably would have done the same thing, as evidenced by him getting us into all sorts of smaller wars.
What's interesting is that a republican congress refused to give Clinton such permission and derided his military activities in Kosovo as well as his attempts to kill OBL using missile strikes. But then with a Rep in charge it is a-okay?
Heck Bush specifically addressed an Iraq War-type hypothetical in his first campaign and used it to differentiate himself from Gore, and democrats, by stating he would not engage in such campaigns and criticized Clinton and Gore for having done so.
I sure remember that as I agreed and it is was one of the things which helped me decide I'd prefer Bush over Gore. Where did that guy go? Oh yeah, the democrats managed to switch Bush and the rest of the republican congress with clones on 911.
the areas most consider failings directly relate to his liberal side, trusting Big Government as an effective tool.
Sorry but you missed one important part of the liberal side which he does not have and has lead to his great failures, trusting the people to be a part of gov't and taking care of them so that they can be a valid part of society and the gov't.
Liberals do not just "trust big gov't", there is a purpose and he has none. It might be pointed out that liberal programs did in fact work and produced what they needed to for society. There were of course valid criticisms of how big they needed to be and the bureacracy behins them, but things didn't start getting worse until we threw the baby out with the bath water, and then simply piped back in the bath water.
Keep in mind the new Homeland Security idea was also a dem idea, and it ruined our ability to respond to disasters.
I love how it was a Rep idea until it started failing, and now its back to being a dem idea. Hey guess what Rand? Whether it was a democratic idea or not, it was a republican created and run organization. Any and all failures at handling problems were Rep based. Heck look at all of the emergency services. Who was doing the appointing? Who was running the show?
Oh yeah, and as far as honesty goes, who appointed Brown who had no credentials for the job while stating he was going to improve emergency services, and then announced what a great job Brown was doing while a manmade disaster was going on because of Brown?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 4:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4401 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 257 of 271 (287659)
02-17-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by randman
02-16-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Hotdiggity! Cheney ordered leak of classified info?!
randman writes:
Keep in mind the new Homeland Security idea was also a dem idea, and it ruined our ability to respond to disasters.
Unfuckingbelievable! You have got to be kidding me randman. This may be one of the boldest piles of complete and utter bullshit you have ever posted here! I seem to recall a certain Democrat that suggested the idea of a "homeland security department" prior to 9/11, which the Republicans refused to discuss. After 9/11 however, the current version we have now was put into effect and that same Democrat (who spoke out against it) was voted out of office on the grounds that he was unpatriotic. Remind me again randman...how many limbs did that individual leave in Vietnam? How about his opponent...the Republican that won the election? Did he even serve...I think not. I can’t fucking believe that you would have the gall to write something like this. A new low...even for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 02-16-2006 4:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 12:48 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 260 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:38 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 271 (287671)
02-17-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by FliesOnly
02-17-2006 12:15 PM


Good post -invective = excellent post
Flies, your post makes some excellent points, but they're almost lost amongst the cursing.
Try to put your outrage into your eloquence engine, not your obscenity machine.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 257 by FliesOnly, posted 02-17-2006 12:15 PM FliesOnly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 259 by FliesOnly, posted 02-17-2006 1:52 PM AdminOmni has not replied

      
    FliesOnly
    Member (Idle past 4401 days)
    Posts: 797
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 12-01-2003


    Message 259 of 271 (287685)
    02-17-2006 1:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 258 by AdminOmni
    02-17-2006 12:48 PM


    Re: Good post -invective = excellent post
    AdminOmni:
    I know and I apologize. I was incredibly pissed-off while I was typing (stunned that he could say such a thing)...and believe it or not, I even cleaned it up a bit before I sent it. In all honesty, I thought I'd get suspended...but I didn't care. Randman's statement was, however, a complete heap of equine road-apples
    Thanks for the warning though...I'll learn to "play well with others" before responding to him again.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 12:48 PM AdminOmni has not replied

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5155 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 260 of 271 (287743)
    02-17-2006 3:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 257 by FliesOnly
    02-17-2006 12:15 PM


    Re: Hotdiggity! Cheney ordered leak of classified info?!
    Are you trying to deny the dems were the first to push for the Dept of Homeland security?
    What's your beef? It's a factual claim, and as any conservative would have predicted, a larger beaurocracy is not necessarily more effective, and as we saw with Katrina, putting FEMA under Homeland Security did not work out well.
    Bigger is not better when it comes to government.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 257 by FliesOnly, posted 02-17-2006 12:15 PM FliesOnly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 263 by FliesOnly, posted 02-17-2006 3:56 PM randman has not replied

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5155 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 261 of 271 (287746)
    02-17-2006 3:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 256 by Silent H
    02-17-2006 6:10 AM


    Re: Consistency and Honesty and integrity lacking in Bush administration
    What's interesting is that a republican congress refused to give Clinton such permission and derided his military activities in Kosovo as well as his attempts to kill OBL using missile strikes. But then with a Rep in charge it is a-okay?
    There's a reason for that. First, there was the uncanny timing of the Clinton war attacks that just happened to deflect off of impeachment proceedings and things like that. Secondly, the simple fact is the GOP was reluctant to get into nation-building prior to 911, but after 911, it was war and typically everyone defers to the president in such times, and Bush was persuaded by the neocons that democratizing Iraq could change the equation in the Middle East.
    I want to see the quote for that one... and I want to see it from his 2000 campaign as well.
    You never heard "No Child Left Behind" and other campaign promises.
    Liberals do not just "trust big gov't"
    We have to agree to disagree there because I think they do.
    Heck Bush specifically addressed an Iraq War-type hypothetical in his first campaign and used it to differentiate himself from Gore, and democrats, by stating he would not engage in such campaigns and criticized Clinton and Gore for having done so.
    I sure remember that as I agreed and it is was one of the things which helped me decide I'd prefer Bush over Gore. Where did that guy go?
    911 freaked them out because hardcore Islamicists like the nuclear scientist in Pakistan had the bomb, backed the Taliban, and they thought maybe some American cities would be taken out, and so they began a whole lot of overt and covert military ops to change the situation. Iraq is part of that strategy, right or wrong.
    I love how it was a Rep idea until it started failing, and now its back to being a dem idea.
    It was a dem idea as was campaign finance reform despite McCain backing it as a Rep. Both have failed miserably, imo.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by Silent H, posted 02-17-2006 6:10 AM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 262 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 3:54 PM randman has not replied
     Message 264 by FliesOnly, posted 02-17-2006 4:02 PM randman has not replied
     Message 265 by Silent H, posted 02-17-2006 4:59 PM randman has not replied

      
    SuperNintendo Chalmers
    Member (Idle past 6090 days)
    Posts: 772
    From: Bartlett, IL, USA
    Joined: 12-27-2005


    Message 262 of 271 (287755)
    02-17-2006 3:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by randman
    02-17-2006 3:45 PM


    Re: Consistency and Honesty and integrity lacking in Bush administration
    We have to agree to disagree there because I think they do.
    Randman, you don't even have a basic level of understanding about what liberals believe. I'll try to explain it to you.
    The liberal position is the one that distrusts ALL authority. That's right, ALL authority. (I'm very familiar with both the left and right, having belonged to both at variou points in my life). Liberals are much more distrustful of authority than conservatives.
    Now, here is the kicker. Liberals believe that some things are just not suitable for private enterprise. Healthcare being a good example. If I have the choice between a corporate bean counter deciding whether I live or die as opposed to an elected official that I HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE of course I'm going to go for the elected official.
    Some liberals, are very socialist.... but I think that's a minority position here in the states. I'm a pretty strong capitalist, but sometimes you have to admit that certain things work better as a govt. monopoly. Local power generation is a good example. Deregultion of the power industry is one of the bigeest disasters in modern history.
    We shouldn't try ot create markets in places they don't belong.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:45 PM randman has not replied

      
    FliesOnly
    Member (Idle past 4401 days)
    Posts: 797
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 12-01-2003


    Message 263 of 271 (287758)
    02-17-2006 3:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 260 by randman
    02-17-2006 3:38 PM


    Re: Hotdiggity! Cheney ordered leak of classified info?!
    randman writes:
    Are you trying to deny the dems were the first to push for the Dept of Homeland security?
    Are you completely incapable of reading and understanding a sentence?
    randman writes:
    What's your beef? It's a factual claim, and as any conservative would have predicted, a larger beaurocracy is not necessarily more effective, and as we saw with Katrina, putting FEMA under Homeland Security did not work out well.
    My beef is when people such as yourself try to, AS ALWAYS, blame the Democrats. Who's in charge randman? Last I checked, the Republicans were pretty much running the show, so if you want to blame someone for the fiasco of "homeland Security and FEMA"...well...you figure it out.
    randman writes:
    Bigger is not better when it comes to government.
    I'm sorry, which party is it again that has increased the size of the Government? Have you seen the budget submitted by this administration? Cuts to anything having to do with the poor and education, while hundreds of billions to the pentagon and homeland security.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:38 PM randman has not replied

      
    FliesOnly
    Member (Idle past 4401 days)
    Posts: 797
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 12-01-2003


    Message 264 of 271 (287766)
    02-17-2006 4:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by randman
    02-17-2006 3:45 PM


    Re: Consistency and Honesty and integrity lacking in Bush administration
    randman writes:
    There's a reason for that. First, there was the uncanny timing of the Clinton war attacks that just happened to deflect off of impeachment proceedings and things like that. Secondly, the simple fact is the GOP was reluctant to get into nation-building prior to 911, but after 911, it was war and typically everyone defers to the president in such times, and Bush was persuaded by the neocons that democratizing Iraq could change the equation in the Middle East.
    You are simply incredible randman. I'm curious, are you able to keep a straight face when you type this stuff, or do you just burst out in laughter? I mean seriously...Clinton attacked Kosovo to deflect attention away from impeachment hearings but the Republicans weren't gonna be fall for that ole trick? You're priceless, you know it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:45 PM randman has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 6075 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 265 of 271 (287795)
    02-17-2006 4:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by randman
    02-17-2006 3:45 PM


    Re: Consistency and Honesty and integrity lacking in Bush administration
    First, there was the uncanny timing of the Clinton war attacks that just happened to deflect off of impeachment proceedings and things like that.
    ??? Are you kidding me? Find me the timeline, and let me know how he engineered these actions to correspond with the actions of foreign national leaders opposed to the US. I mean its not like he just up and did something in a vaccuum.
    Secondly, the simple fact is the GOP was reluctant to get into nation-building prior to 911, but after 911, it was war... democratizing Iraq could change the equation in the Middle East.
    So you admit changes were made and he did reverse his campaign promises. Hey 911 affected me too. You know what I didn't do? Start believing neocon rhetoric and reverse my stance on how military is best used.
    You never heard "No Child Left Behind" and other campaign promises.
    Let's pretend I didn't. Please show how and where Bush ran on big gov't as the answer to national problems.
    We have to agree to disagree there because I think they do.
    No we won't. I explained a difference and you didn't even try to address it. In order for us to agree to disagree we must agree on the evidence and the fact that it is not definitive.
    911 freaked them out because hardcore Islamicists like the nuclear scientist in Pakistan had the bomb, backed the Taliban, and they thought maybe some American cities would be taken out
    Again, that doesn't answer the issue at all. Great so the reason they betrayed their values and promises is because they didn't know how to handle a crisis. That still means that they betrayed their values and campaign promises.
    It was a dem idea as was campaign finance reform despite McCain backing it as a Rep. Both have failed miserably, imo.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the executive and legislative branches have been locked up by Reps since 2000. Whether the concept of DHS originated with a dem or not, it was advanced and put into place and mismanaged by Reps.
    Really, Reps can't blame the dems for anything that has happened since gaining full control of the gov't. If they used "dem" ideas, that just means they are also "rep" ideas.
    Side note, while I hated the name for DHS I still think it was a good idea to revamp and centralize intelligence and emergency services. How Bush and Co handled it was a majorclusterfuck from the get go... but that's the same for every other thing they've put their hands on, and why should that be any different?

    holmes
    "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:45 PM randman has not replied

      
    Dan Carroll
    Inactive Member


    Message 266 of 271 (301575)
    04-06-2006 1:25 PM


    Libby: Bush himself authorized leak on Iraq
    Anyone surprised by this is retarded.

    "We had survived to turn on the History Channel
    And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
    You're what happens when two substances collide
    And by all accounts you really should have died."
    -Andrew Bird

    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by Chiroptera, posted 04-06-2006 1:32 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
     Message 268 by Silent H, posted 04-06-2006 3:03 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 267 of 271 (301578)
    04-06-2006 1:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Dan Carroll
    04-06-2006 1:25 PM


    I don't know; who'd of thought that GWB was even too stupid to understand the concept of plausible deniability?

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 1:25 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 6075 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 268 of 271 (301635)
    04-06-2006 3:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Dan Carroll
    04-06-2006 1:25 PM


    Sorry Dan, its not real until Fox carries the story. Not even thinkable. I will be (pleasantly) surprised if Fox actually runs and supports the story.
    What's the sound of millions of people waking up all at once?

    holmes
    "Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 1:25 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 3:08 PM Silent H has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 95 days)
    Posts: 34140
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 269 of 271 (301639)
    04-06-2006 3:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 268 by Silent H
    04-06-2006 3:03 PM


    Fair and Balanced.
    seek and ye shall find

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by Silent H, posted 04-06-2006 3:03 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 270 by Silent H, posted 04-07-2006 5:33 AM jar has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 6075 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 270 of 271 (301848)
    04-07-2006 5:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 269 by jar
    04-06-2006 3:08 PM


    Re: Fair and Balanced.
    Yeah but...
    Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal
    ... my guess is the Tal-heads will stick with that sentence.

    holmes
    "Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 269 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 3:08 PM jar has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024