Agreed!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Agreed!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Agreed!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Agreed! - 7/6/2007 4:10:28 PM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1260/731154861_3ae3df38a8.jpg?v=0

I just can't argue with that.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 4:16:28 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

It's not that I'm for Bush. But that poster's just.. ick. While I'm sure some will enjoy the anti-Bush sentiment, regardless of the lame reasons supporting, the broken logic in that strikes me as distasteful.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 4:44:30 PM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

These are things happening on his watch, and some of them even under his supposed direction (misdirection). Sure, he didn't cause katrina, but he sure did put the wrong man in charge of cleaning it up. So, how is that not his fault?

The purpose of a poster like that is not to make perfect logical sense, but to make note of some key idea, or short bullet list of ideas, that the viewer can comprehend readily.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 7:24:21 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

How is, what is legally considered an "act of God", not his fault? Are you seriously asking me this, just because you think he was supposed to be the one man with all of the answers? I'm not going to say he did a great job. But the President of the United States of America has a lot more to do than clean-up jobs. That's not exactly his area of expertese. He appoints people. He takes advice.

And, 9/11? What the hell? That was in the works for years before Bush took office. Let me ask you- seriously- what the hell was the man supposed to do to prevent that? What would you have done? Com'n. Tell me.

I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, but that doesn't mean you can knock the fellow for any random thing you feel like. Have some sense.

Edit:
PS. Excuse me if I seem a bit, "What the hell?" on you. I'm normally better at tolerating such things and trying to help people along. I guess I'm just annoyed of the whole people-scape-goating-every-damn-thing-on-an-unpopular-figure-head thing. It's just pathetic to the point that I get like this, so excuse me.

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 7/6/2007 7:27:56 PM >

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 7:49:09 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

You know, if Bush is going to lock up traitors there is one that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that he could start with....

While giving free passes to those who out our intelligence assets does qualify as being something worth getting outraged by, for this administration it is just one more thing, and not even the worst thing, that they have done that is impeachable. I think starting with going to war based on lies should be the thing that we get the most outraged about.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 7:58:26 PM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

I may be wrong here, but wasn't it Armitage who outed the Intel asset, and not Libby...wasn't Libby's sentence for obstructing justice....how that equates to being a traitor is beyond me. Come on People, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the present administration, surely you don't need to make up more.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Agreed! - 7/6/2007 8:06:48 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

If one paid attention to all of the reporters that testified about Libby and how he went around talking about Plame, then it becomes clear that it was not only the Novak article that shows what this administration was up to in regard to Plame. Now we can debate all day whether or not Libby was up to no good when he spoke with people like Tim Russert and conveniently "forgot" those conversations, but the truth is that those conversations took place and he LIED about them. I hardly think that Ambassador Wilson is sitting around thinking of ways to slight innocent people for screwing up his wife's life. That makes zero sense. If it were only the Armitage angle I might agree with you, but that is not the only facet to this story, not by a long shot

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 7/6/2007 8:07:14 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Arpig)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 1:28:43 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
How is, what is legally considered an "act of God", not his fault? ... That's not exactly his area of expertese. He appoints people. He takes advice.

Exactly. And he still appointed a numb-skull, which is what I was getting at. Read more closely please, I wasn't suggesting he was responsible for Katrina and I even said he wasn't responsible. Bush is responsible for appointing a crony instead of someone capable of handling the responsibilities of the job. And that can be laid right at his feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
And, 9/11? What the hell? That was in the works for years before Bush took office. Let me ask you- seriously- what the hell was the man supposed to do to prevent that? What would you have done? Com'n. Tell me.

Have you ever heard of Richard Clark? He placed a rather important document into the hands of Bush Jr. via the presidential daily briefing:

"Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
August 6, 2001

Given that information I think the head of our state was supposed to stir the pot and find out what was really going on. Instead he spent a lot of time back at the ranch clearing brush.

August 2003: "And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years." http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, but that doesn't mean you can knock the fellow for any random thing you feel like. Have some sense.

Right back to you. It seems to me you haven't really been kept informed of current events.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 7:50:58 AM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hello SugarMyChurro; People making statements such as in post # 4; and I'm not against them having their opinions, God knows, this once was a free country,... plainly refuse to accept the facts as they ARE. The Clinton years was a disaster, inundated 24/7 365 in every major market, thoughout the world, with but one purpose, to slander and discredit a president, to effectively neturalize any and all legislation which may have been benificial to the country; all done by the opposing republican party. Then, an election of dubious circumstances, a 9-11 attack, of suspicios circumstance, a unilateral undeclared war, spending a country to bankrupcy followed by negating civil rights and freedoms, a president who took an oath to defend and protect the constiution of the US from enemies both Forigen and domestic, then for his entire 2 terms has sought every possible means to destroy the constution he has sworn to defend. And the list goes on.

These types of remarks as cited in post # 4 demonstrates a lack and unwillingness to accept and admit truth, reality as it IS. Rather the choice is to fantatizing of some never was ideal, inventing goodness where only evil and deceit and lies of epic proportions exist.

Okay, now, let the insults be hurled.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 2:09:38 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

You know, if Bush is going to lock up traitors there is one that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that he could start with....

While giving free passes to those who out our intelligence assets does qualify as being something worth getting outraged by, for this administration it is just one more thing, and not even the worst thing, that they have done that is impeachable. I think starting with going to war based on lies should be the thing that we get the most outraged about.

This is post #4, dragone.

Im not sure I understand the connection to what you just posted.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 7:19:00 PM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Sinergy:

Post #4 is by CuriousLord and begins: "How is, what is legally considered an "act of God", not his fault?" There is a little arrow that points to the post above right beside the #4 bit. The post you quoted is #5.

Right?

I think dragone made his points eloquently enough for me to understand them, but if I had to attempt a restatement then I think he is saying that anyone making an apology or defense of Bush is not seeing reality for what it is.

And if that's more or less what he said, I think I agree with him. I can't imagine anyone defending Bush at this point, although some still try for whatever reason. FWIW, even CuriousLord said he was not a Bush supporter either.

But hey, that's just me. Could be wrong...etc...

;)

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 7:27:25 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

My bad. Carry on.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 7:44:25 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I may be wrong here, but wasn't it Armitage who outed the Intel asset, and not Libby...wasn't Libby's sentence for obstructing justice....how that equates to being a traitor is beyond me. Come on People, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the present administration, surely you don't need to make up more.

Having someone to hate and blame everything on is a lifestyle choice for some people, and deserves to be respected. Who are you to demand of them that they have "legitimate reasons"? Do people have to have legitimate sphincter control problems to engage in diaper play? They like it. Isn't that enough? Shame on you!

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/7/2007 7:46:38 PM >

(in reply to Arpig)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 8:07:40 PM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Bush either knew, or should have known, what the members of his administration were doing. I would argue that they collectively outed a CIA asset and that's a treasonous act. Bush did nothing about any of it, which in my view is the most obvious sign of his own complicity.

And again, it's just an eye-catching poster with a short bullet list - is it really supposed to be a perfectly comprehensive and sourced document?

WTF? Does no one remember "Loose lips sink ships"? That doesn't strike me as perfectly comprehensive or sourced either...

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 14

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 8:11:04 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

Fuckit. We have all the felonies we need in the violation of 18 USC 371 leading up to the AUMF-Iraq...

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 15

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 8:21:31 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Bush either knew, or should have known, what the members of his administration were doing. I would argue that they collectively outed a CIA asset and that's a treasonous act.

It is my understanding that, under the statute, no crime was found to have been committed in the making known of her identity. Richard Armitage was never charged, nor has anyone else been. But I respect your lifestyle.

K.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 16

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 8:28:23 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Bush either knew, or should have known, what the members of his administration were doing. I would argue that they collectively outed a CIA asset and that's a treasonous act.

It is my understanding that, under the statute, no crime was found to have been committed in the making known of her identity. Richard Armitage was never charged, nor has anyone else been. But I respect your lifestyle.

K.

You do understand that the criminal penalties are POSTED on the classified document containing the information about a CIA asset. Additionally, anybody with access to such information signed a NON-DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION form to the level of security clearance posted on the document.

The person who told the press this information KNOWINGLY violated the law by giving Plame's identity.

The question is whether the ultimate authority for classifying this information (The President) knowingly allowed it to happen or simply failed in the duties he swore to uphold when he became President.

Either way, I am not sure the crime is treason, but outing Valerie Plame was a criminal act, and the perpetrators walked.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 17

RE: Agreed! - 7/7/2007 9:04:58 PM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hi Sinergy, I was trying, to explain, comparisons, the 'excusing' of a president from taking the rightful, responsible, and dutiful course of action, no matter what a 'legal' definition is Ie, 'Act of God'. Prehaps, I'm still afflicted with the 'Buck Stops Here' malady. Whereas, he could not 'control the weather'; he had control of what happens in regard to suppling proper government.He shunned his duty, and until popularity hit bottom levels, and critizism, he then was forced to do something; this is what he is being held to account for; and the frame is Katrina'.

In the aftermath of WW11, the N...guys, used various excuses, for their illegallarities, and when the US was held accountable to their own standards and justice administered at Nurenburg, during the Lt. Calle fiasco during Viet Nam, it all comes down to being responsible. To excuse the president, for his lax interest in the Katrina aftermath, because he can't be all things in all matters, he's got other more important matters to attend to...simply does not wash.

In the 9-11 fiasco, every one has decided to believe and accept what the government has supplied as the official happenings and responsibilities. No one is even allowed to voice any questions, of concern without being shot down, as it were. Excuse and reason being...how was he to prevent 9-11. I suppose I am still afflicted with the Reichstag history, the Enabing Act, The Emergency Decree', and the related history of 'ancient times' malady as well.
Statements made then, for that era, in the vanacular of the times..."This act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany." then the ensuing government edicts which followed. No comparisons are allowed to further any more investgations into 9-11; what the government has declared it is so, and you MUST accept, not question. To do so is...blaspheny.

Remarks like, " that doesn't mean you can knock the fellow for any random thing you feel like." Indeed makes 'no sense'; given that he wasn't being knocked for 'just anything' but being held to account for his non- responsive actions, disconcern and apparent lack of responsible governing. After all, he is the man in charge.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, he can't control the weather, but he can control his responsiveness to his subjects.

Good evening.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 18

RE: Agreed! - 7/8/2007 1:54:22 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

These types of remarks as cited in post # 4 demonstrates a lack and unwillingness to accept and admit truth, reality as it IS. Rather the choice is to fantatizing of some never was ideal, inventing goodness where only evil and deceit and lies of epic proportions exist.

You expect a President to be able to micromanage the nation, and its place in the world, to the point of being knowledgable on everything from natural disasters to countering terrorists to peacekeeping, and you call me unwilling to accept reality..?

He's a manager. Not the embodiment of the US Government. While you may feel he is, I'm afraid you're the one being wholey idealistic!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Okay, now, let the insults be hurled.

I'm afraid the basis of this thread is an insult against a third party. I truly hope you realize the hypocricy in this.

(in reply to dragone)

Profile

Post #: 19

RE: Agreed! - 7/8/2007 1:58:37 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
How is, what is legally considered an "act of God", not his fault? ... That's not exactly his area of expertese. He appoints people. He takes advice.

Exactly. And he still appointed a numb-skull, which is what I was getting at. Read more closely please, I wasn't suggesting he was responsible for Katrina and I even said he wasn't responsible. Bush is responsible for appointing a crony instead of someone capable of handling the responsibilities of the job. And that can be laid right at his feet.

The poster you said "Agreed!" to does say this, whether you did or not. That was the point.

And, you know what? He takes advice on who to appoint. With all that's going on in the world, he probably didn't have time to read up on disaster-relief theory and make up an exam for the appointees. You can say he made a bad discission, but to blame all this on him? That's really taking it too far. And this is coming from someone who doesn't like the man.

I feel you're insulting him unjustifiably. Like him or not, I can not condone that sort [pretend I said something nice here].

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
And, 9/11? What the hell? That was in the works for years before Bush took office. Let me ask you- seriously- what the hell was the man supposed to do to prevent that? What would you have done? Com'n. Tell me.

Have you ever heard of Richard Clark? He placed a rather important document into the hands of Bush Jr. via the presidential daily briefing:

"Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
August 6, 2001

Given that information I think the head of our state was supposed to stir the pot and find out what was really going on. Instead he spent a lot of time back at the ranch clearing brush.

August 2003: "And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years." http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, but that doesn't mean you can knock the fellow for any random thing you feel like. Have some sense.

Right back to you. It seems to me you haven't really been kept informed of current events.

Ah, so I see. Failing to prevent 9/11 was Bush's fault. Well, my dear kettle, would you care to tell me what you feel he should have done? Better, what would you have done, in his shoes?

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 20