BlogCatalog

Is it international experience? Absolutely.

Is it a lot of international experience? Absolutely not.

Its like asking if the president of a student government have executive experience. Yes they do.

Is it the same as being the President of the United States? Ummmm.. nope.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

I don't quite think student government is on the same level as being a governor of a state.
9/07/08

csiunatc

No its not. But it IS executive experience..

Thats exactly my point. Is dealing with representatives of another country regarding fishing rights international experience. YES .. it is international experience. I don't see how that can even be argued against.

I don't think its a LOT of international experience.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

But the entire point of this thread was to point out that Steve Doocy is an idiot. Of course, to do that, they had to misquote him...lol.
9/07/08

DrowseyMonkey

it may have been a misquote but it was minor,and the gist of what he said is quoted. So not sure what your point is. I guess for people who aren't used to Fox it seems really odd that this guy is on the air, that's all.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

I think it's being phrased as foreign policy experience, which half of Washington already lacks. I remember they played this game in previous elections, where if you couldn't name the prime minister of a hole in the wall country that nobody knows about, you weren't fit to be the leader of the free world. Kinda silly.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

DM, my main point here is that when we (the Reps here) point out something foolish that Obama has ACTUALLY SAID, they (the Dems) defend him to the hilt and reason and rationalize what he probably meant.

But then, in an effort to make Reps look foolish, they take the literal statement of a Rep and say again "well, despite what he said, this is what he meant."

It's ridiculous.
9/07/08

DrowseyMonkey

I dunno...it all sounds like noise to me anyway. Personally I don't care who ultimately gets voted in...but it's quite a side show. Our election will be called tomorrow and done and over with by Oct 6th. I think you guys should shorten the time too...by going so long people get so riled up and ugly...and divided. A year of campaigning is too long! It would drive me crazy, lol.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

TRUST me, DM, I wish the time was shorter, too.

Personally, I find it absolutely hypocritical and OBSCENE on both sides that these candidates talk about helping the little guy, but have no problem spending millions upon millions of dollars on their campaigns. Think of how many homeless that money could help...how much food that could buy for the poor.

9/07/08

kristi...

become a democrat. Democrats are in to democracy. Republicans are into feeding the rich and sticking it to the poor. You'll feel better if you join the right side.

the ONLY thing that McCain would EVER do better than Obama... is keep America's military strong. Everything else he'll come up lacking! Have you had him checked lately for senility and/or dementia? Usually sets in about his age.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Your Kool-aid must be tasty!
9/07/08

kristilinauer

www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/another-fox-news-absurd-story#comment_568...

And regarding this comment:
"Republicans are into feeding the rich and sticking it to the poor..."

www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/palin-thank-god-for-obama#comment_567680

Oh, and then there's those pesky little studies that have been done that show that Republicans on the whole are more charitable givers than Democrats, not only with their money, but also with their blood (literally) and their time.

But I won't bother you with too many facts at one time. You might get overwhelmed.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Kristi, Will you marry me? :*)
9/07/08

kristilinauer

LOL...I'm thinking my hubby might be opposed to that.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

What, he can't SHARE? Must be a "Typical Republican", hoarding it all for himself. LOL
9/07/08

kristilinauer

LOL...yes, he's quite selfish, as all Republicans are.

9/07/08

creativedreamevent

If you watch Fox, which I do, then you would know that Doocey was making a joke. And Fox is not the most biased news outlet by far. Most of it's shows make it a point to present reps from both sides of an issue when doing a discussion of important events/issues. Haven't any of you guy ever seen Hannity and Coombs or what ever their names are. It's always a left/right equal time/equal respect debate. Of course they have that other guy too, who is completely right, Bill O'Riley. Forgive me if the names are not spelled right. I took migraine meds earlier. Perhaps that excuses my whole point, too, but at least I'm trying to make sense:)

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Don't forget Kondracke, a Fox news analysts who recently called Palin a whacko right winger.

But it's not surprising to see libturds thinking Fox is ultra right wing when they also think the New York Times is a middle of the road newspaper.
9/07/08

othellobloke

Yes they do have a*shole O'Riley. Is he your idea of unbiased?

What about when Fox recently had that girl from Georgia on tv with her mother? She completely said the opposite of the Whitehouse was saying was the problem, so Fox interrupted and cut her off with some crappy excuse and then brought her back once she lost her flow and gave her 30 seconds, by which time she didn't get to tell the whole story.

kristi... I've an example. If Republicans are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO compassionate and caring, why did this happen? www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00819020071003?rpc=92 or why would Bush veto H.R. 2082 which would amongst other things ban waterboarding? These don't seem compassionate, which SEEMS to be the image you're trying to put across of Republicans.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

othello, I'm not trying to conjure up some image. I'm simply stating what the fact and studies have shown.

Did you follow all of the links?

I know, I know..."Don't confuse me with the facts!" Right? LOL
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Why don't we start with who you think is NOT biased? Dan Rather? Olbermann?

Oh, and when did spending somebody else's money on social programs pass for compassion now? Democrats love to be compassionate all day long in Washington, just as long as THEY don't have to pay for it.

Maybe somebody needs to waterboard your silly ass.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

Othello,

Did you actually READ the article you just sourced? My hunch is that you read the headline and got your feathers ruffled.

"While defending his veto, Bush offered to negotiate with Democrats on the program's funding..."If they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poorer children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so," Bush told a business forum in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

He said the bill's funding level would have expanded the health program beyond its original intent and taken a step toward government-run health care."

Yes, what a bastard! Wanting to cover the costs needed, while at the same time, trying to curtail wasteful expenditures. What a jerk! LOL
9/07/08

ttiger

othellobloke here is the fox interview you talk about..:-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

9/07/08

howisbradley

I don't know if someone mentioned it, but McCain's wife said the same thing. She also added in that part of Palin's leadership was from being in the PTA. That ones been thrown around a few times.

I guess Biden would be a good leader since Delaware is so close to Rhode Island and he use to be a member of the Rotary Club.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

McCain's wife wasn't indicating her membership in the PTA was a leadership quality, but to indicate that she started out like everyone else. I know it's hard for liberals not to distort and spin the truth, but try anyway, sweetie. You'll sleep better at night.
9/07/08

jafabrit

Living next to another country doesn't equate to understanding international relations.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VhpA8f8r10

9/07/08

katarokkar

she must know Santa too.

I like Santa.

[reply]

9/07/08

DrowseyMonkey

lol
9/07/08

howisbradley

Given her strong stance on gun ownership, she'd probably shoot him down.

9/07/08

kristi... negotiating meant finding a way to cut funding and give out less money. Kids health should be negotiable.

Linc4justice... WHO CARES IF ITS SOMEONE ELSES MONEY? What kind of a person would whine about someone else's money when we're talking about children's health?

I'd rather be a compassionate Democrat than an emotionally stunted Republican.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Because we're trillions of dollars in debt. We don't have the money and resources to keep paying for these massive social programs that are incompetently run by the government.

And if you actually knew anything about economics, you might actually realize that any huge influx of cash into an industry will cause a significant rise in prices. Healthcare will become even more expensive, thus burdening millions of poor and working Americans with costly health bills even more.

But Obama is a democrat libturd, so he cares and gives whenever he can right, oh wait, no he doesn't.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-gave-only-1-of-inc_n_93376.html

By the way, ask Obama how his brother's doing.

9/07/08

I'd love you to explain how a huge influx of cash into healthcare will cause a rise in prices. Logic states the govt digs into the bank and pays for more medical staff to provide free healthcare - then the only prices that will rise will be for rich people who want private healthcare.

Give all Americans rich and poor public healthcare just like some of the countries in the world that care about their citizens like the United Kingdom and Canada.

Then you wouldn't need idiotic Republicans showing how heartless they are by vetoing legislation that would provide for children.

Please show me how the current American system of leaving people with $75,000 of debt after they've been shot in a grocery store robbery helps anyone.

[reply]

9/07/08

csiunatc

For the same reason that everything is more expensive when it is run by government. Increased red tape.

A standard "expense" for most companies is that salaries make up 50%+ of the expense. When you filter something through a government, you add a huge post of cost through their salaries as well.

Also, private enterprise has been continously proven to be better at "shopping" around and cutting cost. Take the Privately run and operated federal prison system for instance. (Now legal system components like prisons happen to be one thing i think gov't SHOULD handle) but they prove cheaper in any case.

9/07/08

Who cares about cheaper? I'll give you and example of what I mean.

The town I live in - Kenora, Ontario has its own police force 'Kenora Police Service'. Contract for policing was due to be renewed and the Mayor and Council voted to go for Ontario Provincial Police because their quote was lower. Practically all 16,500 people in this town hate the Mayor because they're prepared to pay more in taxes to have better policing, and the OPP quote was for less staff.

Sometimes there's more to think about in life than paying less taxes and cutting costs. The movie 'John Q' with Denzel Washington symbolises everything that's wrong with America and the healthcare system. ANYONE who says private healthcare is better than free public healthcare is an overprivileged undeserving idiot!

[reply]

9/07/08

I'd love you to explain how a huge influx of cash into healthcare will cause a rise in prices.

Wasn't that the question you asked? If you don't care then why ask.

I come from a country with free health care, and I sure prefer it private. And im certainly not over privileged in any way.

You are right, some want to pay taxes and get the service from the government. I want to keep the money and choose for myself what i spend it on.

[reply]

9/07/08

othellobloke

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... you say you have free healthcare, but you would prefer to pay for healthcare? Well you're privileged then. Millions are not and cannot afford it.

One of the prices of living in a civilised society is paying taxes into the government's piggy bank, so that money can be used to help the less fortunate. You should want to pay taxes.

I pay my taxes and do not now, and never will mind about 30% of my wages being taken so sick people can receive treatment free.

9/07/08

No i come from a country that has government funded healthcare. I now live in the US and i think that privately funded healthcare is better.

I SHOULD want to pay taxes? that has to stand for you. I rather keep the money and if i WANT to help the less fortunate i'll give money to the charities i think deserve it.

I used to pay 67.5% taxes, now i pay a whole lot less. With paying for my healthcare myself its still cheaper for me.

[reply]

9/07/08

DrowseyMonkey

Where are you from?

I'm in Canada, I like our health care system, eventho it's not perfect.
9/07/08

othellobloke

That's a typical answer from an overprivileged person who's almost certainly never felt what it's like to be poor.

IF you want to help the less fortunate? You shouldn't be allowed the option to decline helping less fortunate people. That's part of being a civilised and decent person. When it comes to feeding hungry children and curing sick babies, if you won't do the right thing willingly you should be forced.

That's one of America's biggest problems... everybody only cares about enriching their own personal wealth.

I'll tell you what's simple math... public healthcare and everyone gets looked after - a Democrat thing. Private healthcare and only the rich and privileged get looked after whilst the poorer end of society gets the shaft - a Republican thing. And you wonder why so many people despise Republicans?
9/07/08

csiunatc

I believe in freedom of choice. Its a beautiful thing.

and i have to say that the notion. "Those that don't agree with me should be forced to agree" Is a little scary.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

"And you wonder why so many people despise Republicans?"

LOL...ummm...you really do live in your own little world, don't you?

If your statement is true, then why are Obama and McCain tied in the polls right now?

The essential meaning of your statement may be correct. Yes, there are many people who despise Republicans. I'll give you that. But then you would also have to admit that there are many people who despise Democrats. There are many people who despise Obama. There are many people who are scared to death of what Obama stands for.

9/07/08

Sweden

[reply]

9/07/08

DrowseyMonkey

That's kind of a culture shock isn't it?

And your health care costs will increase as you age...so chances are without universal health care you'll find it tough as the years go by.

9/07/08

Well yes and no.

Properly managed, the funds saved early on, will balance that cost.

#2, Swedens Healthcare system is shot to hell, I've discussed this in threads before. The simple fact is that old people in sweden are getting poor Healthcare as it is.

The main issue that is used for an example are the waits. A hip replacement is 3-7 years wait. (average wait is 4.5 years) by the time the hip gets replaced, the uneven load caused by limping for 4.5 years have worn out the other hip, and now you have to wait another 4.5 years average for that hip. That means that the people that need a hip replacement at 70, normally spend the last 9-10 years of their lives in pain.

No i don't think its better..

[reply]

9/07/08

howisbradley
I don't know the details but I do know what I hear. Those I talk and chat with in Canada and the UK complain about their systems. In the end, however, they admit they really like their health care and just complain about its imperfections.

That makes me think that not all Universal Healthcare is bad, maybe just
Universal Healthcare.
9/07/08

csiunatc

OR - they haven't experienced the difference.

I used to complain about the imperfections too. Now that i have a good comparison, I simply prefer the self funded version. IT gives me what i need, when i need it. And i get to choose where i get the service done.

The problem in sweden is that since the waits are so bad, those that can afford it. Get private healthcare anyway. Which means that they are paying double for it. It's one of the major negotiating points for anyone over mid-level management now.

So the wealthy still get better healthcare, from the few private hospitals there are. And the rest get stuck in a high cost - low service system.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

When talking with people in these other countries with universal healthcare, it's also important to take note of WHO you're talking to.

The general consensus I have is that young people who are generally healthy and require relatively little medical care really enjoy universal healthcare.

However, older people who are dealing with health issues, require more healthcare, and need serious healthcare procedures are generally unhappy with universal healthcare. In fact, more and more are coming to the US to receive treatment because their own government has determined that they don't qualify for treatment in their own country, or has determined that the need for treatment is not urgent.

So basically, if you think you'll remain healthy all of your life, into old age, then universal healthcare is probably just what you need.

9/07/08

This is simple math.

You will still have to pay for it. So it will come out of your taxes instead of your pocket.

For arguments sake, lets keep the cost at the same level. Dem's argue it will be cheaper and Reps argue that it will be more expensive, so that seems to be the "fair" balance there.

So your costs will remain the same, PLUS you will be paying to cover the 47 million without insurance.

This is one reason i don't believe for a second that you can do this and lower taxes at the same time.

[reply]

9/07/08

csiunatc...

Why would you find it scary? This is about sick and hungry people. It's about putting those in need above privileged gits who want to ride around in beautiful vehicles with four bedroom houses, and 50" plasma tvs, with have thousands in the banks, whilst spending $100 every month on Starbucks, and whilst spending $200 on satellite tv...

It's quite simple. We are privileged. It is our moral duty to help those less fortunate.

This isn't about being told which religion you can follow, or which political figure to vote for. This is about being forced to pay taxes to help less fortunate people.

Your lack of compassion is scary.

[reply]

9/07/08

I will never believe in forced redistribution of wealth.

When you help those less fortunate through forced programs. You end up with a growing group of people who take advantage of that system. And i for one have no will or moral obligation to take care of those that aren't less fortunate by circumstance. But choose to leech of the system.

I believe that private charity is a better system. I'll donate to the charities that i feel are doing the most good. And are helping the right people.

[reply]

9/07/08

By the way, you have no idea what i've donated in terms of time and money to charity. So how can you determine my level of compassion?

[reply]

9/07/08

othellobloke

I determined your level of compassion by your posts which demonstrate the lack of will to help people who are less fortunate.

Whether or not someone's a prostitute through choice or because she couldn't find a job due to a disabled child who needs round the clock care, so she has to hook to feed her child... SHE IS STILL LESS FORTUNATE THAN YOU!

You need to start caring more. I think it's sad you're a typical example of what's wrong with America and you're not even American. Are you sure you weren't born in the U.S and smuggled to Sweden at birth?
9/07/08

csiunatc

And i can't help her through private charity?

9/07/08

And by the way, if she is a prostitute she is a criminal.

[reply]

9/07/08

othellobloke

Helping through private charity isn't nearly as good as giving your money to the government to redistribute it. Have faith in the government you're sticking up for.

Another example of what's wrong with America... a lack of compassion.

Legalise prostitution and you'd bring jobs to millions of women, bring in billions in taxes, and provide a safe working environment for prostitutes.

Keep it illegal and you'll continually have women getting beaten senseless, and murdered, whilst committing more serious crimes to feed their children.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Yes, let's tax 80 percent of my income and give it to a group of corrupt politicians to redistribute as they see fit. That always works out well.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

"Helping through private charity isn't nearly as good as giving your money to the government to redistribute it."

That's probably the scariest statement I've ever seen on this forum.

There's another word for that. SOCIALISM.
9/07/08

globalgirl

Othello, now we know why you support Obama.

Obama's socialist agenda: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc

I bet you also like what is happening with the mortgage industry with the govt now controlling Freddie and Fannie Mac.

9/07/08

Oh im for legalizing and controlling prostitution. But that does not change the fact that those who are prostitutes in a country where it is illegal are criminals.

And i again disagree with you. I think private charity is better.

[reply]

9/07/08

kristilinauer

@othello--Regarding the children's healthcare program, I know you want to use that to paint the Republicans as cold-hearted bastards, but this is just another example of the Democrats' unchecked out-of-control spending on more and more social programs regardless of what it will do to the economy and the country's deficit.

Sure, children are important. Let's just give them a blank check, shall we? But also, education is important, so let's give the Department of Education a blank check, too. We wouldn't want to deprive the children! Oh, but our vets are important, too, and the programs supporting them need more money, so let's give them a blank check so that those vets can get what they deserve.

My goodness...I sincerely hope you never run for a public office...or work as an accountant at a company....or balance your checkbook, for that matter.

Are you aware that Obama's programs and tax plan will leave our government with a larger deficit? Probably not, because he's conveniently left out that information. What does that mean? Well, we may immediately benefit from his programs, but our children and their children will be forced to pay for them. Good for our country? I think not.

Uncontrolled spending increases our deficit which hurts our country, our economy, and lessens the status of our country in the eyes of the world.

[reply]

9/07/08

satijournal

"Uncontrolled spending increases our deficit which hurts our country, our economy, and lessens the status of our country in the eyes of the world."

That's very true. Funny how McCain is running against Bush's policies of borrow and spend when his policies are exactly the same.

9/07/08

satijournal

The country as a whole benifits more with Democrat economic policies than with Republican.

Democrat's want to increase funding to higher education. When you invest in higher education, you get a high return. People with degrees earn more, therefore pay more in taxes. They also get involved in innovative technologies which creates new industries and generates jobs. Democrats want to help develop new energy technologies that will get us off our dependency on oil. Obama has proposed a fast-track policy by funding the development of alternative fuels and energy sources such as wind, solar, and battery technologies. Obama has also proposed eliminating incentives for companies to outsource jobs overseas and reward companies that keep jobs here.

Although we need a strong military, it's not sound economic policy. Investing in bombs, while it does provide work for some people, doesn't stimulate the economy. We've had a war economy to some extent for the past seven years. Although McCain has adapted some of Obama's alternative energy policies, he doesn't have the background or motivation to really get us off oil. That's why they have the slogan "drill here, drill now." More drilling might indeed lower gas prices IF the oil went only to the U.S. markets, but bills with that stipulation have been shot down in congress by republicans who are in bed with the oil companies.

[reply]

9/07/08

a couple quick points....

* if i were running for president, i'd have kristilinauer as my running mate.
* secondly, obama spent some of his youth in indonesia...so i guess that qualifies him as having foreign policy experience.
* othellobloke, ask those folks in the former soviet empire about how bad the republicans are. ronald reagan certainly didn't do it on his own, but his actions helped free millions of people from the evil empire. oops, forgot, those evil republicans never do anything for others. and although there is still much work to be done in iraq and afghanistan, ask the girls who can now go to school in afghanistan and get an education about how evil republican administrations are. or would you prefer women around the world to not be educated and just barefoot and pregnant? ask the women in iraq who are no longer being pulled off the streets by saddam and his two sick SOB sons for their pleasures to rape and torture. yes, another evil republican action.
* while you're at it...disagree all you want with the current republican administration (i'm a republican and i have a number of issues with bush). bottom line is the man has helped keep us safe for seven years. like the policies or not, how many planes have been flown into buildings since 9/11?
* finally, i have some issues with some of the folks on FOX, but it is nice to at least HEAR the other side. if i were to only listen to msnbc, cnn, nbc, etc. i would think the left is correct 100 percent of the time, obama walks on water, and the 2000 election was stolen from al gore.

[reply]

9/07/08

satijournal

"* while you're at it...disagree all you want with the current republican administration (i'm a republican and i have a number of issues with bush). bottom line is the man has helped keep us safe for seven years. like the policies or not, how many planes have been flown into buildings since 9/11?"

How many planes were flown into buildings before 9/11? The only major attack on civilians in U.S. history was 9/11 and the terrorist responsible for that is still at large. I wouldn't say that's much of an accomplishment.

9/07/08

sat,
i'm sure al gore or john kerry would have apprehended bin laden by now.... give me a break. if bill clinton would have taken care of the problem in 1998 when he had bin laden in his sights (in the form of a missle attack), we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place.

[reply]

9/07/08

othellobloke

You mean kinda the same as when Bin Laden was in Tora Bora, and Bush went golfing and then sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq?

9/07/08

kristi... vetoing a bill that would give needy children all the healthcare they need is not a blank cheque. The bill would have helped children who need help - a Republican twit vetoed it. It's that simple.

davet... Russia was a far stronger country with a far stronger economy when it was under Communist rule, and there are more than a few Russian civilians that want it back. Democracy corrupted and ruined Russia. The breed of Russian super rich would never have been allowed to steal from oil companies had the Soviet Union still been in place.

As for Dubya keeping us safe for seven years? Spoken like a true Republican. He created the danger by invading Iraq, and without considering the possibility that Bin Laden just may not have destroyed the Twin Towers, and you're giving him credit for keeping you safe from it? He's given renewed motivation to suicide bombers, thousands of American citizens - YOUR citizens - are dying in an illegal, pointless conflict in Iraq.. and he's made life more dangerous for Canada, the U.K, and Australia to name a few... all of who are helping to pick up his slack in Afghanistan.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

comment removed by the community.
9/07/08

carlgalloway

@linc4justice, perhaps you should try travelling outside of the states and see what it's like or English language natives in some places. We've become an easy target because of Bush and his cronies Blair and Howard.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

An easy target by who, terrorists? Yes, God forbid we should offend that demographic.
9/07/08

carlgalloway

Terorists? Hell no, regular people living regular lives who are angry at what they see as western imperialism.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Last I checked Spain was part of the western world. When did you guys get annexed by Russia?
9/07/08

carlgalloway

WTF? You are an idiot aren't you? Yes I live in Spain, yes we are part of the western world, but I travel, I enjoy seeing other cultures, however it is no longer quite as pleasant as it used to be, and if you know your geography, you'd know that Spain borders Morocco. In fact I could be in Tangiers for breakfast if I wanted to, we have a fast ferry service that takes 40minutes from Fuengirola
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Stop visiting Muslim dominated countries if you want to have a more pleasant experience traveling.

I suggest Georgia, which is truly lovely this time of year.
9/07/08

carlgalloway

I was right, you are an idiot, and a bigot as well. I don't think I can be bothered discussing this any further
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

Awwww, did I hurt your feeeeeeelings? C'mere and I'll give you a lollipop. That should make it all better.

9/07/08

Linc4justice...

I'd love you to explain what inspired your latest comment. Was it the part about Dubya causing the extra threat from terrorism, or the part about the Soviet Union being a stronger power than Russia?

[reply]

9/07/08

timethief

It's absolutely absurd and that guarantees that our handful of local BC Republican fanboys and fangirls will be citing it ... lmao

[reply]

9/07/08

comment removed by the community.

[reply]

9/07/08

Linc4Justice

So your response to what you perceive as racism is to make prejudicial statements of your own about our country?

Please. You be quiet.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

Oh my gosh...you're not even American? You don't live in the US? Why the heck and I having this conversation with you!!??
9/07/08

csiunatc

No i have to believe Othello here.

There is no way i would be hospitable to him, paid for or not.

I on the other hand am always amazed when I visit the southern states. Tennessee and Georgia being two favorites. Hospitality that's hard to match, and maybe impossible to beat.

SE Florida is unfortunately not like that. I think i have to move.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

As an FYI, othello, your comment about Muslim countries is actually one that I believe as well.

I have visited many different Muslim countries, and I used to live in Turkey, and the hospitality that I experienced in those countries is unlike anything I've seen in the US or any European country. In the Muslim countries I've visited/lived in, the people--whether close friends or complete strangers--would spend their last "dime" on me, feed me huge meals (even if it was the only food in the house), or give me the shirt off their backs in order to make me feel welcome.
9/07/08

Linc4Justice

@csiunatc: LOL

I'm glad you mentioned Tennessee there. I was thinking of moving to that state but need to check out the area first. Did you visit the Great Smokey region?

9/07/08

Linc4justice...

Where was the prejudicial comment I made about America?

csiunatc... I wouldn't want or ask for your hospitality. I don't believe in helping out those less fortunate than I am. Must have spent too much time around you. Considering your rightwing views I'm not surprised you'd like Tennessee. Hospitality that's hard to match? I lived in Virginia and North Carolina and had the opportunity to witness many acts of hospitality. IN RESTUARANTS!

[reply]

9/07/08

othello,
where do i start????

* bush started the iraq event 2 years after 9/11. now i know i don't have an ivy league education and i've never been a community organizer....so forgive my ignorance...but you seem to be saying that invading iraq made us an unsafer country. i'll note it again, last time i checked, we haven't been hit in 7 years. and please don't play the typical blame game by noting that if bush would have done this or that regarding bin laden. it is a simple fact that william jefferson clinton had an opportunity back in 1998 to eliminate bin laden when we had him in our sights and clinton was afraid of the PR fall out from such an attack. do i blame the 3,000 lost lives on 9/11 to clinton? no. may the attack likely been avoided had clinton acted 3 years earlier? quite possibly yes.

* as for the soviet union's empire being so much better than today's russia....there will always be diehards who resist change. ask the folks in what used to be east germany, poland, hungary, bulgaria, etc. if they are not better off today than when under soviet rule. are you saying that having dictators like in north korea, previously in iraq, etc. is the way to go to keep the economy together and things peaceful? if so, i guess we don't need to be sending those food shipments to north korea any longer

* as for the notion that fanatics in the middle east want us dead and has increased because of the iraq war, think again. fanatics wanting folks in the west dead goes back decades. the nutcases who stormed our building in tehran in 1979 are just one of many instances....long before 'W' was even on the scene as a governor of texas. the argument that all the hatred directed at us from those in the middle east and elsewhere stems from the 2003 invasion of iraq makes about as much sense as al gore still claiming the 2000 election was stolen from him.

[reply]

9/08/08

othellobloke

Dude... Americans are getting killed every day. 4000 American soldiers plus countless American citizens have died in Iraq since 11th September attacks on the World Trade Centre. Nobody's flown a plane into buildings yet, but Americans are still getting killed, more and more every day.

I think it's funny how you deny the conflict in Iraq is NOT spawning a whole new generation of anti-american murderers. Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, is one notable one who used the invasion of Iraq as one of his motivations.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the hate stems from 2003 invasion of Iraq. I said that he created the danger by invading Iraq... the EXTRA danger worldwide that all westerners face now. As if there wasn't enough already... Dubya figured it'd be nice to generate more hatred. Nice.
9/08/08

csiunatc

Othello, Thanks for proving my point.

You said... "since 11th September attacks on the World Trade Centre. Nobody's flown a plane into buildings yet."

Obviously something is working to protect the country. Show me proof that it isn't the war on terror. Yes. PROOF. not your personal innuendo.

The facts are that there have been no attacks on US soil since then.
9/08/08

thefly

haha, csiunatic, your point is total mook. So you are implying before Sep. 11th we were being attacked on US soil on what, a monthly basis, weekly, yearly, which? Give me a break. How 'bout you give me proof for your half-baked opinion?
9/08/08

csiunatc

You mean like the WTC Bombings in 1993.

Us Embassy bombings in 1998..

You mean "mook" like that?
9/08/08

thefly

Yup, mook like in you believe that this country is more protected now. haha, ok, im done. Just needed a good laugh.
9/08/08

csiunatc

Nice to know you think that 240+ dead and 1000+ injured is something to laugh about...
9/08/08

thefly

Wasnt laughing about that, I was laughing at you but you cant recognize when someone is laughing at you. Plus, its a monday, I dont really feel like arguing.

buzz buzz

9/08/08

TonyBriley

Intelligent people with any sense will not argue with neocons. No matter what the facts and circumstances, until they decide to open their eyes, you will not convince them of anything.

Glancing through here I see the same things over and over-

9/11 wasn't Bush's fault. He was in office for nearly a year, but he is not responsible.

Iraq was a danger to the USA.

The Iraq war doesn't fuel the flames of those that hate us.

Read my blog entry- To End All Wars, and maybe it will at least shed a little light to the conservatives.

Nah, it won't.

[reply]

9/08/08

csiunatc

Maybe you should put a link if you want people to read...

in any case, i did find it. And since its primarily about waterboarding, i'll leave it to others to read and see why this has any bearing or not.

Your points from my viewpoint.

9/11 wasn't Bushs fault. It was the fault of those that committed the act. Those that commanded it done, and those that funded, planned and facilitated it.

Iraq, may or may not have been a danger to the US. What would have happened if the war hadn't occured is anyones guess.

The Iraq war may fuel flames, but no attack has been carried out on US soil since. So again, Either it helped, or it made no difference with regards to US safety.

Waterboarding and torture is wrong. But it isn't the chief or single matter on which i would decide my vote.

9/08/08

lamenews

actually as gov of Alaska she did had briefings on russia

[reply]

9/08/08

tbriley,
how about those on the left actually take some responsibility? as noted earlier, if clinton had taken out bin laden in 1998 when he had the chance, we may not even be having this discussion....can you at least admit that?? i guess bush was left to try and do the work clinton failed to do....much like reagan had to clean up carter's iranian mess. and as a woman, are you not the least bit happy that young girls can now go to school in afghanistan or that young iraqi women are not having to pleasure saddam's sicko sons?? i have my issues with our going to iraq, but if saddam had weapons (and please don't tell me it is not a possibility they weren't moved to syria or some other friendly nation) and had passed one on to terrorists, which was then used to extinguish your neighborhood, folks on the left would have been screaming to impeach bush for inaction and not acting on intelligence. many (not just the u.s. intelligence) got it wrong or so it seems. radicals in the middle east would have hated us whether we went into iraq or not. i personally don't want to put my faith in the united nations to keep my butt safe. i think we already tried that with saddam to the tune of 17 resolutions, which he quickly thumbed his nose at. a little eye opening is needed on the left too. this notion that if we just ignore the bad guys they will somehow go away is nuts.

[reply]

9/08/08

csiunatc

How come noone remembers that the terrorists arrived in the US to begin their flight training at Embry Riddle the end of CLINTONS presidency. Before Bush had been elected.

This had nothing to do with Bush, it had to do with a general hate from this organization towards America as a country.

The WTC bombings occurred a Feb 26 1993, when clinton had been in office a month.

So if having a democratic president would be the answer, then they should have called off the original bombing. and not sent new people to train for the 9/11 attack while he was in office.

9/08/08

csi,
your point on the '93 bombings is well taken. now as a straight shooter, i will sit here and say that bush 41 should have done a better job possibly preparing the clinton team on the threats out there, etc. and that bush 41's administration deserves some of the blame for feb. 93 wtc bombing. but if i flip that around and say clinton's team blew an opportunity to take out bin laden in 1998 and that impacted bush 43, i'm immediately told that 9/11/ is bush 43's fault entirely and clinton's hands are clean. i don't blame clinton for the 3,000 deaths, but he certainly didn't help the matter. would be nice for someone on the left just once to come out and say clinton's inaction in 1998 did factor into 9/11/ three years later. might be too much to ask though to say a democrat did something wrong.

getting back to the original title of this thread...i see that absurd FOX network had the highest rated convention coverage last week and that MSNBC finished dead last. now the left will argue it was a republican convention, so most viewers will turn to FOX. seems those on the left would have turned out in droves to MSNBC, CNN, etc. to get the 'left' side of the story. best of all, j...ass keith olbermann got canned as lead political voice with chris mathews. even MSNBC wised up and saw olbermann and his far left views were too much for mainstream america.

[reply]

9/08/08

TonyBriley

This is what I meant about not being able to argue with the far wing right. How can someone argue about facts? Its impossible.

Yes, Bill Clinton had the chance to take out Bin Laden and didn't. Neither did Bush 1 or Bush 2, nor Reagan. Instead, we created him, especially Bush 1 and Reagan. They all admit that mistake. This is why my post didn't defend Clinton. It simply stated Bush has some responsibility as well. But right wing nuts simply try to STILL blame Clinton, when it was their Presidents that created him, and not just "missed" him.

"Iraq may or may not have been a danger?" I think we are all waaaaaaaaay past the "may have" state. Statements like this are again, reasons you can't argue with the right. How can anyone, after all that has come out, say that Bush & Company thought for a second Iraq might actually be dangerous?

If we had not invaded Iraq- I can tell you what would have happened. 1) Saddam would still be there as helpless as he was before we started, and B) We would have won Afghanistan.

Davet- Do you understand we not only gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban, but they actually hold more villages now than they did in Sept 2001? These women and children you speak of, across the country, are as bad off as they were or worse.

Csiunatc- It is offensive to US veterans to not refer to us as Americans. We are not safer. There have been more AMERICANS killed in the Iraq war, and FIVE TIMES as many horribly wounded, than happened on 9/11. If it was a necessity to go into Iraq, then we vets would do so without hesitation. But to go a place that everyone (with any reasonable intelligence or education on the issues) knows we shouldn't have gone, that is just slaughtering one group to say another is safe. And unfortunately, as usual, that group getting slaughtered the most is the poor and the minorities. So yes, "we" are safer- if "we" only means the upper class and whites.

I would almost vote on waterboarding alone- I believe there are some things you either stand for or you don't. But not everyone has my values. But I also take wanting to WIN a war, the economy, health care for everyone, and other things into account. A few decades ago those values were republican- now they are Democrat.

[reply]

9/08/08

tbriley,
before you paint people in the 'far right' wing, perhaps you may want to get a little more info on them. i'm a republican...i'm also pro-choice, support legalizing prostitution, do not attend church, think rush limbaugh is an a..hole, etc. not exactly some far right wing nut, am i??? one can make the argument that jimmy carter created the bin ladens of the world by doing squat for more than a year when our hostages were being kept in less than human conditions in iran back in 1979. the terrorists of the world saw the great american superpower as being weak and talking the talk, but not walking the walk. funny how the left always goes after reagan and bush 41, yet the two of them helped free millions of people in eastern europe, kuwait, etc. i guess that's a small tidbit you forgot to mention. and if the taliban were doing so well right now, don't you think the kabul government would have fallen by now? is the country perfect? of course not. do we have more work to do there? of course we do. the 'blame america' crowd has gotten really old. and i wouldn't exactly say saddam was helpless. the man was doing whatever he could to rebuild his military and obtain weapons, which for the right price, could have easily been passed on to terrorists.

[reply]

9/08/08

othellobloke

obtain weapons? You mean the non-existent weapons of mass distraction that Bushy said were on the backs of trucks?

Saddam was an idiot but he was right when he said Kuwait belongs to Iraq. It always was until the British decided to draw a line in the Iraqi desert and call it Kuwait.

Where do you get the idea that the Saddam's weapons could have been passed onto terrorists?

You seem to forget that many different minorities had protection whilst under Saddam's rules. Homosexuals were protected by Saddam's lot, Christians were, as were a trillion other smaller minority sections of society. So long as you didn't rebel against the Baathists you were treated half decently at least.

But I think you are right in the sense that Jimmy Carter was too soft on Iran. He should've sent the Vinson and Stennis in there and bombed their asses back to the stone age. Doesn't really matter though because Israel's going to do it sooner or later.
9/09/08

carlgalloway

Kuwait may have been part of Iraq in the past, but several generations of Kuwaitis since then see themselves as Kuwaitis, not Iraqis. They deserve the right to choose their own destiny, just like the native people of Canada you're so fond of defending.

9/09/08

so because the weapons haven't been located....you're 100 percent sure they never existed? and last time i checked, kuwait did not belong to iraq. trying to make saddam out to be looking out for others other than maybe his own sons is a tough argument to make, but go for it. this is the same guy who had his son-in-law executed.

[reply]

9/09/08

back to the direction of this thread originally....i must give props to MSNBC for removing olbermann/mathews from the lead political anchor chairs. as was noted on another thread, MSNBC became way over the top in its lovefest with obama. mathews seemed to get caught up in it while hillary was still in the race. as for olbermann, he's been a j...ass since day one. nothing wrong with him having his opinion (his right), but he was so over the top with it. a GOOD news reporter or anchor is someone who you watch night after night and you're left scratching your head afterwards wondering if they're left or right/republican/democrat/independent, etc. it is much like an umpire or referee in a sporting event. you shouldn't even notice them. olbermann made it a point to insert himself into the coverage night after night. he was in denver for a week like a little lovesick teen girl watching her favorite rock star, but he was in new york during the republican convention. only problem with that is the repubs were 1,000 miles away in minneapolis! the only down side to his removal is that he was actually scoring some points recently for the mc cain/palin team because of his outlandish comments. on second thought, bring him back!!!!

[reply]

9/09/08

TOMDDiary

I did a posting on "fair and Balanced Reporting" on my blog.
Can read at: www.thoughtsonmyday.com Fox News is the least "fair and balanced" network on the air.

[reply]

9/09/08

TOM,
so since fox is the least "fair and balanced" network on the air, i guess o'reilly should not have had obama on as a guest? and i guess since they're the least "fair and balanced" network on the air, they should not permit comments from alan colmes, juan williams, jane hall, greta, etc. or have left leaning guests on like they do? msnbc was way over the top with keith "i don't have a hair out of place" olbermann anchoring their political coverage. it was only a matter of time before msnbc listened to mainstream america and removed the idiot.

[reply]

9/09/08

RuinousRight

[reply]

9/09/08