After some thought, I’ve decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there’s no one more appropriate.
I’ve even got the slogan: “Putting the ‘Aaaaay!’ in Aaaaay-merica.”
PAD
• 
Craig said, No. Thankfully, you’re a nobody.Instead of helping me move, you can dig your own grave, because that’s what you’ll get with Bush.But, hey, 58 million stupid nobodies can’t be wrong, right?This country isn’t worth the bûllšhìŧ.
Thanks for calling me and 58 million other voters a nobody and telling me to dig my own grave. I appreciate your warm comments.
Maybe you should leave the country if you have such a negative opinion of it. Nobody’s telling you you have to stay here are they?
Maybe you should leave the country if you have such a negative opinion of it. Nobody’s telling you you have to stay here are they?
Well, if you want to write me a check so I can leave, by all means, do so.
I’d rather force Bush to leave the county. But, we don’t always get what we want, do we?
Bush’s idea of being president is to create a large of a mess as possible, leave office, and not give a dámņ that somebody has gets to clean it up.
Why 58 million people prefer that, I have no dámņ idea. But it sickens me.
Read carefully all of you people who think Kerry’s testimony before Congress caused our POW’s to be tortured more horribly or kept longer. Do you seriously think that the Vietnamese DID NOT know of the atrocities already? Do you think Kerry’s testimony told them anything about what was happening in their own country? Were they living under rocks? Find another argument. Also, there have been atrocities that were documented at the time. Mai Lai and Lr Calley? So stop demonizing Kerry for telling the American people what had been going on without their knowledge. The Vietnamese did not torture GI’s any worse after his testimony, because they were aware that the atrocities were happening to their OWN people. It makes me sick that people on this board are so eager to believe these Swift Boaters for lies, they are trying to rewrite history.
Karen said It makes me sick that people on this board are so eager to believe these Swift Boaters for lies, they are trying to rewrite history.
Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn’t they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn’t allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief? Nah,that couldn’t be the case.
I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Craig said Well, if you want to write me a check so I can leave, by all means, do so.
OIC, now I’m not only responsible for you wanting to leave as you’ve stated, but I have to pay you for it too. Good grief. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
To those who still want to toss around this reported meeting in Paris in the early ’70s –
The operant word, in both the discussion of treason and the UCMJ, is “enemy”. “Enemy”, legally speaking, has a very specific meaning. It would require that what was going on in Vietnam was, in fact, a war.
It was not.
War was never declared in Vietnam – nto by the US, and not against the US by North Vietnam (the Viet Cong were terrorists, not a governmental force, and therefore had no standing to declare war nor have it declared against them).
John Kerry was no more guilty of high treason than, say, Jane Fonda, or than Nixon was for going to Communist China.
Can we please stop throwing around false charges, and/or reacting automatically as if such charges were true?
I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the UCMJ, under which Kerry was required to adhere to, where an Enemy is only defined if we are in a declared War. Can you point that out to me?
OIC, now I’m not only responsible for you wanting to leave as you’ve stated, but I have to pay you for it too. Good grief. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Well, you’re Canadian, something I didn’t realize before. So, now I know that your opinion means next to nothing.
So, you don’t even have any cake to begin with.
I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the UCMJ, under which Kerry was required to adhere to, where an Enemy is only defined if we are in a declared War.
By my own definition, Bush is an “enemy”. Arrest him.
Because, you know, if that sort of personal definition bs works for some of you, I guess it can work for me. I win.
“War was never declared in Vietnam – nto by the US, and not against the US by North Vietnam (the Viet Cong were terrorists, not a governmental force, and therefore had no standing to declare war nor have it declared against them).”
“John Kerry was no more guilty of high treason than, say, Jane Fonda, or than Nixon was for going to Communist China.”
For the record. I don’t think that KErry was in any way guilty of treason.
That said, there seems to be a problem with the way you define treason. It can’t only be treason if you collaborate with people with whom we are at war–we never declared war on the Soviet Union, yet I believe that most who were charged with treason were guilty of working for the Russians.
Yes, lets blame the swift boat vets now. They had nothing to lose by coming forth did they? Why didn’t they stay silent? You think maybe they believed in thier hearts that they couldn’t allow a man like Kerry to be our Commander in Chief?
I’d have less problems with them if they had the integrity that they claimed Kerry didn’t have.
I would like you to cite any lies they presented please. This might be interesting.
Not really. They, by their own admission, weren’t there; they were at some distance. The people involved, including people under Kerry’s command WERE at hand; they’ve backed up Kerry’s version of events (even the one person who didn’t like him). (And if you want to go that far, some of the surviving Vietnamese villagers supported the Kerry version of events).
Frankly, that there’s a controversy about this simply astonishes me. That there are differing accounts about this isn;t surprising (different locations and all), but if we’re going to be relying on eyewitness testimony, I’d sure as hëll trust the folks where at the scene over folks who were even a little distance away.
Bush’s idea of being president is to create a large of a mess as possible, leave office, and not give a dámņ that somebody has gets to clean it up.
In 4 years when Democrats lose again all eyes should be on those who make statements like this to blame. I have a few left leanings, but when extreme comments come out like this, I don’t want to align myself with those who think like this.
In 4 years when Democrats lose again all eyes should be on those who make statements like this to blame. I have a few left leanings, but when extreme comments come out like this, I don’t want to align myself with those who think like this.
Fine, don’t. I just shows me that people really don’t care enough about what the hëll is going on in this country then.
Which should explain why Kerry lost in the first place.
I expect the national deficit to be a mess in 4 years, and I expect Iraq to still be a mess in 4 years. And it will no longer be Bush’s problem.
Well Craig, as mentioned somewhere else on PAD’s blog.
The Republicans control the executive branch, the presidency.
The Republicans control the legislative branch, with majorities in the house and senate.
The Republicans will probably end up “controlling” the Supreme Court soon too.
Then in 4 years when this country is more fûçkëd-ûp and fûçkëd-øvër than a pørņ star at a gáņg báņg, the American people have only the Republican party to blame….
Not that they’ll have the free speech to say so at that point….
“I expect the national deficit to be a mess in 4 years, and I expect Iraq to still be a mess in 4 years. And it will no longer be Bush’s problem.”
Well, hey, y’never know. With checks and balances out of whack, why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment? If bin Laden is ever actually caught, they can make enough political hay out of it to take a serious run at it.
PAD
PAD posted: “Well, hey, y’never know. With checks and balances out of whack, why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment? If bin Laden is ever actually caught, they can make enough political hay out of it to take a serious run at it.”
Here’s why I wish to heck they’d try it:
They do that, and the ’08 race becomes Dubya versus Bill Clinton, I guarantee it. And there’s no way Bill doesn’t clean Dubya’s clock.
Best,
Julio
PAD,
“why rule out a possible repealing of the Presidential term limit amendment”
You know I thought of that, but it would be a double edged sword for them. Clinton would also be allowed to run again!
Clinton in ’08!
I thought Clinton was running in ’08. 🙂
Craig said Well, you’re Canadian, something I didn’t realize before. So, now I know that your opinion means next to nothing. So, you don’t even have any cake to begin with.
First you call me a nobody, then you say my opinion means next to nothing because you believe I’m a Canadian. I’m sure that Canadians want to know their opinion means nothing to you since they are Canadians. That’s an insult to the few Canadian’s who do post here. Good job Craig, not only do you try to insult me, you insult other people at the same time.
It’s funny, I went to bed last night as an American and woke up as a Canadian. You really work magic Craig. I state in another thread that I liked Canada and you jump to conclusions. Sounds a lot like Kerry jumping to conclusions based on what he reads in the paper.
I’m American 100% proof, have already defended my country before and would support and defend America regardless of who our President is. Isn’t it ironic that I helped support and defend our country so you have the right to call me a nobody and continuously whine about how bad our country is without doing anything about it except for saying ‘Woe is me’.
What’s your excuse?
Novafan said…
I’m sure that Canadians want to know their opinion means nothing to you since they are Canadians. That’s an insult to the few Canadian’s who do post here.
An observation:
I’ve read a few times around here that upset Democrats should essentially shut up about the election, because a clear majority of Americans wanted Bush.
I think it’s safe to say that a clear majority of the rest of the world wanted Kerry.
Now, I’m not saying that foreigners should elect your president, because (of course) that’s absurd.
But you’d think such an overwhelming amount of worldwide opposition would cause certain individuals to think, “hey, maybe these people have a point. What are we doing to our international reputation?” This might be a particularly useful thought to have these days, since international terrorism tends to spring from foreigners hating Americans.
Isn’t it a good idea to assess (a) why some of these people are upset with you, and (b) whether the current administration is helping the situation, or hurting it?
Just to clarify, the above wasn’t intended to go after Novafan. I realize he was supporting the rights of foreigners to express their opinions here, and was supporting him.
Jeff said Just to clarify, the above wasn’t intended to go after Novafan. I realize he was supporting the rights of foreigners to express their opinions here, and was supporting him.
Man, I didn’t defend your rights just so you could go and take a jab at the President. Sheesh, lol. I can’t win for losing. I guess that’s another take on irony isn’t it?
Jeff, we don’t elect our President based on World opinion. We elect a president that will protect our nation’s best interests. That’s probably one of the Reasons Kerry lost, because American’s don’t want a President that goes to the United Nations or other Countries for decisions he has to make to protect our country. Kerry might not have meant his global test would mean other countries would define our countries policies, but he did open his mouth and insert his foot (actually, he inserted many feet with that comment). Of all the mistakes he made, that one was probably the fatal one.
I care what other countries think about us, but I care more that we do what it takes to stop injustices in the world and protect the weak who can’t protect themselves. We’re making good progress, but there’s so much more to do. If other countries hate us because we do the right thing, then so be it.
The fact is, the Taliban had to be removed. Check.
The fact is, Saddam was a tyrant/killer/murderer of millions of innocents during his reign and had to be removed. Check. (It wasn’t a question of who removed him from power, but when he was removed. Kerry himself said over and over that Saddam had to be removed from power).
The fact is, Libya çráppëd their pants and gave up their nuclear ambitions. Check.
The fact is, we have a tremendous loss of life both for citizens and military of several nations in Iraq. Check.
Does the loss of lives compare with what would have happened if Saddam had stayed in power and acquired Nuclear weapons. No check. If Saddam had acquired Nuclear weapons, which he had the money and resources to do so, the world would be a much different place right now. Israel would have gone first because Saddam showed the capability of using weapons of that magnitude and then the rest of the world would have followed suit.
Novafan wrote…
Jeff, we don’t elect our President based on World opinion.
Of course not, and I don’t expect that you should. What I’m saying is that world opinion should at least be valued and considered. If you do that and still decide to do your own thing, then fine. But I get the impression that too many (not all) Republican voters have an attitude that amounts to “fûçk the world.”
Sure, Kerry’s “global test” didn’t go over well. That doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t a good idea, and I get the impression that you know what he meant rather than what was interpreted.
After all, that’s what the United Nations is for. What was the point in the U.S. helping to write international law when it holds only others, and not itself to those laws?
But yeah, like I said, of course you guys get to elect your own president.
Fine, don’t. I just shows me that people really don’t care enough about what the hëll is going on in this country then.
Which should explain why Kerry lost in the first place.
Yeah, they didn’t care so much they had record turn out at the polls. Try to spin it again.
It’s funny, I went to bed last night as an American and woke up as a Canadian. You really work magic Craig. I state in another thread that I liked Canada and you jump to conclusions. Sounds a lot like Kerry jumping to conclusions based on what he reads in the paper.
Ok, maybe I jumped to a conclusion on this one. Too many posts to keep track of, and your handle here didn’t help the situation any.
It’s funny you bring up who reads the paper – Bush said he doesn’t read the newspaper. Frankly, I wonder if he knows how to read at all.
What was the point in the U.S. helping to write international law when it holds only others, and not itself to those laws?
Because the UN doesn’t bend over for the US ever time the US wants to blow something up.
The UN is a great idea that the US continually makes a mockery of. I’ve said in the past that the UN is nothing more than a world debate club.
Yet, it is the US that has made it nothing but that.
Craig J. Ries: And for that, Bush is more than happy to ship you over to Iraq to die for his crusade.
Luigi Novi: I
Um, is there some reason why when I tried to post here the other night, I got a page telling me that posts are held when someone posts “for the first time,” and even now, the post has not appeared?
Craig J. Ries: And for that, Bush is more than happy to ship you over to Iraq to die for his crusade.
Luigi Novi: I
Luigi:
>Um, is there some reason why when I tried to post here the other night, I got a page telling me that posts are held when someone posts “for the first time,” and even now, the post has not appeared?
Bush’s fault. 😉
I am desperate to find an “Angel Smile Time Puppet” for my little eleven-year-old angel, Rachael Reeves. I just hope I can get a quick response to give her some hope of finding an “affordable” puppet out there somewhere. Thank you for your time on this matter, Lesli Reeves
Please, oh, please help me to find an affordable “Angel Smile Time” Puppet. The only one I have found was about a hundred dollars. My precious eleven-year-old daughter, Rachael Reeves is very discouraged. I am on a limited income (disabled), so I need to find the cheapest one possible. Any help or assistance would be greatly appreceiated.
Thank you for your time. Leslie Reeves
e-mail: buffy069@comcast.net
phone: (865)876-237-39
You guys are the 74854 best, thanks so much for the help.
Putin declared years ago that the concept of democracy in Russia didnt need to mirror the one in the West. He said they would find their own way… This was his ideological slap in the face to anyone who questioned his methods from outside Russia; closing independent media, jailing whoever did not sell his stocks to whoever he said… After all this was the guy who declared how much he admired Pinochet when he got to power.
“It may not be called Communism, but it’s certainly not a democracy”
But the absence of democracy does not equal communism. As much as soviet Russia capitalized national pride and heroes, it did on a pan-russian scale. Slavic russians might have been the majority, but the state made sure everyone had their share of exposure and praise. Right now its exactly the opposite, with the mayor of Moscow vetoing certain ethnias into the city and the police turning a blind eye whenever someone from the caucasus see his shop burnt down.
The URSS wasnt constant in its prosecution of religious practices, but right now the Russian Orthodox Church is a religion of state, with popes and patriarchs having para-legal authority over education and health issues.
The Cchinese had to rout their communist system from the inside to make a viable state. The Russians dont want to try a new branch of communism, nor imitate the chinese. They want a rigidly controlled capitalist state much like the one Pinochet built in Chile (to the praise of School of Chicago economists like the recently deceased Milton Friedman). Or better said, Putin wants that. And he got it, because as much as the western public oppinion was appaled at the authocratic bent of his regime, western bussinesmen were more than happy to deal with a strong man able to guarantee their profits.
The whole tzarist scenography is meant to inflame nationalism, jingoism and chauvinism. There are summer camps in Russia were teens listen to heavy rock and praise Putin image. Where tutors payed by a branch of the goverment party make the teens burn dummies with the faces of political oppositors and the presidents of countries like Estonia or Ukraine. Russia has declared that its their right to do whatever they feel necesary to protect russians wherever they are…and there are millions of them in ex-soviets countries! Do the name Sudetenland ring a bell?
http://www.elpais.com/fotografia/internacional/Separatistas/surosetios/celebran/decision/Kremlin/elpfotint/20080827elpepiint_1/Ies/
This is an AP photo of “ossetians” celebrating their recognition by the russian Duma. See that Eagle?
They want a rigidly controlled capitalist state much like the one Pinochet built in Chile (to the praise of School of Chicago economists like the recently deceased Milton Friedman).
Not sure that’s entirely fair to Friedman. He wrote that “Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system … the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system.” and “The Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.”
Lots of scary stuff happening.
While I’m mostly a liberal, whenever I read of what Putin is doing I once again come to the realization that what truly matters in international politics is strength. Of arms, of conviction, of commerce.
Laws? Morality? Ethics? Just windom dressing, mostly useful for propaganda purposes, but with little effect in how the real world of foreign policy works.
And while I’ll always hate George W. Bush, the reason he dramatically failed as a leader might not have anything to do with his authoritarian ways, it’s just that he wasn’t as competent at being a demagogue, warmongering, would-be dictator as Putin is.
Yeah, I’m bitter, and I always get bitter when I read about this stuff, and how every side of every conflict always tries to spin things to their advantage.
Basically Friedman said the kitchen had an awful smell but that he liked the meals done there. To believe it was “free market” what brought back democracy to Chile is a repulsive spin, and a spit to the grave of Allende.
Lets remember what prompted Pinochet’s coup (with the aide of the USA) was the (gasp!) nationalization of Chilean copper bussines. So for Friedman a dictatorship was OK if it killed stinky socialists and brought his idea of free market. Excuse me if I dont feel like beign fair to him.
“As much as soviet Russia capitalized national pride and heroes, it did on a pan-russian scale. Slavic russians might have been the majority, but the state made sure everyone had their share of exposure and praise.”
I’m no expert, but I think this is an idealized version of events. I’m not sure other ethnic groups in the USSR shared that view — or the USSR would not have broken up.
Another thing to remember is this. When a group has total hegemony over a society it might treat other groups with condesending benevolence, but when that hegemony is challenged then fears creep up and racism with them.
I don’t know if Putin’s system could be considered capitalistic because of all the government control. But it is not communism either.
Autocracy seems to be a constant of Russian politics.
Chauvinism probably existed both in Communist and Tzarist Russia. As well as other societies. But the fact that Putin is inflaming it is certainly a bad thing.
“Do the name Sudetenland ring a bell?”
Yes. I think everybody thought of that. But historical analogies, especially to nazism, are risky business. It is certainly a reasonable concern that Putin will use Russian minorities outside Russia as a pretext to extend his influence, but hopefully not in the same way as Hitler did.
“Back in the cold war the USA had many allies bordering the URSS… Turkey, Persia (with the Sha, after the coup) or Finland come to mind… The USA had planes flying out Turkey and into the URSS on a regular basis. Yet, the URSS never felt confident or cocky enough to exert direct force against anyone under the USA’s umbrella.”
The cold war created boundaries that both countries feared to cross, namely the possibility of direct military confrontation between the USSR and the US. These boundaries were established by events like the siege of Berlin and the Cuba Missle crisis. After the cold war ended these boundaries disappeared and people have been testing new boundaries, trying to figure what they are. During the Cold War the Russians knew that attacking Finland or Turkey directly will result in direct military confrontation with the US. Now they knew that invading Georgia will not have a similar results.
Trying to pressure Russia by economic sanctions at this stage is risky. It might have opposite results. It’s a difficult chess game. Right now the US has to rebuild its strength, while using the fears over the USSR to build up alliances without drawing too much attention.
“…historical analogies, especially to nazism, are risky business”
The analogy related more to the precise incident than to nazism; the use of an ethnic sense of brotherhood to disguise a forceful seize of land and later a whole country… Czechoslovakia and Georgia also share their status as recently separated parts of their agressors empires (the germanic Austrian Empire and the russian USSR).
This doesnt mean to compare both regimes, but just their tactics.
“Trying to pressure Russia by economic sanctions at this stage is risky”
Risky? is nearly impossible. Most of Europe get its heating gas from Russia and you cant end that dependence in a short notice. A couple of years ago Putin nearly gave a heart attack to the Germans when he treathened to raise Gas prices, and he is now menacing to cut it to Poland and the Czech to punish them for the missile shield. The EU cant cut its dependence from Russia fuel without securing another source first… and doing that would skyrocket prices even more, while Russia can simply sell to China what the EU dont buy.
Regarding ethnic policies in the USSR, I just speak about that; policies. The russians were in control and I can name many tragedies (the famine disaster in Ukraine that Stalin used to russify the region, the banning of baltic languajes, the massive deportation of chechens after WWII…). Also I am sure the average Joe (or Nikolai) would rant about “handouts to those dammns tartars/kazajs/moldavians” or tell jokes about them. But no mayor of Moscow would even contemplate to issue laws banning certain ethnicities from the city. There was an official message of brotherhood that many people bought and even believed in, and that barred pan-slavism from politic discourse.