Enough

[Show Me the Wire]

Enough is enough. I understand it is easy to hate a man, that has shattered your illusions of how the world operates. Ljb, amazing and the rest of your ilk, you are in the minority on this board and in this country. Collectively, you call this board biased. The board is not biased, it is you that is biased and out of step with the majority.

Understand you are the ones with differing ideals but you do not know how to deal with it. Instead you subject everyone with incessant complaining about President Bush. You should try extolling the great factors about your chosen cndidates, of course that is difficult to do when none of your candidates have anything to contribute to solving national issues, except I can defeat the sitting president mantra. I see that as a weak platform for an aspiring national leader. But hey I am in the majority.

In fact I have posted many parallels between President Bush’s economic and national defense policies and JFk’s. I repeatedly asked any Pres. Bush thrasher to differentiate between the two presidents specific policies and each and every time my challenge has been ignored. It has been ignored, because Pres, Bush’s policies are very similar to JFK's and not one of you Pres, Bush bashers, can smear Pres. Bush’s policies without smearing JFK’s motives getting the U.S. involved in Vietnam for purely economical issues and being responsible for the death of innocent civilians of a sovereign country. Such admissions regarding JFK’s hawk like tendencies about Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis and his space program would be blasphemy from any self –respecting Democrat.

Remember, “Ask what you can do for your country and not what can your country do for you”; you LBJ clones and stop deluding yourselves that you share the majority viewpoint. You espouse the minority viewpoint.

Call President Bush whatever you want it is your right, but correctly state your position as the minority view, instead of giving the impression your statement is the majority view while citing other minority publications and speakers as authority of the majority view.

President Clinton is a liar, a perjurer under oath, admittedly so by Clinton himself, but according to some I am biased because I believe Clinton lied about his relationship with an intern, and the real reason I am biased is because some Clinton supporters believe Clinton should have never been asked certain questions. If these questions were not asked he would not have had to commit perjury. What a bunch of hooey.

And don’t try to spin the above by stating I pulled Clinton into this argument to deflect Pres. Bush’s lies. I am using Clinton as real life example of what the majority understand a liar to be, not the illusionary hype of biased thoughts about the definition of a liar.

Regards.
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality


The bias is in the eye of the beholder.

[Secretariat]

Wow...There are so many differences between Bush and Kennedy. From his absolute commitment to division between church and state - he even made a long speech about this problem of goverment funded schools. The tax cut issue you stated was held up in Congress. One has to remember that there was no deficit like the one we have this time. A much different situation. Bush's policy of "pre-emption" and denigrating the UN is in direct contrast to Kennedy. Below is from Kennedy's inauguration speech:

"So let us begin anew. . .remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms. . .and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations."

Doesn't sound like Bush to me.

Kennedy showed remarkable restraint against a real threat during the Cuban Missle Crisis, and the one time he tried pre-emption resulted in the Bay of Pigs fiasco for which he admitted a mistake. His excursion into the Vietnam situation was flawed, but it was the Cold War mentality at the time. No excuse he was wrong. He constantly emphasized education in poetry and the arts, which Bush recently trashed in his budget. Kennedy helped civil rights in the Senate and passed many Executive Orders in that regard. In 1963 he signed a treaty barring atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Bush is now talking about renewed testing efforts. He helped begin the Peace Corps, not an intiative Bush has much interest in.

As to our personal rights Kennedy said this:

"Let the word go forth from this time and place. . .to friend and foe alike. . . that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . . born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage. . .and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today. . .at home and around the world"

Bush signed the Patriot Act severely restricting our rights.

As to compassionate conservatism Kennedy said this:

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

As to the UN:

"To that world assembly of sovereign states: the United Nations. . . our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support."

As to Cheyney's refusal to hand over even the attendees of the Energy Commission, or Bush's continual refusal to pass over requests from the 911 commission, Keenedy said this:

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with
unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and
competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let
its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open
market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

Bush is so different from Kennedy. Just because both pushed for a tax cut, and embroiled our nations in wars abroad mistakenly does not make them the same. I didn't even go into many of the other issues, or the post would have gone on too long. too long as it is.

[Show Me the Wire]

I do not recall Pres. Bush calling for the unification of state and church. Pres. Bush is a religious man, do not confuse his religious beliefs with meaning he is a supporter of unifying church and state. Another minority opinion without substance.

Happy to see an admission JFK was a hawk and killed lots of civilians during his military mistakes. Hear that Amazin according to your thought patterns, JFK was a murderer too like Pres. Bush.

BTW a terrorist threat based in and financed by a sovereign foreign government is just as real of a threat as the threat you perceived during the Cuban Missle threat.

JFK did not use or ask the U.N. for permission to defend the U.S. and he gave a nice speech about the other nations controlling each others wmd. What he practiced though was mutual assured destruction. Also the U.N. was more legitimate then with the most powerful nations holding the most influence, unlike today's ineffective forumn filled with insignificant countries and daily changing governments

Yes times have changed. Instead of the cold war mentality we now have the terrorist mentality. To survive we must adapt.

To quote "Different solutions for different problems."So let us begin anew. . .remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms. . .and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations"

The above route was taken by Pres.Bush and the U.N. regarding Iraq. Since this tack failed Pres. Bush decided to protect the people he pledged to protect through use of the military.


Also, I have never heard Pres. Bush, or the Republican platform, push isolationism to protect us from foreign ideas. Pres. Bush wants foreign involvement in the war against terrorism. He said you are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism, not that he will stop foreign ideas from poisoning the U.S.

Additionally, JFK did not have the deficits Pres. Bush has, nor did JFK have the massive government welfare system either that LBJ saddled the country with.

I doubt if JFK filled out his term we would not have the same governmet programs LBJ instituted.

However, I agree the patriot Act is too restrictive, but alot of our liberties have been taken away by liberals alsounder the pretense of public safety. This is an issue that all U.S. citizens shouldbe cognizant about.

As you said Secrtariat different times, different enemies and a changed U.N., but the President's determination to protect his citizens is strong like JFK.

Once again all it boils down to is a bunch of minority hooey.

Regards.
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Bush never “negotiated” with the UN. He informed the UN what he was going to do. That is not negotiation. He did not have the support of the UN before going into Iraq, and prohibited a Security Council vote because he knew he would not have it. Your allegation that the UN is not what it was during the Cold War is a nebulous charge, unless you mean the people are different. The by-laws are basically the same. Of course the players are different. Kruschev was a real threat to the world then and “VERIFIABLE”. Hussein was not. See the difference between the Soviet Union’s weapons and Hussein’s were that the Soviet Unions were REAL.

You ignore the last quote about entrusting the people to know the truth. I see why. You ignore the nuclear weapons treaty of Kennedy. But that does not surprise me.

Bush is not stupid enough to call for the unification of church and state. He knows that is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights. Instead he blurs the line by providing public-tax monies to vouchers which can be used for religious schools, he creates new rules for religious institutions to access 20 billion in federal social service grants, and another 8 billion in Housing and Urban Development money. This is taxpayer money. These religious organizations have no accountability, no certification requirements, and no oversight. While I think their intentions are honorable, it in no way diminshes that Bush is granting taxpayer money (the state) with religious organizations (the church). Blurring the distinction of seperation of church and state. Something Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would have never dreamed of doing.

You provide no evidence or substantiation of Iraq being a terrorist threat. In fact, evidence presented thus far by Kay and others, is quite to the contrary. Placing missles in Cuba which we can see on the ships and in photos, is quite different than the “gathering imminent threats” claims of Bush’s team. In fact I am still waiting for a US terrorist action committed by an Iraqi before our invasion to be revealed.

Saying you are either with us or against us is not “enlisting” our allies, it is sending them an ultimatum. Kennedy never said any such thing.

Social Security existed during Kennedy’s admin, and he was a proponent of Medicare. And for 37 years after Kennedy’s death, those deficits with all these Great Society programs, seemed manageable, until the last three years. Why is that? Why have those deficits balloooned under the Bush admin? They didn’t under Kennedy’s three years, or Carter’s or Clinton’s?

I certainly never said a different UN. You said that. All President’s intentions are to protect their citizens. The truth is Bush ignored key warnings which could have led to protecting our citizens. The buck stops in his office. Lloyd Bentsen’s comment about Quayle is certainly applicable to Bush “He’s no Jack Kennedy.”

[ljb]

Showmethewire,
Comparing Bush to Kennedy is like comparing Cheney to Mother Teresa. They are opposites.

[Tom]

Good post. Too bad there is already a rash appearing here.
These trolls are not worth the bother of acknowledging. They bring noting to the table and are only here to see how many peopl ethey can p*ss off.
I suggest a new, and final, coded response.....

101 - Shut up, Troll. Go haunt another bridge. This one doesn't
want you here.

[ljb]

Tom,
What's the problem? Truth starting to bite you in the arse ?
Hurts doesn't it!

7

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
What's the problem? Truth starting to bite you in the arse ?
Hurts doesn't it!

7

No. It just makes no sense trying to discuss things with you when your agenda obvioulsy in not dialoge but aggervation.
You are not worth it because you are not only wrong but the minority. Small fish.
101

[Show Me the Wire]

"Kruschev was a real threat to the world then and “VERIFIABLE”."

That is what the government led you to believe. Kruscev, in fact made a famous speech stating he would defeat America from within without violence. Does not sound like a threat to me.

Aslo, do your reseach on the school voucher plan. More of a Democratic idea.

No I do not see the difference between Cuba a sovereign foreign nation wanting missles on its own soil for protection, thus allowing JFK to threaten violence. No matter how you spin it Cuba is a sovereign country, just like Iraq.

I did not ignore your treaty comment, it just like everything else in a chnging world it has become meaningless. There are too many nations that have developed such weapons and the ydo want they want. JFK's intention was to limit the proliferation of such weapons and that strategy has failed. Clinton is responsible for some of the failure.

Once again, your posts shows the minoritties mindset to cling to the past .

ljb I do not think Mother Teresa would order the invansion of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, then withdraw her support during the operation allowing people that relied on her word to be murdered.

ljb your illusionary world has been shattered and now you hate Pres. Bush for shattering the myth.

This country was built on individual efforts, not socialistic programs and the invasion of foreign countries to insure our national safety.

Your minority view is that just a view seen through your minority perspective and based on sound bites and phrases.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Larry Hamilton]

Look you guys, I am going to tell you something I have not shared before. Now it seems to be the right time. When I was a kid on Okinawa, me and bunch of boys camped out in the back yard. My brother contracted Encephalitis (Sp), had a 105 fever for nearly a week. When it broke he had the physical abilities and mental capabilities of an infant. Gradually, he came back, but never all the way.

The part of his brain that reasoned was fried and he never recovered.

I have seen first hand what it means to live with someone who cannot reason. There are rarely substatiated facts. That he could connect dots in strange and illogical ways troubled him not at all. It was his way, therefore it must be right. To enter a discussion with this kind of brain is dangerous to your own sanity as more often than not, there is merely conjecture, namecalling and anger. And, all the while with his chest puffed out while he pontificates that black is white.

That mosquito took my brothers brain forever. The mention of my brother is no accident, draw from it what you like.

[JustRalph]

President Bush has to deal with a press and communications system that is willing to tell everything they find and have it "on the wire in seconds" so President Bush could never be addicted to Prescription pain meds (you Rush Limbaugh haters should remember that Rush wasn't the first) and have a secret pact with the President and all of the cabinet to not divulge such a thing.

President Bush isn't running around Hollywood Long Dicking everything that doesn't do him first. This includes a paid, on payroll secretary that was actually a 19 year old piece of ass that traveled with him everywhere he went and serviced him at will. Including hiding in the trunk of Limo's and laying on the floor of the Presidential Limo. Could you imagine if that was going on today? There would be pictures on the Internet in 5 minutes.

You guys who compare John Ashcroft and the way he "treats human rights and the Patriot Act" should remember what Bobby Kennedy went through with the Teamsters. I can say he was after organized crime and that would be a good thing if his brother wasn't hob nobbing with the Giancanna crowd while hanging out with Sinatra and Peter Lawford. Many believe to this day that this incestuous relationship with the mob is what put the bullet in Kennedy's head. Both of them.........

The press jumps up and down when the Bush girls get caught drinking underage. Let's remember what Ted Kennedy did that fateful night when he killed Mary Jo? The Bush girls are parking tickets compared to that sh@#. So making comparisons to Bush and Kennedy may not be the best thing to do if you are Dem. It can go both ways...........

I did notice those pictures of John Kerry on the boat and standing in the background of several shots with John Kennedy. He was a young wannabe back then and god bless him for his willing and able work in the Navy......but he is just damn wrong about what he wants to do with the country.

BTW...........Larry makes a good point...........

[Tom]

My monkey is bigger than your monkey!:eek:

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
My monkey is bigger than your monkey!:eek:

Yeah But mine is holding a Bud and smoking a cigarette while holding a Playboy magazine............ I thought for sure "the crowd" would have gone after me for posting it. Oh well........ I kind of like him. I guess I will have to celebrate our simian greatness as frothing members of the uneducated right wing conspiracy. Just another good ole boy ....... I have been accused of being worse.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
"Kruschev was a real threat to the world then and “VERIFIABLE”."

That is what the government led you to believe. Kruscev, in fact made a famous speech stating he would defeat America from within without violence. Does not sound like a threat to me.

Aslo, do your reseach on the school voucher plan. More of a Democratic idea.

No I do not see the difference between Cuba a sovereign foreign nation wanting missles on its own soil for protection, thus allowing JFK to threaten violence. No matter how you spin it Cuba is a sovereign country, just like Iraq.

I did not ignore your treaty comment, it just like everything else in a chnging world it has become meaningless. There are too many nations that have developed such weapons and the ydo want they want. JFK's intention was to limit the proliferation of such weapons and that strategy has failed. Clinton is responsible for some of the failure.

Once again, your posts shows the minoritties mindset to cling to the past .

ljb I do not think Mother Teresa would order the invansion of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, then withdraw her support during the operation allowing people that relied on her word to be murdered.

ljb your illusionary world has been shattered and now you hate Pres. Bush for shattering the myth.

This country was built on individual efforts, not socialistic programs and the invasion of foreign countries to insure our national safety.

Your minority view is that just a view seen through your minority perspective and based on sound bites and phrases.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Show Me the Wire...you can do better than this. Kruschev not a threat...So you're saying they had no missles on those ships going to Cuba, and no soviets in Cuba getting ready to set up those silos, and I guess the Soviets had no WMD's like Hussein had. This isn't even worth the effort.

As to the voucher issue, check out this site:

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs3015.htm

This issue was whether Kennedy beleived in seperation of Church or State, or Bush (not a few other Democrats who may have supported vouchers). Read the post, not the headline.

Yes, Cuba is a soverign country, so is Iraq. THe difference is Cuba was actually installing WMD's, whereas Iraq had none, or haven't you watched the news lately.

Your argument on nuclear proliferation treaties is laughable. It basically argues since countries "might" violate a treaty, they are worthless and we shouldn't even bother. Good lord.

If we are the minority view, so be it. I'd rather be right than in the majority, but I'm not so sure we are i nthe minority. Things seems to be changing quickly.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat


If we are the minority view, so be it. I'd rather be right than in the majority, but I'm not so sure we are i nthe minority. Things seems to be changing quickly.


Very quickly indeed.
Afghanistan liberated, the Taliban ousted, Iraq freed, Sadam in jail and his murderous sons dead. Lybia scared out of persuing WMD, El Qeda being thwarted left and right, the fuddy duddies of the world put in their place, the economy making strong gains, the space program ready to kick back into play. No hummers in the oval office in several years, hehehe.
Yep. Things are happening, baby. Fast.
Thank you, Mr. President. What's next?

[ljb]

Tom said
"Afghanistan liberated, the taliban ousted, Iraq freed...
And you got this information from Bush's intelligence gathering community?
You may want to pick up one of this week's news magazines, they have some real truths. Newsweek is especially revealing.
And it even addresss the failure of star wars technology.