Bush criticized Gore for the same actions he engages in [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Secretariat

02-20-2005, 06:16 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_secret_tapes_1

"Bush also criticizes then-Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) for admitting marijuana use and explains why he would not do the same.

"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions," he said, according to the Times. "You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

According to the article, Wead played 12 of the tapes to a Times reporter. He said he recorded them because he viewed Bush as a historic figure. He is the author of a new book on presidential childhoods."

The deception continues.

boxcar

02-20-2005, 06:42 PM

Hey, Sec, maybe Bush, like Slick Willy toted some, but never inhaled. :D

Boxcar

GameTheory

02-20-2005, 06:58 PM

What is the deception, exactly?

so.cal.fan

02-20-2005, 07:07 PM

Exactly right, Game Theory, and who cares anyway?

LutherCalvin

02-20-2005, 07:08 PM

It seems like Bush was criticizing Gore for answering the "Gotcha" question for the media. Where does it end? Bush acknowledged that he did engage in youthful indiscretions, but has learned from them. He seems cognizant of his role as a role model and would not want young people emulating his mistakes. His refusal to deal with such questions was more intellectually honest that Clinton's outright lies about his drug usage and Gore's unwillingness to examine the ramifications of his answers. Bush appears to me to be displaying the more thoughtful, mature response. His comments were made to a friend who was secretly taping Dubya.

Suff

02-20-2005, 07:28 PM

Whatever.... Drugs were/are part of Our Lives now. 1960 to 1990ish was differnet times. People expiremented with Drugs. I used drugs...alot, So what. Thats my business.

But this irriates me

1. If you have a Drug Conviction you can't get many many jobs... You can't even get a Job as a Baggage handler at the Airport as a Baggage handler due to 9/11/01.... Even if You've "learned" from your youthful indescretions. It irks me that Bush can be president with a Drug History but 10's of thousands of guys are boxed out of good jobs with the same history. Not right. Not to mention Dick Cheney has two Drunk Driving Convictions, and most people could'nt even get a hackneys license to drive a TAXI with TWO drunk driving convictions.. But Dick Cheney Can be Vice President. Not Right.

Tom

02-20-2005, 07:39 PM

Suff,
Bush's job doesn't in any way entail protecting our borders, so he is exempt. :lol:

Secretariat

02-20-2005, 09:20 PM

What is the deception, exactly?

You're kidding right. Gore's makes a public admission that he experimented with marijuana in his youth. Bush subsequently criticizes Gore's behavior as immoral while at the same time knowing full well that he engaged in the exact same behavior?

It is not until a friend of Bush's father who had taped a private conversation reveals this hypocrisy that the deception is revealed. And then Bush has the audacity to be outraged that he felt he was revealing this information in a private discussion.

So while Bush impugns a man who is being honest about his past, Bush continues to hide his own indiscretions until caught on tape by his father's friend. The shame of it is not thqat Bush smoked marijuana in his youth, but that he criticized a poltical opponent while knowing full well that he had engaged in the same thing. If that isn't deception i don't know what is.

And the amazing thing about this is all those in this thread who criticized Clinton for the ridiculous not inhaling remark, (and they should have criticized Clinton for that remark), yet these same rush to defend Bush who didn't even have the guts to admit he did smoke marijuana, but instead blamed an opponent who had the guts to be honest with the public.

This is another example of the man's failure to be honest with the American public and his gutlessness. It is also another example of how some people on this board will defend any behavior by this man.

Secretariat

02-20-2005, 09:25 PM

Suff,
Bush's job doesn't in any way entail protecting our borders, so he is exempt. :lol:

No, he is only in charge of protecting our nation security as Commander in Chief.

Tom

02-20-2005, 10:25 PM

I meant that sarcastically because he ISN'T protecting the borders. You need to lighten up. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but your naked hatred of the man is getting old and boring. Even when I agree with you, I don't agree wtih you. :bang:

boxcar

02-20-2005, 11:05 PM

Secretariat wrote:

You're kidding right. Gore's makes a public admission that he experimented with marijuana in his youth. Bush subsequently criticizes Gore's behavior as immoral while at the same time knowing full well that he engaged in the exact same behavior?

It is not until a friend of Bush's father who had taped a private conversation reveals this hypocrisy that the deception is revealed. And then Bush has the audacity to be outraged that he felt he was revealing this information in a private discussion.

Bush admitted to youthful indescretions generally, but not specifically to using MaryJane. That's deceptive? What did you expect him to do? Make a signed confession list!?

What's deceptive was the "friend of Bush's father" who taped a private conservation without revealing his intentions to later publicize that private conversation. That is deceptive! The "friend" certainly didn't act in good faith, did he?

What was also deceptive, now knowing Slick Willy's lack of character, is that he in all probability lied about inhaling his weed.

An older Bush now calling an activity, in which he engaged in as a youth "immoral" isn't deceptive or hypocritcal, for that matter. We all change over time. What we may have thought to be okay in the past may be not so good to us now. It really could only be said that Bush is hypocritical if he was still engaging in his MaryJane totin' when he made those remarks about Gore.

If that isn't deception i don't know what is.

I'm glad you said it...because you don't!

Sec, get your panties in a wad over something meaningful, will ya?

Boxcar

boxcar

02-20-2005, 11:15 PM

Secretariat

02-20-2005, 11:33 PM

Secretariat wrote:

An older Bush now calling an activity, in which he engaged in as a youth "immoral" isn't deceptive or hypocritcal, for that matter. We all change over time. What we may have thought to be okay in the past may be not so good to us now. It really could only be said that Bush is hypocritical if he was still engaging in his MaryJane totin' when he made those remarks about Gore.

Boxcar

Box, if in fact, Bush had stated what you said I would agree, but he didn't do that. In fact, he criticized his political opponent for being honest about using marijuana, while keeping private his own personal use. That WAS the OLDER Bush's actions.

Frankly, I don't care that he used marijuana in his youth. I care that he attacked an opponent for being honest about the use of marijuana, while knowing he had at the same time used it as well. To withhold the truth is one thing, to manipulate it to attack an opponent for the same action is indefensible.

It's disingenious. I realize you don't like the messenger, but then i guess you'll have to ask more from the friend of Bush's dad who perhaps is another of these wild liberals.

For a man to use marijuana himself, and then to deny cancer and AIDS patients or glacoma patients the opportunity to even participate on tests to try it for medical purposes is unfair. Especially in lieu of the FDA voting to bring Vioxx back onto the market with a warning label.

But i digress. THe issue is not me, Clinton, or past youthful indiscretions, but an older poltical leader deliberately concealing that information and then attacking Gore for being honest for the same action. Spin it any way you like. Bush's actions here like the treatment of the Gulf War POWs's is reprehensible.

Secretariat

02-20-2005, 11:40 PM

Oh, yeah...one other thing caught my eye about your silly whining, Sec. In the title of the thread you use the present tense of the word "engage", as though Bush is still a pothead. But in your post to which I just replied above, you use the past tense of the same term. Little confused aren't you?

That cloud which envelops your brain isn't due to any of your own drug-related habits, is it? :D

Boxcar

No, unlike Rush, I am clean. Tried some marijuana in my youth, but am not fond of smoke so that was shortlived. There and without being tape recorded. About the only drugs i take now are some aspirin to deal with the headaches I get after reading some of your posts.

kingfin66

02-20-2005, 11:54 PM

No, unlike Rush, I am clean. Tried some marijuana in my youth, but am not fond of smoke so that was shortlived. There and without being tape recorded. About the only drugs i take now are some aspirin to deal with the headaches I get after reading some of your posts.

Some of the posts in off topic give me a pain that a pill can't reach. They are, however, often fun to read, scoff at, and generally shake my head to.

It's just too bad that pot isn't legal. Maybe it's just my age, or I'm just a product of the people who raced me (very sane, normal people who came of age in the 60's), but I would welcome a candidate who said, "yeah, I got baked. I used to be young and did the things that young people do." This would be much preferable than having candidates tip toe around the issue or just outright lie about it. I honestly don't care if my Commander-In-Chief got high before he was The Prez as long as he isn't doing drugs now. All of the rhetoric about this is boring :sleeping: I don't drink and gamble, but pot and horse racing on weekends...it would be worth trying. :cool:

PaceAdvantage

02-21-2005, 12:50 AM

I actually found Bush's private comments quite refreshing. He is made out to be a monster by many people, including some on this board. A bigot, a racist, a madman.

None of this came across in these tapes. Case in point: Bush's private comments on gays, (if you believe the rhetoric from the extreme left that Bush is a madman), should have been on par with Nixon's private comments on Jews. It certainly wasn't....far from it....

And his reasoning for his reluctance to admit marijuana use was also refreshing.

I don't think anyone on this board really gives a crap if Clinton, Bush or Gore toked up in their youth.

kingfin66

02-21-2005, 01:06 AM

I don't think anyone on this board really gives a crap if Clinton, Bush or Gore toked up in their youth.

Oh I do. I think the people on the left obviously care that Bush did under the guise of declaring him a hypocrite, while the people on the right care that Clinton and Gore did because it makes them unfit, immoral, or some other nonsense. I like to think that most people are able to see through these smokescreens (pun definitely intended) and focus on the real issues confronting our country, but sometimes I wonder...

ElKabong

02-21-2005, 01:56 AM

Nothing negative on GWB in the tapes I've heard so far (on radio). So what, he laughed at Gore. MANY of us did, continue to do so today. If young people smoking marijuana shocks you, then this will send you into a tizzy. Otherwise, it's snooze-city so far.

other thoughts....If this guy named Weed (appropriate!) really is a family friend, then don't count on much negative stuff coming out in the tapes he'll release. If he feels his friendships w/b cut, and I'm sure they will very soon as it's only natural, he'll keep the negatives to himself.

Hard to figure out why this "spiritual advisor" would turncoat on a presumed friend. Oh wait, there i$ a rea$on. :confused: It's been mentioned he has a book coming out in the future. hmmmm.

betchatoo

02-21-2005, 09:08 AM

When I read a thread like this one it makes me wonder if I'm becoming more(GULP!, please don't make me say this word) conservative. I don't like having George Bush as president. I think his policies, particularly his economic and conservation policies, are potentially ruinious. However, regarding the article that started this thread, I don't see anything that Bush said that bothered me in the slightest.

Anyone who paid the slightest attention, knew before the first election, that Bush had indiscriminatly used drugs and alcohol in his youth. His refusal to answer the questions on smoking pot weren't a denial, but simply a refusal to answer. The reason he gave (to not encourage others to follow his example) might not have been the choice I would have made, but it is a legitimate choice.

I also believe that everyone has the right to expect that a private conversation with a friend will not be secretly taped or revealed to the public. I have said things in private to friends (sometimes because I was angry, sometimes because I was trying to be funny) that I would not like the majority of people to know. Just think, if Linda Tripp hadn't secretly taped a friend's conversation it would have saved this country millions in investigations

Doc

02-21-2005, 09:16 AM

So...let me get this straight. We now have a President and Vice-President that have both been nailed for drunk-driving. The previous Administration was comprised of a President who was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, and a Vice-President that tried 'ole wacky weed. Just goes to show that nobody's perfect!

Steve 'StatMan'

02-21-2005, 12:28 PM

boxcar

02-21-2005, 01:00 PM

Secretariat

No, unlike Rush, I am clean. Tried some marijuana in my youth, but am not fond of smoke so that was shortlived. There and without being tape recorded. About the only drugs i take now are some aspirin to deal with the headaches I get after reading some of your posts.

Well, if you're only taking some aspirin for those little headaches I give you, that's not too bad. My posts usually put most libs on heavy scrip meds for migraines, since their brains can't handle truth and facts, nor can they distinguish between falshood and fiction -- all of which tends to blow their brain's circuitry, giving them big, pounding owwiees...not to mention blackouts.

Boxcar

sq764

02-21-2005, 01:30 PM

sq764

02-21-2005, 01:32 PM

No, he is only in charge of protecting our nation security as Commander in Chief.
Clinton admitted smoking pot and he was your hero.. Sounds a bit hypocrtical to me :D

boxcar

02-21-2005, 02:26 PM

sq764 wrote:

Clinton admitted smoking pot and he was your hero.. Sounds a bit hypocrtical to me

He only admitted to puffing -- but not inahaling the stuff. You gotta understand: Clinton was above getting high on dirty, cough-inducing stink weed. His idea of high was getting others to take deep t....t draws off his "weed". :D

Boxcar

ElKabong

02-21-2005, 03:29 PM

I seem to recall Linda Tripp getting in serious legal trouble for making secret tapes of her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky regarding President Clinton, and then making taking them public as well as the authorities.

Texas law states that a taped conversation is legal as long as one party is in consent....Of course, the "taper" is that one party. If this spiritual advisor "friend" of GWB's was in Tx at the time of recording, he's clean legally.

You're right about Linda Tripp's troubles, Steve. In addition, the IRS hassled her as well as constant prank calls and people ringing her doorbell at all hrs of the night.

Equineer

02-21-2005, 04:36 PM

Sex, drugs, and rock were staples of the 60s, a golden era of great music, cheap drugs, and sex without fear of deadly neo-consequences.

They will have to substantiate some serious rumors, like Satanic sacrifices or grave robbery, before I jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon for transgressions not related to his job performance.

GameTheory

02-21-2005, 04:36 PM

You're kidding right. Gore's makes a public admission that he experimented with marijuana in his youth. Bush subsequently criticizes Gore's behavior as immoral while at the same time knowing full well that he engaged in the exact same behavior?Where did he do that? In the quote you posted Bush criticizes Gore for *speaking publicly* about his usage, not for the usage itself, and gives a reason why he wouldn't do the same thing. Are you referring to something that Bush said in the past (not referenced in this article)? Did he call Gore's drug use immoral somewhere? (Even if he did, I don't see where the deception is -- I don't think Bush would call his own drug use "moral", after all.)

I agree with the others -- I think the stuff revealed on these tapes (that I've heard so far) makes Bush looks better, not worse, although on a side note I really don't think we have any right to judge him at all on these comments since they were intended privately. That so many people don't make a designation between public and private behavior boggles my mind...

Kreed

02-21-2005, 05:12 PM

I'm no Bush fan, but unless Bush knew his tapes were gonna be made public,
I'd say STONE that guy. Maybe it's my Russian mafia side but MY LIPS ARE
SEALED to private conversations.

PaceAdvantage

02-21-2005, 05:32 PM

Clinton admitted smoking pot and he was your hero.. Sounds a bit hypocrtical to me :D

I believe Secretariat has stated numerous times that he was NOT a fan of Clinton, and that he indeed voted for Bob Dole.

sq764

02-21-2005, 06:09 PM

I believe Secretariat has stated numerous times that he was NOT a fan of Clinton, and that he indeed voted for Bob Dole.
Maybe all the Clinton-favorable/Bush-hater references that he spouts led me to believe otherwise..

I guess the Clinton references are only used as a matter of selective convenience.. Got it.

ElKabong

02-21-2005, 06:13 PM

If anyone is interested in hearing it straight from the horse's mouth, Doug Weed (so-called friend and "spiritual advisor" of GWB) will be interviewed by Mark Davis on WBAP radio (820am, Ft Worth, Tx). The show runs from 9am to noon local time, not sure exactly when Weed w/b on. Google WBAP radio for their website and listen on the web, if interested.

Davis is a good interviewer, and fair to guests. To be honest, the more I hear of this and the details and the fact Weed has a book coming out soon, it interests me less and less every minute.

boxcar

02-21-2005, 06:18 PM

Equineer wrote:

They will have to substantiate some serious rumors, like Satanic sacrifices or grave robbery, before I jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon for transgressions not related to his job performance.

Who did you mug to come into possession of a map to the High Ground? :D

Boxcar

Kreed

02-21-2005, 06:27 PM

Hey guys, how many of YOU could be pres? Clinton was a great pres; B43,
as much as I detest that guy, rose to 9/11 & made the USA a player again.
(I was thinking how wimpy we were getting) BUT, I do NOT agree with how
he is handling this Economy ... & I think that CHINA is getting a free pass.
It bothers me that we, all USA peoples, forsake so many less fortunate. The
USA is still a baby nation compared with, well you name them, IRAN, IRAQ,
CHINA, JAPAN: Canada & Australia & Israel .... those 3 nations are Younger than us ....but who else? So why are WE YOUNGSTERS so powerful? I think WE
should help more of US and I don't care if a few dont deserve that help.
I think we let this Conservative/Liberal stuff interfere with being a more
powerful nation. We just GOT TO address the way we CONSUME GAS ... why
can't we lead the world & go total nuts to reduce our need for Saudi oil by
say 50% ... that would make WAves. anyways, I like ideas & if those ideas
are useful, why not use them, no matter the source.*** a last minute PS:
I still like DEMS & LIBS & i still think u red states are morons & don't know
fashion *** like how many of guys in red states get manicures/pedicures?
hehe .. maybe more of YOU than U like to admit??

Equineer

02-21-2005, 06:33 PM

Boxcar,

This just in... Bush invites the wrath of God... Heaven help us!

World Council of Churches (WCC) Condemns Bush Policies (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LHNSPL5BBEPIACRBAE0CF FA?type=domesticNews&storyID=7688944)

The WCC includes the U.S. National Council of Churches (NCC), which represents 45 million Americans and 36 denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

The Council statement, issued after a session of its steering Central Committee, also called on the administration to allow the NCC to visit the detainees -- many held since the end of 2001 as part of the administration's "war on terror."

It also called on all NCC churches to educate their congregations on the situation of those held at the base and to urge believers to call "for the release of those being held in detention under inhuman conditions."

In another statement, the WCC called for international talks on ending the presence of the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq and the removal of military bases there.

Although recent elections in Iraq provided "a ray of hope for the millions of citizens who went to the polls, the crisis in Iraq persists at the expense of the Iraqi people," the statement said.

In a clear criticism of Bush and his leading ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it said "Leaders who used the false pretexts of terrorist connections and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to bolster their case for war will be judged by history."

PaceAdvantage

02-21-2005, 06:39 PM

The guy's name is really Weed? How funny is that?

Suff

02-21-2005, 06:43 PM

The guy's name is really Weed? How funny is that?

Pronounced weed.. spelled Wead.

Kreed

02-21-2005, 06:48 PM

BoxCar is a mental flee who only knows copy & paste. You seem intelligent,
so why do you take the easy avenue by boring us with this side issue? How
many of USA citizens are poligamists? 55 USA citizens? If you need to get
more favorable attention, why not try improving your horse selections? PS:
boxcar has NEVER EVER talked horse selections (so YOU are like 6,000% more
courageous than HiM ...) BUT ... lets try 2 make threads lively or at least timely.

Secretariat

02-21-2005, 07:06 PM

I believe Secretariat has stated numerous times that he was NOT a fan of Clinton, and that he indeed voted for Bob Dole.

Thank you for posting that PA. Often there is an impression that if one criticizes Bush that means you were a Clinton fan. That is limited thinking. I gave Clinton my vote in 92 and switched to Dole in 96.

I occasionally give Clinton for things he did well, and critcize things he did poorly. I do not blindly support the views of a person simply because of party affiliation like SQ.

As to Clinton I hated his support of NAFTA, and still do today. I hated his failures to really work to get National; Health through. I thought his personal affairs hindered his going full out in 98 to follow up and get Al Quaida, but I think he managed the countries budget better than any President since I've been alive. I resent some of his flippant answers on the marijuana issue, but admire his ability to reach across the aisle to include people. i felt Dole had served his country in times of need and would continue fiscal sanity. Dole lacked charsima and was a party man, but was not a neocon. I figured since Clinton was not supporting many of the programs I was for I may as well go with Dole. I don't just vote one party, I vote who I think will support the programs I beleive in. How can I support Bush who wants to basically dismantle Social Security, cut Medicaid, destroy the environment, place people in harm's way in foreign wars under the guise fo democracy while avoiding those responsible for 911, gives the majority of tax breask to large corporations and wealthy individuals while accumulating the largest deficits and national debt our nation has ever seen. i don't see that as leadership.

As i stated previously, I don't care that Bush used pot. i care that as an older adult, he criticized a poltical opponent for using it and being honest about. It was low. The guy who taped him was not some liberal, but a right wing friend of his father. Misleading the public by criticizing his opponent for the same behavior he engaged in does not ennoble him to me as it apparently does some others here. It smacks of hypocrisy. And this has been a continuing trend of his from his saying Bin Laden was our top priority and that we were going to smoke out Bin Laden to less than a year later commenting that he really doesn't think that much about Bin Laden. He tries to promote legislation called the Clean Skies initiative which does nothing but pollute the air. He is disingenuious and lacks honor by withholding information from the public, and attempting to paint positive lables with damaging bills. (i.e. Along with Clean Skies intiative, The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, it actually has to do with the restriction of our personal liberties.).

This is a small thing, but it shows the continued behavior of a deceptive WH that began with the Cheney secret Energy meetings shortly after Bush took office which Ken Lay supposedly was invited rather than any environmental group. Just more of the misleading deception.

boxcar

02-21-2005, 07:29 PM

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

This just in... Bush invites the wrath of God... Heaven help us!

The WCC includes the U.S. National Council of Churches (NCC), which represents 45 million Americans and 36 denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

You gotta be kiddin'. The WCC? A large, liberal ecumenical branch of the church? God is most likely rejoicing that this apostate orginization is critical of the president.

I pulled up the page on the link you provided. Gotta wonder just what "international law" the U.S. is violating with respect to the non-uniformed thugs we're holding. They must be kidding if they think the Geneva Convention applies to these lowlifes.

In a clear criticism of Bush and his leading ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it said "Leaders who used the false pretexts of terrorist connections and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to bolster their case for war will be judged by history."

Little do apostate orginizations like the WCC know that it's a far better thing to be judged by history than for unrepentant sinners to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31). The WCC should remove the beam from their own eye before pointing to the specks in others'.

Boxcar

boxcar

02-21-2005, 07:51 PM

Kreed wrote:

BoxCar is a mental flee who only knows copy & paste.

My goodness...such "sharp" criticism.

You [EQ] seem intelligent...

Now you're gettin' warm. I'm glad you said "seem". :D

so why do you take the easy avenue by boring us with this side issue? How many of USA citizens are poligamists? 55 USA citizens?

Geesh...that's all? I figured someone would lay claim to the same percentage that homosexuals do. :D

If you need to get more favorable attention, why not try improving your horse selections?

Are you telling us that EQ isn't a top-flight selector!? Betcha he'd be a lot better, though, if all his wives weren't constantly vying for his "undivided" attention :D

boxcar has NEVER EVER talked horse selections (so YOU are like 6,000% more courageous than HiM ...)

Hey, PA, how far back do your archives go? I'm sure some of the old-timers here rememember when I posted some on the horsey forum a few years ago.
Let me know, will ya, 'cause I'd like to challenge Kreed on the basis of his ignorance and have a chance at taking some of this big mouth's money.

Now, Kreed, for you info, I'm pretty much retired. I made my bucks from racing from the mid 70s to '02, and am living comfortably off those winnings and other investments, etc.

And since there is no requirement that anyone has to contribute "x" amount of posts to other forums in order to post over here, welll...I simply don't.

Boxcar

Kreed

02-21-2005, 08:09 PM

i will defer to your memory of what you posted (so PA, no archive necessary).
but U are one MothaF'ker/// i don't think U read responses. Do U have a book
of answers ready, no matter whats typed? All your responses lack emotion
that I see as "real" --- just my impression, but I wonder whats your motive
being here in PA? --- do U think we benfit from your 2-page replies? Or does
AnyOne's benefit matter to U?

JustRalph

02-21-2005, 08:17 PM

boxcar

02-21-2005, 08:43 PM

Kreed wrote:

i will defer to your memory of what you posted (so PA, no archive necessary).

Ah...shucks! That's too bad, 'cause I answered my only questions to PA and found some posts and was gettin' ready to see if you'd place some bucks where your big yap is. Oh...well.

but U are one MothaF'ker///.

Ohh...such language. I see that you, evidently, lack the intelligence (not to mention social graces) to express yourself in a civil manner. Are you, yet, another dumb-downed product of our public school system? Or just plain ol' bad upbringing? :ThmbDown:

i don't think U read responses.

You mean...like how I'm not reading this one? :rolleyes:

Do U have a book of answers ready, no matter whats typed?

Get caught up, already, will ya? We're living in the 21st Century. No books are ncessary when you can access Cyberspace. :D

All your responses lack emotion that I see as "real" --- just my impression

I lack "real" emotion 'cause I'm an angelic cyborg sent here on earth to record the activities of drunks, derelicts and liberals. (Did you know that Liberalism is also a disease?) :D

but I wonder whats your motive being here in PA? --- do U think we benfit from your 2-page replies?

First you complain about my cut 'n' paste style and apparent lack of originality, I suppose. Now you complain about my two-page posts. Just ain't no pleasin' some people. :rolleyes:

And why am I here on PA? Are you nuts? Get real already. This is the best forum in all cybersapce. Little bit of somethin' here for everyone.

Or does AnyOne's benefit matter to U?

Of course it does! I'm hoping you benefit from this post. For example: my constructive criticism about your lack of social graces.) :lol:

Been nice chattin' with ya. Can't hardly wait to see what you complain about next, since there was no cuttin' n' pastin' , and I managed to keep it under two pages. :rolleyes:

Ciao,
Boxcar

sq764

02-21-2005, 08:53 PM

I occasionally give Clinton for things he did well, and critcize things he did poorly. I do not blindly support the views of a person simply because of party affiliation like SQ.

As always Sec, you have zero clue.

I don't blindly support anyone. I support what I agree with and criticize what I do not. Maybe I don't explain that to you, but why would I waste my time?

I think you need to heed your own thought on the opposite end of the spectrum.. You have a history of criticizing the 'other' party for every decision they make, good or bad. That just makes you look desperate and stupid. Don't blame Bush's team for your own side's incompetence.

Secretariat

02-21-2005, 10:35 PM

As always Sec, you have zero clue.

I don't blindly support anyone. I support what I agree with and criticize what I do not. Maybe I don't explain that to you, but why would I waste my time?

I think you need to heed your own thought on the opposite end of the spectrum.. You have a history of criticizing the 'other' party for every decision they make, good or bad. That just makes you look desperate and stupid. Don't blame Bush's team for your own side's incompetence.

From what I have read of your posts it is apparent that you have supported Bush on every decision he has made. I am just observing what I've read. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice I have said kind words for many Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Bob Dole, even Arlen Spector. I've not read where you have done likewise. I do not have objections against many in the Republican party, and actually support their push from the 90's of a Balanced budget amendment. However, many of the neocons are fiscally irresponsible and reckless from what I have seen by their actions. Since Bush is basically their spokesperson I take great umbrage with many of his decisions. It is not a party issue. I take stands against Dem's and Dem supported issues such as NAFTA support, and i have spoken out against Clinton.

If you re-read your last sentence, you'll see the problem. You perceive it as a this side versus your side. I look at the issues i beleive in and regardless of party, have, and will support the candidates that best represents those positions, and who has a history of it rather than blindly supporting a neocon party platform as has been evidenced by your posts.

Kreed

02-21-2005, 10:49 PM

as always, you are allowing your KinD nature too much talking. McCain is so cool, but recall his own party hated him cause he said his mind. lol, they just
hate any opinion at odds with their 'current' one. its idea DuJour, or is that
expression too European for them? anyways, Republicans need some clean,
fresh air; new red blood cells, probly from stem cell research, lol. so, lets
humor them until ...... KrasH & Implode. (i hope not)

boxcar

02-21-2005, 11:00 PM

Secretariat wrote:

From what I have read of your posts it is apparent that you have supported Bush on every decision he has made. I am just observing what I've read. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice I have said kind words for many Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Bob Dole, even Arlen Spector.

Then our "non-partisan" continues with:

If you re-read your last sentence, you'll see the problem. You perceive it as a this side versus your side. I look at the issues i beleive in and regardless of party, have, and will support the candidates that best represents those positions, and who has a history of it rather than blindly supporting a neocon party platform as has been evidenced by your posts.

Don't know how to break this to ya, Sec, so I'll be as gentle as I can: It is "this side versus your side"! Of course, it's not strictly in the sense of party affiliation because there are libs and conservatives on both sides of the aisle. The only meaningful way "the sides" should be understood is in terms of ideology. Ideology explains why you have said "kind words" about the above mentioned Repubs. All of them to a man are quite liberal in their ideology.

In fact, it's political ideology that trumps everything in politics. For example, ideology gives black libs the opportunity to call black conservatives
derragatory names whenever their respective ideologies clash, etc.

No need to thank me for the quickie lesson. :D

Boxcar

sq764

02-21-2005, 11:14 PM

From what I have read of your posts it is apparent that you have supported Bush on every decision he has made. I am just observing what I've read. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice I have said kind words for many Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Bob Dole, even Arlen Spector. I've not read where you have done likewise. I do not have objections against many in the Republican party, and actually support their push from the 90's of a Balanced budget amendment. However, many of the neocons are fiscally irresponsible and reckless from what I have seen by their actions. Since Bush is basically their spokesperson I take great umbrage with many of his decisions. It is not a party issue. I take stands against Dem's and Dem supported issues such as NAFTA support, and i have spoken out against Clinton.

If you re-read your last sentence, you'll see the problem. You perceive it as a this side versus your side. I look at the issues i beleive in and regardless of party, have, and will support the candidates that best represents those positions, and who has a history of it rather than blindly supporting a neocon party platform as has been evidenced by your posts.
So Sec, we have had a thread on PA about EVERY SINGLE decision Bush has made? If this is true, then I am in the wrong.

Otherwise, you think it's possible I only agree with the decisions Bush has made that are discussed on PA? And of those, only the ones I have chimed in on?

sq764

02-21-2005, 11:17 PM

[QUOTE=Secretariat]
If you re-read your last sentence, you'll see the problem. You perceive it as a this side versus your side. QUOTE]
Sec, the Democrats and their anti-Bush, I hate Bush, I hate the Republicans agenda has turned politics into an 'us vs them, red vs blue' world.. You, being of relatively sound mind, should know that a well.

Equineer

02-22-2005, 08:10 AM

When true conservatives shop or govern, they expect to pay for goods and services, and will go into debt only after somber deliberation and thoughtful consideration of alternatives.

Today's neo-cons govern like they shop, indiscriminately amassing debts until the Repo Man comes knocking or an unexpected crisis bankrupts them.

When true conservatives reluctantly justify war, they fully expect to participate.

Today's neo-con jingoists expect others to do the fighting for them.

True conservatives wisely understand that democracy is founded on pluralistic principles which must withstand erosion by shifting tides that sway the rabble.

Today's neo-cons are today's rabble... not really conservatives at all... merely rabble riding a tide just as their 20th-century forefathers rode populist tides that delivered too many of them into the extreme encampments of Fascism or Communism.

sq764

02-22-2005, 09:42 AM

ElKabong

02-22-2005, 09:50 AM

Equineer, that was close... I ALMOST got through an entire post of your's... You had me until 'erosion by shifting tides'.. Oceanic metaphors just don't do it for me..

And I prefer chauvinist over jingoist, thanks..

I hear ya....I expect you'll find vetquineer in some smokey dive hangout amongst broken down poets on weekend nights. Talking chit on stage that begins with a subdued tone..., "Life....is like a lefthanded Tuesday". (long pause)

The dude is in desperate need of an audience, that's for sure.

boxcar

02-22-2005, 12:16 PM

ElKabong sez of "vetquineer":

The dude is in desperate need of an audience, that's for sure.

More than that: He's in dire need of a team of expert psychiatrists...and a secure padded room.

Boxcar

Equineer

02-22-2005, 02:32 PM

sq764

02-22-2005, 02:51 PM

SQ764, Elkabong, & Boxcar,

You fellas are such perfect examples of what I meant that I am obliged to ask you to testify that this was not a setup.

Honestly, folks, these three guys were not ringers in cahoots with me.

It never ceases to amaze me how the rabble falters on the same simple question...

Which of the following is the most essential hallmark of democracy? Majorities rule democracies.
Democracies rule majorities.
I don't know whether I find you to be instigating or whether I feel sad for you. Not sure where you picked up that putting together a few semi-sophisticated words you got from a bar napkin into a sentence implied a valid thought.

And who is expecting other's to do fighting for them? We are a country, we went there, we fought.. Where do you see the lapse?

Amazing how your self-loathing comes across as blame and lack of accountability..I think they have support groups for this..