Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-28-2007, 10:53 PM   #251
Guilty Spark
 
Guilty Spark's Avatar
Location: Flordia
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 300
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
with a few unfortunates copping the occasional 'friendly' fire
Which sometimes get covered up. Pat Tillman.

Bosnia is still a major traffic route for Islamic extreamists from the north to find their way into Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you're hungry, keep moving.
If you're tired, keep moving.
If you value you're life, keep moving.

You don't own what you can't defend
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 04:11 AM   #252
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Mike Whilst everyone here must admire your style of debate

Ie

1. Make a broad statement
2. Be demonstrated wrong
3. Call person who pointed out you were wrong stupid
4. Misrepresent their argument
5. Put forward a different, (although related argument)
6. Swear blind that your latest argument was your original
argument all the time
7. Berate 'Liberals' as the root of all evil
8. Repeat

Now getting back to that horrible four letter word FACT

You stated that Britain - which I repeat is not the same thing as England, needed US military force to prevent invasion.

I pointed out that this was inaccurateand explained why.

You then claimed that US support was essential - and that without it we would have been invaded. I stated that it was arguable but not certain since there were other possible supply sources. I even pointed one out.

Then to test what is laughing called your historical 'knowledge'

I referred to places, times and a quote all somehow relating to Churchill and a quote and asked you to explain their relevance. Which makes your statement that I "should be *for* Churchill and not so against him" amusing . - The problem is I don't think he was infallible - but then it seems I know more about him than you do - still waiting for those answers BTW

I asked you who first declared War on Germany in WWII - you failed to answer that as well.

We moved onto Kosovo - but you had no reply to the points I made on that issue either

And then finally you came out with the argument that I would be speaking German without Churchill and the US I was reminded of two things - Churchill was the British Prime Minister (I can't assume you knew that) and secondly US wasn't actually part of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps since it is only the US doing the fighting - according to you, you can be the one to describe the phrase used by GWB "coalition of the willing"

PS - Leave the credit to Americans wherever credit is due to Hollywood they do it so much better than you. (Although that's not saying much).
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 06:18 PM   #253
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Fred Little wrote: View Post
Without arguing whether there was a direct benefit or an immediate national interest at stake on the ground in Bosnia, there is the small matter of giving NATO a reason for continued existence in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

For better or for worse, the Bosnian intervention probably extended NATO's life for a decade or three.

You could argue the "for worse" side, but significant segments of both the military and foreign policy communities (some ostensibly "conservative" and some ostensibly "liberal") see the preservation of NATO as a means of projecting American military power as a paramount US interest that was served by that particular intervention.

Whether the game was worth the candle (or the gain was worth the bodies) is another question entirely, and entirely too nuanced for this venue.
Well, I don't disagree with anything you've said, Fred, but the point was that the EU could not and did not handle a problem, so it had to go to NATO.... aka the US's military, for the most part. What I was mainly pointing out is the Europe is inept and has a history of making bad decisions about doing nothing substantive to handle their own problems. The NATO discussion is a tangent where I tend to agree with you. The more Europe needs the US for something, the friendlier they are. When they don't need us, to hell with us. Those are our "allies"?



Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 06:29 PM   #254
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I'm not saying that's all they do, Mike.

They also keep each other out of prison. Like Mark Foley, for instance.

It balances out--at least the way they see it, huh?

David
???? What???? Other than being a Democrat disguised as a Republican, what crime did Foley commit? He wrote emails. Even if he'd been a Democrat, you can't put someone in jail for emails, David. What color is the sky on your planet?

Heck, if you're a Democrat, you can drunkenly cause someone's death and still keep your seat (like Kennedy). Or you can have sex with an intern and the Dems will cheer you on.... in numerous cases: Clinton, Gary Studds, Condit, etc.

If you want to debate something, you have to do better than absurd generalities.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 06:32 PM   #255
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Mike Whilst everyone here must admire your style of debate

Ie

1. Make a broad statement
2. Be demonstrated wrong
3. Call person who pointed out you were wrong stupid
4. Misrepresent their argument
5. Put forward a different, (although related argument)
6. Swear blind that your latest argument was your original
argument all the time
7. Berate 'Liberals' as the root of all evil
8. Repeat

Now getting back to that horrible four letter word FACT

You stated that Britain - which I repeat is not the same thing as England, needed US military force to prevent invasion.

I pointed out that this was inaccurateand explained why.

You then claimed that US support was essential - and that without it we would have been invaded. I stated that it was arguable but not certain since there were other possible supply sources. I even pointed one out.

Then to test what is laughing called your historical 'knowledge'

I referred to places, times and a quote all somehow relating to Churchill and a quote and asked you to explain their relevance. Which makes your statement that I "should be *for* Churchill and not so against him" amusing . - The problem is I don't think he was infallible - but then it seems I know more about him than you do - still waiting for those answers BTW

I asked you who first declared War on Germany in WWII - you failed to answer that as well.

We moved onto Kosovo - but you had no reply to the points I made on that issue either

And then finally you came out with the argument that I would be speaking German without Churchill and the US I was reminded of two things - Churchill was the British Prime Minister (I can't assume you knew that) and secondly US wasn't actually part of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps since it is only the US doing the fighting - according to you, you can be the one to describe the phrase used by GWB "coalition of the willing"

PS - Leave the credit to Americans wherever credit is due to Hollywood they do it so much better than you. (Although that's not saying much).
Er.... is it the tippling hour over there? Do you even read my posts? For instance, just to take one point above, you say I ignored your question about who declared WWII... go look at my post. England and France did and I said it rather clearly. No more G&T for you, my boy.

Mike

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 07:35 PM   #256
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
Doesn't the constant vitriol give you heartburn
Not at all. If I throw an apple core at barking to dogs to shush them, it's not because of "vitriol" (which is your way of subtle name-calling, let's face it).

Here's another of my many small bets. I'll bet if we go back to the posts in "Open Discussion" the anti-American and related posts will far and away exceed posts going the other way? Want to bet? I repeat.... a lot of people like to hurl epithets but they get outraged when the same sort of stuff comes back at them. It's an example of how the smugly righteous always react when it comes back. Sort of like a joke that will work against certain people time after time. Remember my comment about Mowgli taunting the Red Dhole, that I made a year or so ago.

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 04:44 AM   #257
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Mike

My question, at post 240 was

“who first declared War on Germany?”

Your reply at post 241 was

“Are you really serious? World War II started because England and France kept appeasing and backing down to German demands. Only when Germany invaded Poland, and ally of GB, was England forced to declare war. “

Which makes you wrong. The person who declared war was Neville Chamberlain (the clue that I was asking for a person is in the word ‘Who’). And he was prime Minister of Britain NOT England. (Although I accept that you probaly are unaware, as many English are, that there is a difference)

You insitence that "England and France did and I said it rather clearly". -

I do however accept that you gave the wrong answer. I hope that makes you feel smarter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 08:03 AM   #258
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Mike

My question, at post 240 was

"who first declared War on Germany?"

Your reply at post 241 was

"Are you really serious? World War II started because England and France kept appeasing and backing down to German demands. Only when Germany invaded Poland, and ally of GB, was England forced to declare war. "

Which makes you wrong. The person who declared war was Neville Chamberlain (the clue that I was asking for a person is in the word ‘Who'). And he was prime Minister of Britain NOT England. (Although I accept that you probaly are unaware, as many English are, that there is a difference)

You insitence that "England and France did and I said it rather clearly". -

I do however accept that you gave the wrong answer. I hope that makes you feel smarter.
Well, alas, even many history books don't know the difference between England and Britain, either.... so you're going to play "trick questions" with words. How clever. Your character just shines through your prose, David.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 08:38 AM   #259
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
...

Heck, if you're a Democrat, you can drunkenly cause someone's death and still keep your seat (like Kennedy). Or you can have sex with an intern and the Dems will cheer you on.... in numerous cases: Clinton, Gary Studds, Condit, etc...
Mike, there is a difference... It is expected of democrats to act that way, so they are not lambasted if they actually do. Republicans, on the other hand, are not expected to act that way - so they are called hypocrites.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 08:55 AM   #260
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Mike, there is a difference... It is expected of democrats to act that way, so they are not lambasted if they actually do. Republicans, on the other hand, are not expected to act that way - so they are called hypocrites.
Yeah, it's an uncomfortable question. I listened to a panel show where they were discussing that same question and 2 of the liberal panel members actually dodged the idea that Democrats are perfectly OK with various crimes by simply admitting "there's a double standard". It was strange to listen to. One of the liberals said that "family values is not a big concern among Democrats", thought about how that sounded, and then tried to back up, got lost, shut up.

Personally, I have a lot of distaste for holier-than-thou types of both political persuasions(take 'em out back and shoot 'em), but the reportage and one-sided outrage *is* simply a dishonest double standard. As William Safire (famous columnist; now dead) once noted, "if John Kennedy's name had been Richard Nixon they would have crucified him for the outrageous things he did." The press is one-sided.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 11:37 AM   #261
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Mike, there is a difference... It is expected of democrats to act that way, so they are not lambasted if they actually do. Republicans, on the other hand, are not expected to act that way - so they are called hypocrites.
You're close, John. Democrats don't rail and rant "against" those things, then try to get away with doing them in secret. Of course, not all democrats "do" those things, but they don't rail against them in public while doing them in public restrooms.

And it's not a matter that Republicans "aren't expected" to do those things. It's very much expected that Republicans will do those things--in secret, of course, because publicly, they attack those things.

Well, like Sen. Craig, for instance. Is he a dem "pretending to be a Republican"? I don't think so.

Did you see his appearance on Meet The Press, discussing Clinton? "I think America needs to know that Bill Clinton is a very dirty, nasty, naught boy!" while shaking his finger. Sounds like he's said those words many times before, but rather approvingly.

So it's not a matter of "calling" them hypocrites. They really are. Like Gingrich and like Livingstone, during the "Clinton affair". Clinton's biggest detractors turned out to have done just as bad as Bill did--in many ways worse.

Gingrich, for instance, went to his wife's bedside when she was recovering from cancer surgery--the day after her surgery--and told her he was divorcing her. I don't know if he explained that he had taken up with his intern or not, but that's what he did. So who is he to point at Clinton?

And Livingstone, a huge finger-pointer at Clinton who maintained that Clinton had to be questioned about his indiscretions under oath because it was vital to determine the character of a public servant who was having an adulterous affair. And Livingstone had to step down because???? He was revealed to have had an adulterous affair.

See? THAT is hypocrisy and it's why the word is used so much about Republicans. And it's not used much about Democrats not because they're "expected" to act that way but because they don't go peeping into people's bedrooms and shouting condemnation of what they see.

It's sad, really, to see someone posture as a moralist in public when he's really just the same as those he condemns. What makes them condemn actions in others, do you think, when they are acting that way, themselves? Do you have any ideas about that?

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 11:47 AM   #262
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
If you want to debate something, you have to do better than absurd generalities.
Well, I guess your original point did involve being "crooks" and not just hypocritical perverts, and protectors of child molesters--Hastert, you know...

Well, how about how Haliburton has profiteered from the war in Iraq? How about how companies and contractors like that are raking in the profits while GIs don't have proper body armor or armored vehicles? Can we not afford that because we're letting Haliburton and Blackwater suck up all the money?

That whole fiasco really is nothing but a cover for a massive transfer of wealth to Bush's and Cheney's friends under the cover of a war.

And what about Cheney's energy policy? The American people still are not allowed to know who advised him on that, though we do know that Enron was involved. And what was their "business"? Nothing more than inflating prices. They "traded" energy back and forth among their own make-believe internal "subsidiaries" to pump up the prices before passing them on to the public and Cheney rewarded them for it and used them as the model for America's energy future.

I don't know how you define "crook," but Republicans must deserve their own category as "super-swindle-screwem-thief-masters" or something and that huge, mafia-like organization can absorb and dissipate the blame until no one is blamed at all, but some floor-sweeping schmuck somewhere goes to prison for it.

Who's the biggest crooks? It's hands-down, the Republicans.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 11:57 AM   #263
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
So it's not a matter of "calling" them hypocrites. They really are. Like Gingrich and like Livingstone, during the "Clinton affair". Clinton's biggest detractors turned out to have done just as bad as Bill did--in many ways worse.
I personally never cared much for Gingrich or Livingstone, but neither one of them committed perjury and had their law license revoked for it, David. When you say people are "just as bad as Clinton", a defense of parity that many liberals attempt to raise in order to downplay the magnitude of Clinton escapades, it's not true. I.e., you are not telling the truth, deliberately.

Let Gingrich and Livingston and any other person get their just rewards for whatever they do. That would be fair. What is not fair and is actually duplicitous, is to attempt to downplay the bad someone else did because you're on the same side and a crook is not a crook if he is "your crook".

Clinton avoided the Whitewater scandal ultimately only because Susan McDougal refused to testify, even after having been given immunity by congress. Clinton abused women, even while he was in office as president, but he'd done so before that (interestingly his victims were all Democrats, but Dems turned on them when these women spoke out!): http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm

Clinton pardoned convicted terrorists simply to boost his wife's senate campaign. Clinton solicited and took campaign donations from communist China. Clinton sold stays in the White House. And much more.

Please don't insult our intelligence by downplaying what Clinton did to it somehow being the equivalent of Gingrich or Livingston. That's completely dishonest and humorous to moralize while telling a lie.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 12:10 PM   #264
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Well, I guess your original point did involve being "crooks" and not just hypocritical perverts, and protectors of child molesters--Hastert, you know...
I'm no Hastert fan. There were many disciplinary actions against criminals in congress that he simply didn't pursue because he thought that would keep things smoothe. Notice that Judicial Watch (which is normally fairly-even handed) has him on the list of crooks: http://www.judicialwatch.org/6091.shtml
Quote:
Well, how about how Haliburton has profiteered from the war in Iraq? How about how companies and contractors like that are raking in the profits while GIs don't have proper body armor or armored vehicles? Can we not afford that because we're letting Haliburton and Blackwater suck up all the money?
I think you're simply showing your ignorance here. Do some research on Halliburton. It's one of only 3 companies in the world that can function on this type of war footing. The other 2 are French and Russian companies. Even Clinton gave "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton for certain circumstances that were the same as the ones you're complaining about. Educate yourself and quit depending so much on your "feelings" to be equivalent to "facts". Trust me, your posting history shows the opposite to be true.
Quote:
That whole fiasco really is nothing but a cover for a massive transfer of wealth to Bush's and Cheney's friends under the cover of a war.
Oh stop. You read like the Berkeley Barb.
Quote:
And what about Cheney's energy policy? The American people still are not allowed to know who advised him on that, though we do know that Enron was involved. And what was their "business"? Nothing more than inflating prices. They "traded" energy back and forth among their own make-believe internal "subsidiaries" to pump up the prices before passing them on to the public and Cheney rewarded them for it and used them as the model for America's energy future.
So if you were in office and feeling around for candid input from all types of people on a given subject, how candid do you think they'll be if you say that everything they say can and will be used against them by a Democratic Congress as soon as possible???? Think about it. Do you want candid discussions to be overshadowed by every nutball on the planet? I guess not. I guess that's why Hillary did the same private stuff, too, when she sought input for her healthplan.
Quote:
I don't know how you define "crook," but Republicans must deserve their own category as "super-swindle-screwem-thief-masters" or something and that huge, mafia-like organization can absorb and dissipate the blame until no one is blamed at all, but some floor-sweeping schmuck somewhere goes to prison for it.

Who's the biggest crooks? It's hands-down, the Republicans.
Look in the jails, David. The vast, vast majority of criminals in US jails are Democrats. Not opinion, David... fact. You obviously aren't used to admitting anything about facts when they disagree with your fanaticisms.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 01:42 PM   #265
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
...What makes them condemn actions in others, do you think, when they are acting that way, themselves? Do you have any ideas about that?

David
You ever been in a relationship where one party accuses the other of cheating, so much that it seems the accuser is quite paranoid & overly jealous, when, in fact, it is the accuser that was the actual cheater? Does the saying, "doth protest too much, methinks" ring a bell?

As the religious "leaders" wail against sin when they are the sinners, as the cheaters wail against the innocents when they are themselves the cheaters, as the homophobes wail against homosexuals when they are unsure of their own sexuality, as the so called "liberals' believe in free speech when they really don't, you have to see through their false covers & take everything with a grain of salt.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 02:40 PM   #266
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I personally never cared much for Gingrich or Livingstone, but neither one of them committed perjury and had their law license revoked for it, David. When you say people are "just as bad as Clinton", a defense of parity that many liberals attempt to raise in order to downplay the magnitude of Clinton escapades, it's not true. I.e., you are not telling the truth, deliberately.
Well, I don't think they're "as bad as Clinton". They are much, much WORSE. Clinton had a girlfriend in the White House. What President hasn't? Seriously. I doubt that there's one of them up there that hasn't had whatever he wanted, pretty much whenever he wanted. If you say GW hasn't, you might want to consider why Jeff Ganon, of "hotmilitarystuds.com" has been in the White House so many times and for such lengthy visits. They're all politicians, all having fought and clawed their way to their lofty positions, all expert at "getting what they want" and the sex drive is just about the strongest human drive. So I doubt that many if any US Presidents have prefered not to take some kind of special reward for all their hard work.

So it's not the adultery that bothers you, as you say....and adultery was not the root of the issue being investigated. That was White Water--a land deal. And they could find no evidence of any wrongdoing in White Water. So they fished and fished and fished until they came up with this business of Clinton's having a girlfriend in the White House and worked and worried and shook their fingers at him and got on TV and called him a "very dirty, naughty, nasty bad boy" (Sen. Larry Craig on Meet The Press, years before he was caught soliciting dirty, naughty, nasty, bad boy behavior in a public restroom). And they managed to get him under oath and ask him....what was it that he "perjured" himself on? "Did you have sex with Monica?" Wasn't that the matter of vital national security importance that they found it worthy to impeach the President (and screw their own careers) over?

Weigh that against George and Company revealing the identity of a CIA operative. I know. To you, a fib about a bj is much more important for (xxxxx--fill in the excuse blank) justification. But the fact is, it was a question they (adulterers all) had no place to ask--especially since this was the tail end.....I say....the tail end....of a stupid, trumped up, dead-end "investigation" that was nothing but a huge Republican rip-off of the American taxpayer, a chance for Republicans to say "semen stain" on TV and print a lengthy pornographic text as a special issue of the Congressional Record, all for the sole purpose of attacking and discrediting a hard-working President for the political benefit of nothing but the Republican Political Party.

Clinton should have said, "I don't play gotcha politics." How did George know to say that? It's because Republicans invented "gotcha politics" and have used it for a long, long time. Dirty Tricks is their business.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Let Gingrich and Livingston and any other person get their just rewards for whatever they do. That would be fair. What is not fair and is actually duplicitous, is to attempt to downplay the bad someone else did because you're on the same side and a crook is not a crook if he is "your crook".
So what was it he did that was so bad? He lied under oath to a Congress full of adulterers who were doing nothing but trying to embarrass him about adultery. Isn't that true? That's hardly being "a crook."

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Clinton avoided the Whitewater scandal ultimately only because Susan McDougal refused to testify, even after having been given immunity by congress.
So, they had a weak case. They had nothing. Should they then pursue him and impeach the President over a private sexual affair???? They'd have to take out most of them for that--Democrats and Republicans--though the Repubs tend to lose it long before they get to the Presidency, in some seedy public restroom....sending e-mails to young boys...etc.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Clinton abused women, even while he was in office as president, but he'd done so before that (interestingly his victims were all Democrats, but Dems turned on them when these women spoke out!):
You mean like the Republican hit-squads publicly smeared Anita Hill?

But these encounters Clinton had, as seedy and inapropriate as they were--did any of them have any bearing on White Water? I don't think so. Did any of them have any bearing on the impeachment? I don't think so.

Yes, it was bad behavior on Clinton's part, but I firmly believe that it has always been done by Presidents and that the media were just too deferential to the White House to let it come out. Seems George has regained that deference somehow or they would have hounded him about his drug use and would never have let him go with "I don't play gotcha politics." The question of whether a candidate had ever used drugs had become a litmus test that every candidate had to pass--mostly at the insistence of the Republican Right, which, so characteristically hypocritically, let George have a pass on it, when he is the biggest blow-head that's ever been in office. And lying to the American people as well as Congress????

But I guess he's "your" crook, so you'll let him pass on that. He's not the "same" as Clinton. He's almost infinitely worse.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Clinton pardoned convicted terrorists simply to boost his wife's senate campaign. Clinton solicited and took campaign donations from communist China. Clinton sold stays in the White House. And much more.
Gee. If you're right, maybe the Republicans should have gone after him about those things instead of his affair? Wonder why they didn't??? Maybe there was ultimately nothing to any of it??? Why wasn't he taken to task for it by anyone but you and Rush Limbaugh...and scary woman with the blond hair and the anorexic-looking cheeks?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Please don't insult our intelligence by downplaying what Clinton did to it somehow being the equivalent of Gingrich or Livingston. That's completely dishonest and humorous to moralize while telling a lie.
No. What Clinton did was in no way equivalent to the high moral crimes committed by Gingrich, Livingstone and all their cronies. What Clinton did was adulterous sex. What the Republicans did was tantamount to treason.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 03:03 PM   #267
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Well, I don't think they're "as bad as Clinton". They are much, much WORSE. Clinton had a girlfriend in the White House. What President hasn't? Seriously.
You're a sick puppy.
Quote:
If you say GW hasn't, you might want to consider why Jeff Ganon, of "hotmilitarystuds.com" has been in the White House so many times and for such lengthy visits.
You need to take this crap to rec.martial-arts. They'll be glad to point out that Jeff was simply regaling the White House staff with tales about your mom or something, since they make these kind of weird unsupported statements for fun. Not seriously, like you do.
Quote:
That was White Water--a land deal. And they could find no evidence of any wrongdoing in White Water.
40+ indictments. Governor of Arkansas lost his job. You're not in touch with anything remotely resembling facts, are you?
Quote:
....what was it that he "perjured" himself on?
This is one of my favorite ones. The man sworn to uphold all the laws of the U.S..... and you want to question whether perjury applied in his case. Why don't you list the subjects about which sworn testimony in a U.S. legal proceeding doesn't count, David? I'm interested in this idea of selectively enforcing laws.... laws apply to Republicans, but only to Democrats if the Dems approve the application first. Do you realize how bizarre you sound? Of course not.
Quote:
Weigh that against George and Company revealing the identity of a CIA operative.
Er, in case you're not just lying and simply don't know the facts, it turns out that anti-war Richard Armitage revealed the name. And since Valerie Plame was not a covert operative, no crime was broken; hence no charges against Armitage.
Quote:
I know. To you, a fib about a bj is much more important for (xxxxx--fill in the excuse blank) justification.
Wrong guy. I couldn't care less. Ask Juanita Broadrick about what a nice guy Clinton was. Of course, to a guy like you the rape of a volunteer Democrat doesn't mean much, probably, but then I've always known that you and I were different.
Quote:
Clinton should have said, "I don't play gotcha politics." How did George know to say that? It's because Republicans invented "gotcha politics" and have used it for a long, long time. Dirty Tricks is their business.
"Gotcha politics" started with Bork. And then all the women that revealed they'd been molested by Clinton got their names dragged through the dirt by Clinton and associates. What planet are you on? You don't answer questions when you're wrong, you just bring up new inanities.
Quote:
So what was it he did that was so bad? He lied under oath to a Congress full of adulterers who were doing nothing but trying to embarrass him about adultery. Isn't that true? That's hardly being "a crook."
Hello? Is there anybody in there?

Holy smoke.... you need help.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 03:06 PM   #268
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I'm no Hastert fan. There were many disciplinary actions against criminals in congress that he simply didn't pursue because he thought that would keep things smoothe. Notice that Judicial Watch (which is normally fairly-even handed) has him on the list of crooks:
Right. And he was the Head Republican in his realm...it rots from the head, it stinks from the head. A rotten head on a rotten body. The lot of them are crooks.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I think you're simply showing your ignorance here. Do some research on Halliburton. It's one of only 3 companies in the world that can function on this type of war footing.
I'm not saying it was crooked that Haliburton got the contract to service the war. I'm saying that the whole war was cooked up for the specific purpose of providing them with a massive conduit of unaccountable US taxpayer monies. A big war-supplying company needs a big war, right? George did it for Cheney's company. Treason.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Even Clinton gave "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton for certain circumstances that were the same as the ones you're complaining about.
But Clinton didn't start a war to enrich Haliburton and the scale of profits from that action don't approach the scam they're running every day in Iraq.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
(concerning the super-secret list of attendees at Cheney's super-secret energy policy development sessions) So if you were in office and feeling around for candid input from all types of people on a given subject, how candid do you think they'll be if you say that everything they say can and will be used against them by a Democratic Congress as soon as possible????
I'd just be glad it wasn't a Republican congress. Nonetheless, it was "public" energy policy for the future of the nation. So why should their schemes be kept secret? We know that these were consummate schemers, after all. Cheney was serving them.

Second....let's see...it seems that there was no "Democratic congress" way back in those days before all the perverts were revealed and the Republicans screwed themselves out of office.

No, back in those days, a serious betting man would have put all his bets on the Republicans. They had a total lock-down on everything, no Dem proposals or investigations could get off the ground and the Bush administration had no fear of ever being held accountable for anything. Even today, with a "Democratic congress," we still have not gotten any serious details of what the fourth branch of government--Cheney--did in those meetings. So don't try that evasion.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Do you want candid discussions to be overshadowed by every nutball on the planet?
No. You're right. They should only be known to a tiny handful of the wealthiest scam artists in the world.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Look in the jails, David. The vast, vast majority of criminals in US jails are Democrats. Not opinion, David... fact.
And a mighty fine fact it is, too, Mike. Where did you get a fine fact like that?

Oh! I see you used your "Factorator 7000" to manufacture it!

Nice work....

Oh, but what's that little thing there???? Could that be a flaw in your "fact"?????

The real fact is, most criminals in the US jails are of "NO" political affiliation. Most of them do not vote, don't know who the candidates are and couldn't really reliably tell you who is in which party. Most prisoners in the US couldn't tell you how many branches of government there are, who's in which branch, how they relate to one another or anything else. At best, they can relate to slogans and because Republicans deal almost exclusively in slogans (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...how_article=1), they would probably "agree" more with Republican slogans.

The one place you may be correct is in the prison population convicted of non-violent drug crimes. Most of them probably aren't that much more knowledgeable about specifics, but they probably know that Democrats are far more likely to advocate releasing non-violent drug offenders, so they would probably identify as "Democrat" more often than as "Republican".

On the other hand, people who murder other people, especially with guns, tend to be right-wing and control-centered, so the murderers are proably Republican-leaning.

Tell me again where you got your Factorator machine? Limbaugh? Anne Coulter???? You need to get a better one.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...w_article=1You obviously aren't used to admitting anything about facts when they disagree with your fanaticisms.[/quote]

Maybe, but I sure don't "admit" a "fact" like you excreted above.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 03:14 PM   #269
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
You ever been in a relationship where one party accuses the other of cheating, so much that it seems the accuser is quite paranoid & overly jealous, when, in fact, it is the accuser that was the actual cheater? Does the saying, "doth protest too much, methinks" ring a bell?
Yes, it does. It reminds me of the unforgettable Clinton "impeachment" fiasco, where several Republican adulterers were caught with their pants down and lost their positions of dignity while Clinton continued in office until the lawful and just completion of his term.

You see, if a Democrat is gay, he will most likely flat out tell you he is gay. Or she, as the case may be. But a Republican will rant against gays, though he is continually compelled to go into places like public restrooms or the House Page pool and troll for gay sex.

I personally don't agree with gay sex, but I'm not going to condemn people who have gay sex with consenting adult partners. I don't understand their motivations and I cannot be their judge. I can just say it's not for me.

But people who do like Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Old What's-his-Name Livingstone (as well as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) deserve disgrace.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 03:42 PM   #270
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
You're a sick puppy.
I'm a realist, Mike. And you know it. They're politicians and they go for what they want and they don't give up until they get it. No matter how sick it is. Look at John "Edna" Hoover....cross-dressing at high-level Washington parties, yet he held all the politicians in fear that he would expose their sexual indiscretions.

And if I weren't right, there would have been no indiscretions for him to threaten to expose.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
(concerning my claim that no evidence of any wrongdoing was found in the White Water investigation) 40+ indictments. Governor of Arkansas lost his job. You're not in touch with anything remotely resembling facts, are you?
Sorry, I thought the context made it clear: no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton. They could find nothing on him there, so they went to adultery.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
This is one of my favorite ones. The man sworn to uphold all the laws of the U.S..... and you want to question whether perjury applied in his case. Why don't you list the subjects about which sworn testimony in a U.S. legal proceeding doesn't count, David?
Maybe when it's a kangaroo court?????

And if it is a kangaroo court, the "judges" shouldn't be surprised when their case bounces back right on top of them, as it did in the Clinton "impeachment".

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I'm interested in this idea of selectively enforcing laws....
So is the Bush administration and the entire Republican party. They simply want to do what they want to do and have no questions asked and no answers given--especially under oath. Clinton should have just refused to answer any of that garbage that was irrelevant to any interest of the US Congress. That was nothing but a Republican Party attack in the guise of a congressional hearing.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
...laws apply to Republicans, but only to Democrats if the Dems approve the application first.
You mean just sort of opposite the way it really is, where Republicans answer for nothing and can create super-secret versions of special laws that are not bound by foolish things like the constitution or the checks and balances of the various branches of the government? I see.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Do you realize how bizarre you sound? Of course not. Er, in case you're not just lying and simply don't know the facts, it turns out that anti-war Richard Armitage revealed the name.
Uh...yeah....supposedly...but how did Armitage find out?

You can play games all you want, but the truth, and you know it, is that Karl Rove put that word out and he did it with Bush's approval for the sheer purpose of discrediting Wilson. Say what you like about Plame and the value and correctness or error of Wilson's report, the Bush Administration, through it's super-toady Karl Rove, exposed the identity of a CIA operative and endangered all her contacts everywhere she had worked. I'm sure you'd like that done if you were one of her undercover contacts in an unfriendly country or on a sensitive mission. I'm sure. It was a crime, far bigger and deadlier than Clinton's lying about oral sex.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
And since Valerie Plame was not a covert operative, no crime was broken;
Exactly. The crime remains intact.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
hence no charges against Armitage.
There was no charge against Armitage because ROVE broke the news.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Ask Juanita Broadrick about what a nice guy Clinton was.
He's a politician. Not quite as bad as most of the Republicans, but you could go a long way in filth and vileness and still be well below the level of a good Republican.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
"Gotcha politics" started with Bork.
No it didn't. It started with asking every political candidate if he'd ever smoked marijuana or used cocaine. Then it spread into every area as the Drug War hysteria spread into every nook and cranny of American life. Of course, Bush had complete impunity and a Secret Service guard detail while he was a stoned drunk doper, so he never had to worry about being arrested for that, but the media should never have accepted that little brush-off.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
And then all the women that revealed they'd been molested by Clinton got their names dragged through the dirt by Clinton and associates.
Like the Republicans did Anita Hill.

See, I'm not defending the Democrats for everything they've ever done--just knocking down your completely baseless claim that they are bigger crooks than the Republicans. That's the point here. I'm not defending what Dems do--just proving again and again that it's not only not worse than what the Repubs have done, but that the Repubs really have done much worse, much more and on a scale that dwarfs the Democratic misdeeds.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
What planet are you on? You don't answer questions when you're wrong, you just bring up new inanities. Hello? Is there anybody in there?
Ooops. Almost missed that one--thought it was something several other people had posted to you....an easily understandable mistake.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2007, 03:53 PM   #271
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I'm a realist, Mike. And you know it.
Of course.... it's just so obvious! Did you see my famous post on "self-perception disorder" (SPD)? Ta ta, for now.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 08:19 AM   #272
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
...
But people who do like Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Old What's-his-Name Livingstone (as well as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) deserve disgrace.

David
We are all hypocrites at some point in our lives, do we all deserve disgrace over just being hypocritical??

Unless you break the law, of course, then you do deserve punishment....
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 12:33 PM   #273
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Of course.... it's just so obvious! Did you see my famous post on "self-perception disorder" (SPD)?
No, I didn't see your post on SPD.

But did it disprove my point that politicians are basically self-serving and driven by human passions? They want power, possibly more than anything else. But what is power for? For most people, it's a means to get more money, which is usually a means to get more sex.

That is realism and you know those things to be true.

Otherwise, explain the behaviors of such Republicans as Gingrich, Livingstone, Foley and Craig.

And then explain how you still believe that Democrats are bigger or more prolific crooks than Republicans.

The Democrats that are crooks are petty compared to the global scale of deceit and ruin perpetrated by Republicans.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 12:50 PM   #274
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
We are all hypocrites at some point in our lives, do we all deserve disgrace over just being hypocritical??
Sorry I was a bit testy in my reply to your last. On re-reading it, it didn't seem as aggressive as I first perceived it, so again, sorry if I replied a bit harshly.

In answer to your question, we deserve disgrace in proportion to our hypocrisy. If I denounce using a commercially popular toothpaste in my weekly newspaper column (as I did in college once), then my roommate discovers me using that very brand of toothpaste (as he did), then I deserve a degree of embarrassment and/or disgrace in proportion to that hypocrisy. I said using that kind of toothpaste meant that you were overly influenced by the marketing culture. I hardly realized that that was the kind of toothpaste I had been using since I lived with my parents. That was embarrassing and I deserved it. But no one person and no group of identifiable people was injured or degraded by that comment--or only very mildly.

If, however, I had passed laws against that toothpaste and had described its users as sick people, dirty, nasty, naughty bad people, I would deserve quite a lot of disgrace for it. If I turned out to own stock in the company, I would deserve even more embarrassment and disgrace for it.

Does that answer the question?

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Unless you break the law, of course, then you do deserve punishment....
Well, some laws more than others.

Do you believe you should have to pay $1000.00 for wearing a halloween mask on the street when it's not halloween? Or for spitting on the sidewalk? Or for not getting out of your horseless carriage and ringing a loud bell three times before crossing an intersection? I believe there is a law on the books in Alabama against carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket--no joke.

The point is that many laws are way past their usefulness and should not be enforced. And most of those kinds of things are not enforced.

On the other hand, individuals like Larry Craig and Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich and (Henry?) Livingstone pass laws for all kinds of underhanded and devious reasons and those laws become the law of the land. You might say, "Vote them out and get an honest man in the office." But among other laws, the vote reapportionments that keep their party in power and the party keeps the man in place because he plays their game. Think Tom DeLay. And remember that in cases of redistricting, Alberto Gonzales, as US Attorney General, overwhelmingly ruled in favor of Republican plans that either gave them or retained them in majority voting blocks.

In Alabama several years ago, a state legislator was stopped for speeding on the freeway by a local police officer through whose town the freeway passed. This legislator was going at some awful dangerous speed and the officer pulled him over. The legislator claimed immunity because he was supposedly on his way to a legislative session. He also complained that he didn't have time to "fiddle around going 65 miles per hour all day," though that was the law that all the people were obliged to follow.

Did he change the speed limit? NO. He pushed through a law to prevent local officers in towns of less than some huge population from stopping speeders on interstates that passed through their towns. And the good buddy legislative system here passed that law with little opposition. That legislator is still in the legislature and Alabama has some of the most dangerous roads in the United States.

So maybe you're due for punishment if you break a law, but that doesn't mean you "deserve" it--especially when self-interested yokels are passing the laws for their own benefit in one way or another.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 05:50 PM   #275
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: A President's Thought

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
But did it disprove my point that politicians are basically self-serving and driven by human passions? They want power, possibly more than anything else. But what is power for? For most people, it's a means to get more money, which is usually a means to get more sex.
As long as you're stereotyping, couldn't you apply the above statement to Hispanics or blacks or whatever?
Quote:
That is realism and you know those things to be true.
Ditto to the above, as long as we're stereotyping.
Quote:
Otherwise, explain the behaviors of such Republicans as Gingrich, Livingstone, Foley and Craig.
Er.... they don't foam at the mouth so they must not be normal like Alabamans?
Quote:
And then explain how you still believe that Democrats are bigger or more prolific crooks than Republicans.
Why do you think Dems are trying to get convicted felons the right to vote? What percentage of convicts are Democrats? Most of them.
Quote:
The Democrats that are crooks are petty compared to the global scale of deceit and ruin perpetrated by Republicans.
The three most corrupt States in the U.S. are Louisiana, New Jersey, and Illinois. All run by Democrats. The metro cities with the highest murder and crime rates are all run by Democrat governments and the majority of voters in those cities are Democrates. I thought you were a "realist"?

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Train of thought Ketsan General 35 12-04-2006 07:13 AM
ki in scientific thought shadow Spiritual 193 06-22-2003 04:49 AM
Reason for Thought DaveO General 20 08-12-2002 04:03 AM
the Path Beyond thought CraigJamieson Techniques 3 08-27-2001 05:00 PM
food for thought ( maybe not... hey that rhymes!) Chocolateuke General 4 08-10-2001 06:49 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate