| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
|
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:08:14 -0500, daytripper
wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Yeah, it's out of the Ninth, so I strongly suspect that the thumpin' of _something_ will continue... And speaking of politics, it's looking like the Pelosi "liberal" Dems are right on schedule to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Cleaning up Congress? They've got Hastings, Jefferson, and Murtha in charge and working on it as we speak... All of the 9/11 Commission recommendations put into place? Um, well, they didn't really mean _all_ of them... Minimum wage increase before a Congressional raise? Well, maybe not _before_ per se, but sooner or later...no, really... |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
daytripper wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Wait until January. It's going to be deliciously ugly -- subpoenas, investigations, and generally enormous loads of soft **** hitting a fast-spinning fan. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be touring in Mexico and will be relatively out of touch. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rw wrote: daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Wait until January. It's going to be deliciously ugly -- subpoenas, investigations, and generally enormous loads of soft **** hitting a fast-spinning fan. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be touring in Mexico and will be relatively out of touch. And how does being out of touch in Mexico make you any different than being out of touch when you're NOT in Mexico? Like now? |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
xorbit wrote:
rw wrote: daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Wait until January. It's going to be deliciously ugly -- subpoenas, investigations, and generally enormous loads of soft **** hitting a fast-spinning fan. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be touring in Mexico and will be relatively out of touch. And how does being out of touch in Mexico make you any different than being out of touch when you're NOT in Mexico? Like now? Oh, I'm in touch all right. Bring it on! I want to see these disgusting neocon mother****ers have their noses rubbed into the horrible messes they've made, starting with Iraq. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rw wrote: xorbit wrote: rw wrote: daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Wait until January. It's going to be deliciously ugly -- subpoenas, investigations, and generally enormous loads of soft **** hitting a fast-spinning fan. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be touring in Mexico and will be relatively out of touch. And how does being out of touch in Mexico make you any different than being out of touch when you're NOT in Mexico? Like now? Oh, I'm in touch all right. Bring it on! I want to see these disgusting neocon mother****ers have their noses rubbed into the horrible messes they've made, starting with Iraq. Before the democrats can sling anything at anybody, they first have to clean their own house. That alone will take decades. Certainly won't be completed in our lifetimes. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
xorbit wrote:
Before the democrats can sling anything at anybody, they first have to clean their own house. That alone will take decades. Certainly won't be completed in our lifetimes. They can **** up these incompetent, evil morons big time. Just watch. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rw wrote:
Oh, I'm in touch all right. Bring it on! I want to see these disgusting neocon mother****ers have their noses rubbed into the horrible messes they've made, starting with Iraq. As satisfying as that would be (as spectacle, if nothing else), I'd like to see the Democrats at least *try* to return some sense of bipartisanship, cooperation and shared responsibility to Washington. It may well be near-hopeless, given the level of polarization we've all sunk to, but it's worth a try, and I think it's what most Americans want. Starting off with hearings and investigations and calls for impeachment, etc., will immediately kill even the smallest possibility of hope. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
"JR" wrote in message
Starting off with hearings and investigations and calls for impeachment, etc., will immediately kill even the smallest possibility of hope. Perhaps, but part of the Dem message was accountability. I believe thay will at least make a show of attempting to find some facts about all of the various **** the Repubs have gotten us into, not the least of which is Iraq. Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rb608 typed:
"JR" wrote in message Starting off with hearings and investigations and calls for impeachment, etc., will immediately kill even the smallest possibility of hope. Perhaps, but part of the Dem message was accountability. You mean Republican accountability. I believe thay will at least make a show of attempting to find some facts about all of the various **** the Repubs have gotten us into, not the least of which is Iraq. Making a show and making a true effort are two different things, and those in glass houses. . . well, you know. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
JR wrote:
rw wrote: Oh, I'm in touch all right. Bring it on! I want to see these disgusting neocon mother****ers have their noses rubbed into the horrible messes they've made, starting with Iraq. As satisfying as that would be (as spectacle, if nothing else), I'd like to see the Democrats at least *try* to return some sense of bipartisanship, cooperation and shared responsibility to Washington. Yeah, right. I want the next two years to be the worst two years of George W. Bush's life. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:59:18 -0800, JR wrote:
rw wrote: Oh, I'm in touch all right. Bring it on! I want to see these disgusting neocon mother****ers have their noses rubbed into the horrible messes they've made, starting with Iraq. As satisfying as that would be (as spectacle, if nothing else), I'd like to see the Democrats at least *try* to return some sense of bipartisanship, cooperation and shared responsibility to Washington. It may well be near-hopeless, given the level of polarization we've all sunk to, but it's worth a try, and I think it's what most Americans want. Starting off with hearings and investigations and calls for impeachment, etc., will immediately kill even the smallest possibility of hope. Wait'll we see what happens next week. If Bush shoves his hands deep in his pants pockets and refuses to adopt key aspects of the Iraq "Study Group" findings, I suspect the populace will be craving to see Bush's head on a pike... /daytripper (who still laughs at that "I got political capital" line ;-) |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rw wrote: xorbit wrote: Before the democrats can sling anything at anybody, they first have to clean their own house. That alone will take decades. Certainly won't be completed in our lifetimes. They can **** up these incompetent, evil morons big time. Just watch. Uh huh. Just watch. But watching would require you to get in touch. And you're using that convenient Mexican escape to ignore reality. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:58:33 -0500, daytripper
wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:08:14 -0500, daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Yeah, it's out of the Ninth, so I strongly suspect that the thumpin' of _something_ will continue... And speaking of politics, it's looking like the Pelosi "liberal" Dems are right on schedule to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Cleaning up Congress? They've got Hastings, Jefferson, and Murtha in charge and working on it as we speak... All of the 9/11 Commission recommendations put into place? Um, well, they didn't really mean _all_ of them... Minimum wage increase before a Congressional raise? Well, maybe not _before_ per se, but sooner or later...no, really... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!) http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achen...democrats.html Granted, it tends to paint all Dems with the Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer brush, which IMO is much too broad, but unless and until the decent Dems make the distinction, it'll be the brush the voters use to paint them all, too...come on - Jack Murtha? Alcee Hastings? Hillary Clinton? William "cashsicles" Jefferson? Please. HTH, R ....and anyone who calls themselves a liberal Dem and doesn't call Pelosi et al on their nonsense with the same fervor as they do the GOP DeLay types has little room to "ahahahahahahaha!"... |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:32:00 GMT, "rb608"
wrote: "JR" wrote in message Starting off with hearings and investigations and calls for impeachment, etc., will immediately kill even the smallest possibility of hope. Perhaps, but part of the Dem message was accountability. For others. I believe thay will at least make a show of attempting No doubt at all - they'll make all sorts of shows... to find some facts about all of the various **** Uh-oh...um, "find" them? They already know them, because they were part of them...well, until they didn't want voters to think they were. the Repubs have gotten us into, not the least of which is Iraq. Wow - _every_ Repub has gotten "us" into Iraq? And they've done it without a _single_ Dem? Those putting their faith for change or "reform" in Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer type "Dems" are going to be in for a serious disappointment, and on a number of levels. Thus far, they've attempted to put an "unindicted co-conspirator" and an impeached-and-removed Federal Judge-turned-Congressman into leadership roles, backtracked on the 9/11 Commission promises because of what it might to do _specific_ Dems power (_not_ control) in various committees, etc. And if they attempt to backpedal and start all sorts of "investigations," they'll really take it up the ass. Or rather, they'll really cause the entire Dem party to take it up the ass. Even many real, honest liberal Dems are cringing. Whining that a turd like Tom DeLay and his ilk are bad and cheering a turd like Pelosi and her ilk as good is nothing but hypocritical partisanship. HTH, R Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:25:59 -0600, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:58:33 -0500, daytripper wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:08:14 -0500, daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Yeah, it's out of the Ninth, so I strongly suspect that the thumpin' of _something_ will continue... And speaking of politics, it's looking like the Pelosi "liberal" Dems are right on schedule to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Cleaning up Congress? They've got Hastings, Jefferson, and Murtha in charge and working on it as we speak... All of the 9/11 Commission recommendations put into place? Um, well, they didn't really mean _all_ of them... Minimum wage increase before a Congressional raise? Well, maybe not _before_ per se, but sooner or later...no, really... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!) http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achen...democrats.html Granted, it tends to paint all Dems with the Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer brush, which IMO is much too broad, but unless and until the decent Dems make the distinction, it'll be the brush the voters use to paint them all, too...come on - Jack Murtha? Alcee Hastings? Hillary Clinton? William "cashsicles" Jefferson? Please. HTH, R ...and anyone who calls themselves a liberal Dem and doesn't call Pelosi et al on their nonsense with the same fervor as they do the GOP DeLay types has little room to "ahahahahahahaha!"... ahahahahahahaha! /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!!!) |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:44:00 -0500, daytripper
wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:25:59 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:58:33 -0500, daytripper wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:08:14 -0500, daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Yeah, it's out of the Ninth, so I strongly suspect that the thumpin' of _something_ will continue... And speaking of politics, it's looking like the Pelosi "liberal" Dems are right on schedule to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Cleaning up Congress? They've got Hastings, Jefferson, and Murtha in charge and working on it as we speak... All of the 9/11 Commission recommendations put into place? Um, well, they didn't really mean _all_ of them... Minimum wage increase before a Congressional raise? Well, maybe not _before_ per se, but sooner or later...no, really... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!) http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achen...democrats.html Granted, it tends to paint all Dems with the Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer brush, which IMO is much too broad, but unless and until the decent Dems make the distinction, it'll be the brush the voters use to paint them all, too...come on - Jack Murtha? Alcee Hastings? Hillary Clinton? William "cashsicles" Jefferson? Please. HTH, R ...and anyone who calls themselves a liberal Dem and doesn't call Pelosi et al on their nonsense with the same fervor as they do the GOP DeLay types has little room to "ahahahahahahaha!"... ahahahahahahaha! /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!!!) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote in message ... ...hypocritical partisanship. ahahahahahahaha! to borrow a particularly apt observation. Wolfgang wondering, not without amusement, why people who can't fool themselves insist on pretending to know in their hahrts that they MUST fool their betters. :) |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote in message ... On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:44:00 -0500, daytripper wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:25:59 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:58:33 -0500, daytripper wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:08:14 -0500, daytripper wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...an_in_forests/ Yeah, it's out of the Ninth, so I strongly suspect that the thumpin' of _something_ will continue... And speaking of politics, it's looking like the Pelosi "liberal" Dems are right on schedule to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Cleaning up Congress? They've got Hastings, Jefferson, and Murtha in charge and working on it as we speak... All of the 9/11 Commission recommendations put into place? Um, well, they didn't really mean _all_ of them... Minimum wage increase before a Congressional raise? Well, maybe not _before_ per se, but sooner or later...no, really... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!) http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achen...democrats.html Granted, it tends to paint all Dems with the Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer brush, which IMO is much too broad, but unless and until the decent Dems make the distinction, it'll be the brush the voters use to paint them all, too...come on - Jack Murtha? Alcee Hastings? Hillary Clinton? William "cashsicles" Jefferson? Please. HTH, R ...and anyone who calls themselves a liberal Dem and doesn't call Pelosi et al on their nonsense with the same fervor as they do the GOP DeLay types has little room to "ahahahahahahaha!"... ahahahahahahaha! /daytripper (ahahahahahahaha!!!) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Surrender early.....surrender often. Wolfgang that's what we like to see! :) |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
Tim J. wrote:
You mean Republican accountability. Actually I didn't; but because that's where the power has been for the past 6 years, I expect that's where the responsibility will settle for most stuff. Making a show and making a true effort are two different things, and those in glass houses. . . well, you know. ;-) I agree, & that's why I hedged in my statement. Despite whatever letter follows the congresscritter's name, money is still green; and there's still plenty of it in DC. I don't expect a D or R automatically confers sainthood on anybody. Yeah, the corruption is probably bi-partisan, but I mostly want to see some accountability for the failed policies and misuse of intelligence that have led to the deaths of so many Americans, the erosion of the Constitution, and the destuction of America's moral standing in the world. I want people answering questions under oath, not these cozy PR stunts that have been passing for oversight. Wil the Dems have the stones to do what's right or will it be SSDP? I don't know, but I at least have reason for hope. We'll see. Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
Wolfgang wrote:
wrote wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:25:59 -0600, wrote: wrote: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote: wrote: I woke up kinda late today, and am so pleased that roff, at least, is taking my wish for bipartisan peace and harmony so close to heart...... Can Washington be far behind? :) - J "Pollyanna" R |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On 1 Dec 2006 09:26:08 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
Tim J. wrote: You mean Republican accountability. Actually I didn't; but because that's where the power has been for the past 6 years, I expect that's where the responsibility will settle for most stuff. Er, six years? It's 2006 - 1994 was 12 years ago. Making a show and making a true effort are two different things, and those in glass houses. . . well, you know. ;-) I agree, & that's why I hedged in my statement. Despite whatever letter follows the congresscritter's name, money is still green; and there's still plenty of it in DC. I don't expect a D or R automatically confers sainthood on anybody. Yeah, the corruption is probably bi-partisan, but I mostly want to see some accountability for the failed policies and misuse of intelligence that have led to the deaths of so many Americans, the erosion of the Constitution, and the destuction of America's moral standing in the world. I want people answering questions under oath, not these cozy PR stunts that have been passing for oversight. Um, corruption is "_probably_ bi-partisan?" Erosion of the Constitution? And the real biggie - "America's" "moral standing?" You sound like a true US-centric who hasn't a clue about the way the real world works. If you feel the need to "hedge" "probably bi-partisan," you REALLY need to stay away from the kool-aid. And the US Constitution is no more or less "eroded" now as compared to any other time is its history. And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside, the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's simply not something that one group's government and people could have over another group. In relation to one another, governments and the people they govern have interests - no more, no less. A set of governments might have (overt and/or covert) interests that align and those interests may be counter to the (overt and/or covert) interests of one or more other governments, but none have any "moral standing" over another. Wil the Dems have the stones to do what's right or will it be SSDP? I don't know, but I at least have reason for hope. "The Dems?" Are you a Dem? If so, will _you_ have the stones to do what's "right?" We'll see. HTH, R |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote in message ... ...You sound like a true US-centric who hasn't a clue about the way the real world works.... Well then, why don't you just go ahead and tell us how it works? Seriously. I mean, what the hell.......get a jump on the new year.....do something entirely different......say something. Wolfgang any bets on whether dicklet takes the opportunity to answer a simple, serious question? :) |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
Well ****; I wasn't going to bother, and I may as well send Wolfgang
the SNN now, but I have a few minutes to kill, so... wrote: Er, six years? It's 2006 - 1994 was 12 years ago. Er, thanks; but I can subtract four digit numbers just fine. President Chimpy has been in office for 6 years (rounding up, of course). Would it have helped you understand if I had said "unchecked power"? Erosion of the Constitution? IMO, yes. And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside, the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's simply not something that one group's government and people could have over another group. Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"? "The Dems?" Are you a Dem? Are you a Republican? Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
"rb608" wrote in message ups.com... the destuction of America's moral standing in the world. When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans. What we need is a new attitude! We need to reassess our foreign and domestic policies, so that they are compatible with our: energy needs, human rights rehtoric, so-called democratic principles, and geo-political desires. If the only thing that we are about is, "maintaining American standards of living and ensuring that capitalisms is the enrichment of an extreme minority, we haven't a chance of constructing a moral stance, muchless losing one we never had to begin with. Op Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On 1 Dec 2006 14:10:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
Erosion of the Constitution? IMO, yes. OK, how? And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside, the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's simply not something that one group's government and people could have over another group. Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"? No, and it wouldn't matter anyway - governments can have neither. "The Dems?" Are you a Dem? Are you a Republican? Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no, I'm not, nor have I ever been. HTH, R |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote: On 1 Dec 2006 14:10:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote: Erosion of the Constitution? IMO, yes. OK, how? And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside, the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's simply not something that one group's government and people could have over another group. Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"? No, and it wouldn't matter anyway - governments can have neither. "The Dems?" Are you a Dem? Are you a Republican? Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no, I'm not, nor have I ever been. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wolfgang |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
Opus wrote:
When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans. I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more than a mere military bully on the world stage. On balance, we have done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders. I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On 1 Dec 2006 14:58:15 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
Opus wrote: When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans. I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more than a mere military bully on the world stage. On balance, we have done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders. I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. You do? Really, seriously? Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote: On 1 Dec 2006 14:58:15 -0800, "rb608" wrote: I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. You do? Really, seriously? Isn't he silly? :) So, come on, dicklet, tell us how it REALLY is. Seriously. Wolfgang |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
rb608 wrote:
... I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along. -- Ken Fortenberry |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:44:12 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: rb608 wrote: ... I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along. Yeah, and Ho Chi Minh went to his death but with one regret: that the dratted war kept he and his missus from to continuing to summer with the Kennedys on the Vineyard...rumor is his last words were "That Teddy...a couple of drinks and he's such a card...I'll miss tha....ACK!" And of course it's been revealed that what good ol' Nikita was REALLY saying while banging his shoe was, "WE LOVE AMERICA!! WE LOVED HARRY!! And those aren't missile silos, they're refinishing vats so we can help you guys restore the shine to good ol' Lady Liberty!"... And who can forget Hitler's rousing and touching, "Frankie D., my bubalah! Can't we just become the 49th state?" speech at Nuremberg... Did you guys, like, you know, study any history, at like, you know, a school, or like, you know, something? HTH, R |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
wrote:
Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no, I'm not, nor have I ever been. Then are you an iguana? Op |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... rb608 wrote: ... I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along. Yes, and the world just loved Johnson and his little esculation in Vietnam, right? Op Ken Fortenberry |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
|
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
"rb608" wrote in message oups.com... Opus wrote: When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans. I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more than a mere military bully on the world stage. No, we were military bullies covertly. WE just didn't recognize the fact and the rest of the so-called democratic developed nations were only too happy for us to spend billions to protect them from the evil commies. All of those who lost loved one's, in so many *poor* nations, never saw us as the moral standard. Certainly not in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, the Middle East... The only people who may have held us up as the moral champions of the world were those around the world who had a monetary interest at stake. I'm just as upset as you are about the baffoon and chief and his minons, but it certainly won't be the Dems who bring us back to some fantasy moral equilibrium, as their fingerprints are all over our nasty post WWII history. On balance, we have done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders. "USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by one.)" "The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid..American's private giving-another 5c/day-is high by international standards but does not close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid and 24c/day in private aid" per person." http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onGNIperce nt I'm not so naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as a positive actor more often than not. I guess it's a matter of who's doing the viewing? Op Joe F. |
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
|
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
|
The Thumpin' Continues :-)
I opened this thread thinking that Illinois or North Carolina were still playing football.........g Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter