| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2004 11:40:00 PM · #976 |
I'm sorry you feel so offended and upset by jokes about our "illustrious" leader, but that's how I felt, and I'm sure many others as well, a few weeks ago after his "where are the wmd's?" jokes. In my opinion, this is not a man who cares for the "common man" or woman or military person of this country. He sent our soldiers off to battle without, among other things, no bullet proof vests, inadequate supplies of food and other essentials for fighting a war, has denied them overtime pay, and has yet to attend one funeral for our returning dead from Iraq.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 23:43:59. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:00:15 AM · #977 |
976 posts in this thread.... Who will be the 1000th?
I thought the 2 minute run George W. had near the end of his press conference was the best part. He's not good at reading speeches, and is better when he improvises. He also seemed a little defensive at some of the questions although I could understand, especially the idiot "news" person who asked him if he thought he should apologize for 9/11. Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:36:36 AM · #978 |
What was unbelievable?
That the reporter asked a question that most people in the country feel Bush should address, or that Bush actually might have the ethical consciousness to apologize for being so negligent? |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:37:21 AM · #979 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
976 posts in this thread.... Who will be the 1000th?
I thought the 2 minute run George W. had near the end of his press conference was the best part. He's not good at reading speeches, and is better when he improvises. He also seemed a little defensive at some of the questions although I could understand, especially the idiot "news" person who asked him if he thought he should apologize for 9/11. Unbelievable. |
Gasp! Chris, are you crazy? If you've read this thread you know Bush is the devil, has no idea what is going on around him, and is surrounded by bumbling idiots, thieves and liars - how could you pay him a compliment (a real one at that, not left-handed like some others)? Them's dangerous words I tell ya, dangerous.
And I sure hope we get to 1000 posts - I get the sense that some actually think they are going to convince others with directly contrary and steadfast viewpoints. Very entertaining stuff. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:41:31 AM · #980 |
Good lord!
You think he is NOT surrounded by thieves and liars? That IS entertaining! :D |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:45:55 AM · #981 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Good lord!
You think he is NOT surrounded by thieves and liars? That IS entertaining! :D |
When did I say that? |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:49:17 AM · #982 |
A transparent gov’t is one that is open and truthful. I don’ t feel that this administration has been either. Not just with wmd’s and Iraq, but there are a whole host of actions this administration has taken to be secretive. When they first came into office they denied access to GHW Bush’s (the elder) presidential papers. Those belong to the people and should not have been sealed. A second would be Cheney’s secret energy task force that he will not disclose with whom he met or what was discussed. For what good reason is that being kept secret? Another would be Christy Todd Whitman’s report (EPA commissioner at the time of 9/11) that reported that it was safe for emergency workers to be breathing in the air at “ground zero,” or that it was ok to return home for the thousands of NYC residents to their homes with evidence to the contrary. She was instructed by the WH how to respond. (If you’re interested in learning more about this see Juan Gonzalez’s reports in the NY Daily News. The administration also pushed through the Patriot Act in a very short time that did not allow for study or reading of the entire legislation, if any of it. It was passed because no congressperson wanted to go up against the president and appear to be Unpatriotic. Also, if the Bush administration is being so open about these 9/11 hearings, then why was Condoleezza not allowed to testify initially and why was a deal made to allow her to testify. Why is it that Bush and Cheney will testify together in front of the 9/11 commission and why is it that no more WH Officials will be allowed to testify? These were the conditions that the WH made to allow Condileezza to testify. In addition, the WH has total editorial right of censure.
There are also things to be concerned about with Bush regarding his business dealings prior to his ascendancy to the presidency. His conduct while a board member and a member of the financial audit committee for Harkin Energy (his company) was found to be hiding millions of dollars of losses to keep the stock price up. He made more than $800,000 after he sold off stock of his company and was required to report the sale in a timely manner, which he did not, but probably got away with it because a relative of his was president of the US at the time.
There are probably many more examples of how this administration is secretive and why we shouldn’t trust it.
Originally posted by RonB:
BTW, Why on earth would you want a transparent administration. I know that al Qaeda and John Kerry would like that, but why would you? Then again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "transparent". Could you give some examples of what you mean by that?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:49:50 AM · #983 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
That the reporter asked a question that most people in the country feel Bush should address, or that Bush actually might have the ethical consciousness to apologize for being so negligent? |
LOL, yeah, "The ethical consciousnes to apologize for being so negligent.". I doubt you even know what exactly you mean by this. :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:51:06 AM · #984 |
Patents4u,
Did I misread sincerity as sarcasm? If so, a thousand apologies. My bad. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:57:03 AM · #985 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
That the reporter asked a question that most people in the country feel Bush should address, or that Bush actually might have the ethical consciousness to apologize for being so negligent? |
LOL, yeah, "The ethical consciousnes to apologize for being so negligent.". I doubt you even know what exactly you mean by this. :) |
Why? Do you perhaps think I am a fool? Or perhaps I have no command of the English language or of my own thought processes?
Perhaps the concept involved is so inscrutably complex to you that you feel no other mortal could possibly understand it either?
You're getting under my skin. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:02:57 AM · #986 |
Bush is NOT good at reading speeches??? Really? What about his speeches in front of congress after 9/11 and state-of-the-union speeches where he got a rousing applause and was embraced by the country as a whole?
Bush is better at improvising??? Really? When has he practiced this?
I think you have it backwards, Chris.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
976 posts in this thread.... Who will be the 1000th?
I thought the 2 minute run George W. had near the end of his press conference was the best part. He's not good at reading speeches, and is better when he improvises. He also seemed a little defensive at some of the questions although I could understand, especially the idiot "news" person who asked him if he thought he should apologize for 9/11. Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:13:25 AM · #987 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Patents4u,
Did I misread sincerity as sarcasm? If so, a thousand apologies. My bad. |
You assumed it was my position, no apology necessary. I was just pointing out to Chris the dangers of saying something nice about or showing the slightest hint of support for GWB on any topic, in any way. I knew he would be besieged, and you didn't disappoint. I'm quite sure others will follow - it is the trendy thing to do after all. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:25:20 AM · #988 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bush is better at improvising??? Really? When has he practiced this? I think you have it backwards, Chris. |
He "practiced this" in the last several minutes of his speech, that is what I was referring to (did you read my post?). He's not good at giving written speaches the emotion, and feel of conviction that others such as Clinton and Reagan, for example, could. I think when he talks without a script he comes off as more sincere and doesn't "hold back". |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:28:14 AM · #989 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
You assumed it was my position, no apology necessary. I was just pointing out to Chris the dangers of saying something nice about or showing the slightest hint of support for GWB on any topic, in any way. I knew he would be besieged, and you didn't disappoint. I'm quite sure others will follow - it is the trendy thing to do after all. |
I really don't care what liberals have to say about Bush, nor am I worried about showing support for him. You see, I'm not as politically correct as most are. :)
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:40:22 AM · #990 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why? Do you perhaps think I am a fool? Or perhaps I have no command of the English language or of my own thought processes?
Perhaps the concept involved is so inscrutably complex to you that you feel no other mortal could possibly understand it either?
You're getting under my skin. |
LMAO, this is the funniest reply I've ever read!! "inscrutably complex...", hahahaahaa you must be pulling my leg here. :D
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 02:37:25 AM · #991 |
Anybody want to buy a nice flag photo?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 07:30:28 AM · #992 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A transparent gov’t is one that is open and truthful.
|
Then you have to vote for Nader this fall, because Kerry has already shown that he is neither. If you believe that his administration ( heaven forbid ) is going to be transparent ( "open and truthful" ) then why isn't his campaign transparent? As examples: 1) Why does he refuse to release the medical records surrounding his three purple hearts ( he demanded to be sent home from Vietnam when he got his third )? 2) Why won't he and his wife release the contents of her 2003 Federal Income Tax Return? 3) He mortgaged their house to fund his campaign. He stated that HE and he alone ( not his mulit-millionaire wife ) would pay that mortgage. His interest payments alone are $200,000 a year. He doesn't make enough money to pay that interest. So how does he pay it? 4) How much money did the Heinz foundation give to the organization that funds the 9/11 widows ( those who degraded the 9/11 commission hearings by applauding the attacks on Dr. Rice during her testimony )?
Ron |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 08:03:04 AM · #993 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bush is NOT good at reading speeches??? Really? What about his speeches in front of congress after 9/11 and state-of-the-union speeches where he got a rousing applause and was embraced by the country as a whole?
Bush is better at improvising??? Really? When has he practiced this?
I think you have it backwards, Chris.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
976 posts in this thread.... Who will be the 1000th?
I thought the 2 minute run George W. had near the end of his press conference was the best part. He's not good at reading speeches, and is better when he improvises. He also seemed a little defensive at some of the questions although I could understand, especially the idiot "news" person who asked him if he thought he should apologize for 9/11. Unbelievable. |
|
i do remember him whipping al gore's ass in debate
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 08:59:08 AM · #994 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...the 9/11 widows ( those who degraded the 9/11 commission hearings by applauding the attacks on Dr. Rice during her testimony )?
Ron |
An amazing statement, Ron, from someone who professes to be an independent, and not a right-winger.
You characterize tough questions that uncover duplicity and professional neglect as "attacks" on Dr Rice, yet you accuse the 9/11 widows - of all people! - of "degrading" the hearings because they applauded the few salient questions being asked.
Surely you see that the people degrading the hearings are those from the administration who have fought the commission at every turn, who have been caught lying to it, and who dance around the questioning, instead of giving honest, forthright testimony? |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 09:05:28 AM · #995 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bush is NOT good at reading speeches??? Really? What about his speeches in front of congress after 9/11 and state-of-the-union speeches where he got a rousing applause and was embraced by the country as a whole?
Bush is better at improvising??? Really? When has he practiced this?
I think you have it backwards, Chris.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
976 posts in this thread.... Who will be the 1000th?
I thought the 2 minute run George W. had near the end of his press conference was the best part. He's not good at reading speeches, and is better when he improvises. He also seemed a little defensive at some of the questions although I could understand, especially the idiot "news" person who asked him if he thought he should apologize for 9/11. Unbelievable. |
|
i do remember him whipping al gore's ass in debate |
Well, he did seem more like a regular guy, instead of a wooden intellectual. But "whip his ass" Hardly.
Not hard to seem like you did OK on the issues when you lie about every single one of your campaign promises, question the valid statistics of your opponent as "fuzzy math", and offer up statistics of your own which prove false and need correction the very next day.
Too bad we now are seeing the tragic consequences of a intellectually detached and lazy chief executive, whose lack of intellect led directly to the loss of life on 9/11. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 09:14:26 AM · #996 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
...the 9/11 widows ( those who degraded the 9/11 commission hearings by applauding the attacks on Dr. Rice during her testimony )?
Ron |
An amazing statement, Ron, from someone who professes to be an independent, and not a right-winger.
You characterize tough questions that uncover duplicity and professional neglect as "attacks" on Dr Rice, yet you accuse the 9/11 widows - of all people! - of "degrading" the hearings because they applauded the few salient questions being asked.
Surely you see that the people degrading the hearings are those from the administration who have fought the commission at every turn, who have been caught lying to it, and who dance around the questioning, instead of giving honest, forthright testimony? |
Kerry ( Richard, not John ) seemed to be not so much interested in Dr. Rice's answers as he was in posing his questions ( or, more accurately, accusations disguised as questions ). Pure grandstanding, as far as I'm concerned.
At no time in the past have marshalls NOT removed viewers from a congressional hearing who did not respect the decorum and the serious nature of the hearing. The 9/ll widows were even reprimanded by Kerry, himself, yet they were not removed from the viewing area. It was apparent that they were there for political purposes - and they disgraced the proceedings and themselves by their inability to act with decorum.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 10:24:52 AM · #997 |
Originally posted by achiral:
03/08/2003 01:25:32 AM
3. You are ignorant if you think anyone wants war. Unfortunately this is something the world has to deal with. No I don't want war, but I know for a fact Iraq is hiding weapons and could do serious damage to US interests in the region if they wanted to.
|
We've come a long way to
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Well, it was the news media (except for a few) who was reporting that Iraq had wmd's...so I guess that's BS too.
|
Originally posted by achiral:
exactly, thank you.
|
Message edited by author 2004-04-16 10:25:24.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 10:36:56 AM · #998 |
Bush's key supporters are Liberals and Socialists Shocker
Sorry couldn't resist. I find all the 'liberal' comments quite funny as if it is a derogratory comment, given where the main international support comes from.
Never can understand the bipartisan politics in the US, that ignores reality just to slam the 'other guy' at any turn.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:06:33 AM · #999 |
I think that some of you people have some very serious personal issues that should be dealt with in a counseling setting, and not in a public forum such as this. Regardless of political beliefs, alliances, etc., this rant is getting to be out of hand and ridiculous. This is a photography site. The rant forum is to vent about things and then move on. Some obviously cannot move on. If you are at an impasse in your life and cannot deal with trauma post 9-11, I seriously suggest contacting a professional. Blame, fear, suspicion, anxiety, tension, stress...these are all normal feelings after a traumatic event. If they are continuing to a point of paranoia and anger management troubles, seek help. If you feel that you are personally fine and that I am stupid for posting this message, then for goodness' sake, act like it and GROW UP! Constant complaints and bickering between each other will do nothing to solve any problem you can come up with. It stagnates the issues and no change will ever come about because of it. If it makes you feel better to belittle others and rage on and on about inconsistencies in their posts or faulty logic, then see the first line of this message again. Can we all just stop this nonsense? You are all supposed to be adults. Act like it. Express your opinion and move forward. Trying to get someone to see your side of an issue will almost never work when anger is the tool you choose to use.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:08:22 AM · #1000 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/16/2025 05:03:41 PM EDT.
