Community Calendar
Community
Calendar
Tomahawk Leader Internet Edition - Newspaper in Tomahawk Wisconsin Photo Album
Photo
Album
Map
Map of
Tomahawk, WI
Grey Bar
The Tomahawk Leader is a state and national prize-winning weekly newspaper serving the scenic Northwoods area in and around Tomahawk, WI.

It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:21 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 349
Location: Wausau
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I say, Mr. President, give it a REST!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/957431.asp

President says U.S.
will strike ‘known enemies’ in other countries if needed

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 26 — President Bush argued Tuesday for sustained involvement in Iraq in the face of mounting casualty tolls and calls to pull out, promising veterans that he would remain “on the offensive against terrorism” even if it meant expanding operations to other countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:05 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Well Aphephilia, now Bush and the U.S. are in the situation we were in in Vietnam. If we go home now, it will look humiliating. Of course it will look like that ten years from now also, but Bush will be long gone and someone else will have to make the hard decisions.

Perhaps you can buy one of the below "Action Figures" and stick some pins in it.
***************
Milw. Journal Sentinel 8/27/03 Opinion Page
ACTION FIGURE
Bush's military service hardly heroic
Words could not express my outrage when I first saw the promotional advertisement for a new toy "action figure" that portrays President Bush as a heroic Navy fighter pilot in full gear.

Are people aware that Bush was never in the Navy? In fact, during the Vietnam War, he dodged the draft by getting himself into an Air National Guard unit that flew planes it was known would not be used in Vietnam - and then he went AWOL for a year. How does this, as his only "military service," qualify him as a Navy hero?

As a real Vietnam veteran, I certainly believe in supporting our troops. However, while this toy attempts to place Bush on the troops' side, he is actually a "commander in chief" whose idea of support has recently included: cutting veterans' benefits even while sending our troops overseas; changing the rules in midstream so that short-term tours of duty suddenly became yearlong for soldiers after they were stuck in Iraq; cutting combat zone pay for troops now in Iraq even though there are almost daily casualties; and cutting special support for those troops' families that are left behind.

Undoubtedly the White House participated enthusiastically in the obvious propaganda that this "toy" represents. The American people should be aware of its hypocrisy - and should not be taken in.

Charles K. Quigley
Shorewood

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 8:47 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Wow! Now here's something new! Naaaaa... not really just more of the same from the "We Hate Bush Club" speiling out yet more gargage....boooooring! A bit sad too. No life, just hate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:18 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Perhaps you meant spiel, or spell, or spin (sorry Aphephilia but you were not here). Yes I dislike incompetence in those putting on the facade of competence. It has nothing to do with Bush other than he is in that category.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:18 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 349
Location: Wausau
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Spiel would be correct Abraham. Sorry for not being available but even the spelling cop needs sleep every now and then. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:29 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
--jflosum, do you honestly think that these issues are not important?--

Yes they are important. But the motives of those doing the posting are nothing but the ongoing efforts of attacking Bush. I’m sorry, but when someone posts absolutely noting but negative and never offers any solutions, that is when it becomes unimportant, it loses all credibility. It becomes just more partisan politics.

--Instead of defending Bush—

Not sure I have ever out right defended Bush. Like some of the others you think anyone that is not interesting in hearing Bush (or any President regardless of party) get trashed just for the sake of partisan politics is a defender. Simply not true.

--Doesn't the information stand on it's own?—

No.

That hit piece that Abraham posted was just that, a hit piece. It’s a letter to the editor for crying out loud? That should stand on it’s own?

You guys are not putting anything out there to be reasonable discussed. You are only posting things that try to show Bush is the worst possible light.

--Do you really think that certain people on this message board have hatred for Bush (rather than his politics)?

Yes! Most liberals lack the ability to make the distinction. Hence the personnel attack on his character. (And mine)

--As hard as it is for you to believe, discussing Bush's politics on this board isn't an attempt to tarnish our president’s reputation.--

Bull crap!

--you choose to complain about where the info comes from. –

The source of the information is always a key point in establishing credibility. Letters to the Editor and bloggs (bloggs!! Man I still get a kick out of that!! ) are not very credible unless there is at least some effort made to establish the credentials of the authors. In this case they are obviously just more members of the I The Bush Club.

Let me explain it to you in maybe a little bit clearer terms that you might better understand. There has been a number of things over the months that I have agreed with Abraham and others that were not very favorable to Bush. But in light of the one-sided hostilities he and others have shown, I have no desire to participate in that kind of discussion. I don’t want any part of it. You and others seem to think that is defending Bush. I would see it as more of trying to defend the process of fair and unbiased, objective thinking. My comments, often skewed to be Bush supportive, are an effort to point out that there are a number of people that are not fair, unbiased and certainly not objective. In other words, no, the information they present does not stand on it’s own. The presenters should be challenged when there is an obvious agenda. The agenda is one of patrician politics: tarnish Bush. And anyone that dares even looks like they are defending him for that matter.

Same thing was going on during the Clinton days and I did not support the constant bashing of Bill Clinton either. I’m feed up with the constant bashing and attacking and mud slinging.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:06 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
The main difference is that the article you are linking is from a readily recognized media organization with some reasonable level of credibility. It is a “real” news article written by a real journalist, we think. Let us not forget the NY York Times to quickly. It’s not a letter to the editor or some one posting on a blogg (ahhahahahaaha!! I still just can’t get over the fact that someone would use a blogg as a credible source)

Notice that although the general feeling of the article is not all that pro Bush, it lacks terms like incompetent, imbecile, warmonger and other such attacks that are all to often present in other posts. Also notice there is an attempt made to explain the reasoning for the action as well as the opposition side.

The article goes a long ways towards your earlier suggestion that the information should stand on it’s own. Although no one could possible draw any unbiased final conclusions form the one article on Bush’s entire air quality policy. Certainly you can see the difference between this article and the letter to the editor that was posted above.

You have made my point for me. Thank you.

For the record also notice please, that I am not stating in any way shape or form rather I agree what the action Bush took or not. IN OTHER WORDS I AM NOT DEFENDING BUSH’S SIGNING THIS BILL. NOR AM I OPPOSED.

I am not suggesting the author is writing an anti-Bush article either. The topic is such that it is nearly impossible to report on the action with out it coming off a bit as a neg action.

I will offer my own opinion on the subject, not based on this article at all. When I see energy corporation execs knocking down many hundreds of millions in yearly salaries, I have a hard time thinking we need to take any risks what so ever by easing the clean air (or water) standards based solely on costs alone. On the other hand, how many more major power outages are lurking right down the road.

<small>[ August 28, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:15 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 349
Location: Wausau
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Well JFlosum, I am not a "liberal" nor am I a "conservative". No extreme right winger or left winger here either. In fact, it might surprise you to know that I typically lean in favor of the Republican party when voting. I do not classify myself, Republican or Democrat or any other political party. I'm just me, but usually tend to vote Republican. But what Bush is doing and has been doing for the past 2+ yrs is a disgrace to the Republican party as well as to the U.S. of A. on the whole. Can't you see what condition the state of the union is in?
I do not believe in censorship nor am I a believer in fencesitting, therefore I voice my opinions like all good American citizens should do. If you do not like the threads on this message board that discuss Bush, then why read them and why post in them? You have the freedom to choose not to, as we have the freedom to choose to do so.
It is better to run either Hot or Cold, rather than remaining in a constant state of lukewarmness.
How does that one famous quote go? I can't even think of who said it now, but it goes something like this:
The man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:35 am 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Well, Flosum, include me in the group you so dismissively label as mere "Bush Bashers." It's so much easier to attack the motives of dissenters than to deal with the realities that dissent presents. This was not a good week for "Dubya" and the boys.

1. We learned this week that following 9/11, the EPA was required to clear its warnings concerning the air quality in Manhattan with senior officials in the Bush Administration, including the National Security Council. The result was that the EPA continued to reassure people cleaning up offices, apartments, businesses, etc. that the air quality was good when their own data showed that the air was loaded with all sorts of dangerous particulate matter. Just why the EPA could not have warned those folks to take appropriate precautions given the poor air quality is a large, unanswered questions from the Bush Administration -- among a continuing accumulation of such questions.

2. We learned this week that companies that Bush and Dick Cheney worked for -- Enron, Haliburton, Brown and Root, and Bechtel -- have received approximately $1.7 BILLION in no-competive-bid contracts for reconstruction and "support" services in Iraq. Halliburton received another
$300 million dollar contract -- again, with no
competitive bidding -- to supply support services in Iraq. What good is a pre-emptive war if you
can't provide lucrative contracts for the "good ol'boys"?

3. While realistic information about the actual costs of the Iraq War is still not forthcoming from the Bush Administration, the estimate by the GAO this week set the figure at approximately $4 billion a month with Afghanistan adding another $1 billion a month -- with no end in sight. Is there anyone who realistically believes that Iraq will be transformed into anything resembling a democratic government? My morning newspaper carried a picture of a crowd of Iraqi men cheering and celebrating while waving the bloody shirt of an American soldier who was reportedly killed in one of the ambushes that the story said are happening at the rate of one every two hours in Iraq.

4. Secretary Powell failed this week to get other nations in the United Nations to send troops to assist the rebuilding of Iraq. After Bush soundly
rejected the United Nations in going to war, it's apparently a pretty hard sell to persuade them to come in and risk the lives of their troops to help clean up the mess. And, of course, we don't want to give up control because that would obviously interfere with those contracts for the "good ol' boys."

5. We learned this week that the budget deficit will be "in the range" of $405 billion this fiscal
year and $480 billion next fiscal years and that budget deficits will likely continue for EIGHT MORE YEARS! As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows, budget deficits are another form of tax. Budget deficits have to be
"serviced" and there are prices to pay in money
markets, etc. when government prints money to
cover losses, especially such massive losses.

6. I could review the bad news on the envirnomental front but I suspect that Bush supporters don't much care about air quality in places like New York, Boston, Dallas, Houston, L.A. etc. And, of course, who cares if strip mining has been resumed in West Virginia based on
a Bush Administration supported challenge to the
1974 Clean Air Act. Who cares if West Virginia
looks like a moonscape as long as Dubya's friends
in the energy industry can make a profit?

Call me a Bush Basher. I am, and without apology.
This is a disastrous administration on all fronts.
You may have noticed my minivan on my most recent visit to Tomahawk. It was the blue minivan with the bumper sticker that reads, "Re-Defeat George W. Bush."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:18 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Aphephilia,

--Can't you see what condition the state of the union is in?

And Bush in just two years is responsible for all of what is wrong? Yeah right…

--But what Bush is doing and has been doing for the past 2+ yrs is a disgrace to the Republican Party as well as to the U.S. of A. on the whole.

Are suffering from some sort of denial? Bush’s ratings are extremely high with in the party… much higher then I like. As I have said on a number of times. Bush was not my candidate… I supported and still do support someone else for the office.

Even his overall ratings were at or near all times highs for any president. I have no idea where they are now. No doubt Iraq is taking a toll and will continue to until he gets a handle on it. Assuming he can.

--The man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.

You have no idea what I stand for or do not stand for. Being a little judge mental are we?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:54 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Hey Bob Doolittle! Welcome back! Where have you been, I have missed your erroneous, factious and vicious ranting and ravings. They are so entertaining to read. Better then the funny papers… !!

Incidentally, you want to show me where I have ever defended or specifically supported Bush on any of the above issues?

Some people just can’t see anything but black and white. I don’t bash or hate Bush so therefore I must be a Bush supporter? I DON”T THINK SO!!! Ahhahahahaa…

-- It's so much easier to attack the motives of dissenters than to deal with the realities that dissent presents.

I am very comfortable in opposing Bush on issues I do not agree with him on. But I don’t need to do it by calling him names and drudging up all the trash I can find and posting it all over the Internet like the “I Hate Bush Club” does.

You and your fellow club members are doing the exact same thing Rush Limbaugh does and think is so terribly wrong, little hypocrisy going on here maybe? hehehe

I would have supported Clinton or a yellow dog in pink jammies to go into Iraq. As for the UN, **** man, I have been long on the record for the total restructuring of that organization. Until then I don’t think they should have much of role in anything we do.

On the budget deficient, do you really mean for me to believe that if Gore were in office 9/11 would not have happened (keep in mind now that everyone agrees that the planning for 9/11 attacks started way back in the first Clinton days)?

As for Iraq, I would love to see us pull out lock, stock and barrel and just let them idiots over there kill themselves off or figure out some way to get control of their own country. No matter what we do over there they will continue to kill one another as fast as they possible can. The have been doing it for 2000 plus years and are going to do it for another 2000 more then likely. But if the threat to the US returns, I’d go back in.

I know you don’t think there was a threat… so be it. I believe there was…. Neither one of us is going to budge from that position so let’s not beat that drum again.

I could go on, but hey, I know you are not interested.

Keep’um coming Bob! Good fiction is hard to come by!

<small>[ August 29, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:07 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 171
Location: Hatchet Creek, Wisconsin
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Fourth generation native.
Follow this link ONLY if you are fed up with Bush and Co. Propaganda Revised

_________________
When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:18 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Flosum: You would be much more interesting if you weren't so incredibly predictable. You don't dispute a single factual statement that I've made, and (predictably) you don't indicate anything you either support or oppose. Clearly, you are sensitive to any criticism of Bush and Company; your response is (predictably) to accuse such critics of being "Bush bashers." (But, of course, that's not name-calling; only Bush critics are guilty of that by your lights.) The person who takes and defends particular positions, specific policies, and particular people who support those positions and policies will, indeed, be attacked. Limbaugh calls them all sorts of names; it's his primary attraction in this "Jerry
Springer" media age. I can't blame you, of course, for not openly supporting the policies of George W. Bush. That's risky. Just this morning I read how an energy policy that received
"strong Bush Administration support" when it was
announced -- EPA Administrator (at the time) Christie Whitman called it "a shining example" of
government-business cooperation to conserve energy
-- was cut this week with no explanation. The
"Energy Star program had become synonyous with energy efficiency. The program produced $70 in benefits for every dollar spent on it" according to the (Bush) EPA. But it was cut this week. Now tell me what energies policies or environmental programs of the Bush Administration you can identify and support. Tough, isn't it. Oh, how about this postcript from this morning's news:
"France is pressing for an international force (in Iraq). At the same time, a State Department official said, France, Russia and other European governments want greater shares of recontructing Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion, including some of the lucrative contracts American firms (read G.W.'s good ol' boy friends) have obtained."

Last year about this time, I said that Iraq could
very well become another Vietnam for us. But Bush and his supporters insisted that we could install a model democratic government in Iraq that would
transform the entire Middle East. We've transformed it all right. We've destablized the entire area. Osama bin Laden couldn't hope for better recruiting fodder than that which Bush and his "chicken hawks" have provided by the pre=emptive war based on overly-hyped information about weapons of mass destruction. We now know that Bush and his advisors were receiving decidedly
contrary intelligence which they simply ignored because it didn't fit with their predetermiend
objectives. Think that won't be an issue in the 2004 election? Think again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:06 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bob,

-You don't dispute a single factual statement that I've made<

Maddening isn’t it that you can’t trap me into some meaningless debate? It’s not my job to dispute you.

-”factual statements”

?? Haven’t seen many of those!! Seen a lot of trash talk and biased, agenda driven opinions, but not much fact.

-you don't indicate anything you either support or oppose<

That’s just not true. Maybe you need to do a search on member number 55 and see exactly where I have taken a number of stands on a number of issues. Maybe not in any responses to you, but they are there. Of course you already know that.

But just for the record, I am against the constant bashing of the President, or anyone for that matter, just to push one’s own self interest or political agenda as the “I hate Bush Club” is doing.

-Limbaugh calls them all sorts of names<

Yes he does, and I don’t listen to or debate with Limbaugh either You, Abraham, Limbaugh and a few others here are all out of the same mold as far as I’m concerned, just different targets.

I guess you and the others just don’t and probably won’t ever get it

Let me try to explain it again. You don’t agree with Bush going into Iraq. I do. Which you already know. So in order to support your position, you and others have tried to dig up every single piece of trash on Bush you possibly can. He didn’t serve in the military, he smoked some weed, he was a drunk, he owned some Enron stock, and on and on and on. Is any of that crap going to change my mind on the need to go into Iraq? No. Why? Because I would have supported anyone in the office, Demo. or Repub. to do the same thing.

Why should I waste my time defending Bush’s actions? Even if I could prove that none of that stuff is true, would it change your mind? No. And I’m not suggesting for one minute I can or can’t or even want to or even care. The fact is your mind is made up.

There are Bush haters/lovers and Clinton haters/lovers, fact of life. I do not consider myself any of the above. I’m not for or against either one to any strong degree. I can see where both have commendable and condemnable qualities. However, the I Hate Bush Club is not interested in anything but getting rid of Bush. So why should I bother defending him, even if I was inclined to do so? And I certainly don’t need to trash him. You guys got that covered! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:50 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Here is an example of what I am talking about.

Bob makes this statement about the Energy Star program saying it “-- was cut this week with no explanation.”

That is just not true. You may not like the explanations but there were plenty of them given. However Bob, with that misrepresentation of the facts, would have you believing that Bush took it upon his own with not input form anyone and just wiped the program out on a whim.

Here’s the first of many stories a simple news.Google.com search came up with:
EPA Quietly Cuts Budget of Energy Star
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3088609,00.html

“The reason given, according to these sources, was that the EPA had to find money to pay for scores of congressionally mandated projects while at the same time absorbing an across-the-board government-wide spending cut.”

“Last month, the White House directed $7 million be put back into the program, bringing its budget for this year to $44.6 million, still shy of what Bush and lawmakers had intended. The EPA had to scramble to find the money elsewhere in its budget.”

More links to the Energy Star program: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=%22Energy+Star+%22

I didn’t read all of the stories but it does seem to me that there were plenty of reasons given and even an attempt by the Bush White house to save the program. Seems to be more of a victim of the EPA and the US congress then a whim of Bush.

I do not support or oppose what has happened to the program. I simple do not have enough information to make that judgment. Bob obviously doesn’t either if he doesn’t even know there was an explanation given for the cut. Of course he wasn’t going to let a simple thing like the facts stop him from bashing Bush with the issue. “Facts? Facts? Bob don’t need no stinking facts!!!

Nice one Bob!! Bet that got you three gold stars and maybe even a free month dues in the “I Hate Bush Club”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:45 am 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Flosum: I said it before, I'll say it again. You
are predictable. READ THE STORIES and re-read my
post. I pointed out that a program that the Bush
Administration PUBLICLY TOUTED as a stellar part of its environmental record was cut without PUBLIC
COMMENT by the Bush Administration. It was the decision of the Administration (including the EPA) to cut the program. Congress was not in session when the cut was made. Since the program was cut and notice of the cut was revealed in the media, various "explanations" have been made by the Bush
Administration. The point was that it's pretty
hard to see just what the Bush Administration is prepared to support. Earlier in the summer, an
innovative teaching program which put exceptionally bright young teachers in problems schools -- and which had received "strong support" from the Bush Administration, including PUBLIC
praise from Laura Bush -- was cut without PUBLIC
EXPLANATION. Notices were simply mailed to the
teachers telling them that funding had been dropped. Bush bashing? If the public record of
false starts, ballyhooed programs which are "quietyly cut," etc. is Bush bashing, then I plead
guilty -- and as I said PUBLICLY before, without apology. Maybe, Flosum, you'd rather talk about
how consistent the Bush Administration has been in
its public statements about Iraq? Go ahead, make
my day!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:33 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Whooooooosh!!

Whoa!! Was that Lance Armstrong that just went peddling by here?

No! It’s Bob Doolittle, backpedaling as fast as he can!!

Your post stands by itself… But why are you trying to cover it up? It’s a good one!! I heard the entire I hate Bush Club rise and applauded when you posted it!!

Attabboy Bob!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:33 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
JCG: There's not much value in attempting to make
sense of Flosum. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he is "context-challenged." He just can't seem to recognize the context in which various statements are offered and reply to that context. But then this is a familiar tactic for those whose primary purpose is evasion, obfuscation, and deflection. Of course, his offers no clear position on any major point. What policies or programs of the Bush Administration does he support? Other than saying that he supported the invasion of Iraq, there's not much he'll admit to -- but he will attack as vicious
"Bush-bashers" those who take issue with specific program and actions that the Bush Administration supports -- or, at least, publicly says it supports until they are ended without public explanations. Is he prepared to re-visit Bush's
public statements which we used to justify a pre-emptive war against a nation which purportedly posed an eminent threat to this country? He is not about to do that. But he supports Bush's invasion of Iraq. And, I suppose we "Bush-bashers" are wrong in questioning the continued involvement of American trooops in a
country which clearly now regards us as occupiers,
not saviors, while we expend lives, blood, and
money to win the hearts and minds of the people of
that badly-divided nation. Don't expect an answer from Flosum -- just a shift in context and more
personal attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2003 2:18 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
HEHE!!!

Bob, you really need to read your own stuff. First I'm context challenged and not taking a stand, and then I'm defending Bush? Which is? huh? I mean I'm sure you know more of what I'm thinking then I do. You seem to be able to think for everyone or at least you think you do!

I have no problem with you taking issue with Bush policies; it’s the one-sided, bogus, mean spirited, name-calling fashion in which you and your I Hate Bush Club members do it. You do the exact same thing in the exact same fashion as Rush Limbaugh does his liberal bashing and then you bash Rush and the folks that listen to him.

I just think that it is funny as ****! Not to mention extremely hypocritical.

Bob, you say: “Don't expect an answer from Flosum -- just a shift in context and more personal attack.”

Ahhh, hey Bob, it was you that called me context challenged and the Self Important Gas Bag! Or was that Abraham? Hard to tell you I Hate Bushers apart! :D

Have you ever head me call you or anyone in this forum an imbecile, warmonger, draft dodger, dope smoker or any name for that manner? No you have not… but you and others have called or posted stories where others have called Bush those names and worse…and you say “I’M” making personal attacks?

Man that is funny stuff!!!

HEHE!

<small>[ September 05, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:19 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Jcg, Well it certainly does not surprise me that you can’t understand what I’m saying. It is totally lacking in name-calling or trash talk about Bush. That seems to be about all you I Hate Bushers want to hear. (Insert smug laughing here) ahhahahahaahhaa

You continue to call my unwillingness to indulge in such nonsense as defending Bush which again is just more nonsense.

Some people are so totally consumed with their own perspective they either can’t or just refuse to even entertain for on instant that there is some gray area that they have yet to explore. The fact that I refuse to debate with people that have already made up their minds on Bush seems to be an unacceptable condition you and other members of the I Hate Bush Club can’t come to grip with. And yes, I do find that amusing as all get out!

Debating or entering into an exchange of ideas and opinions with people that use name calling mudslinging, as tactics is just not something I am interesting in doing. The I Hate Bush Club trudges up everything they can possible find that shows Bush in the worse possible light, regardless of the source or credibility of the name caller of accuser.

You guys are not interested in a debate or an exchange of ideas and opinions, it’s a political lynching you are after.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, Bush was not my candidate of choice. In a sordid kind of way, I actually benefit if you guys are successful in running him out of office. So the suggestion that I feel above such tactics is also nonsense.

As for the accusation that I am a Self Important Gas Bag, now that one may be right on the money!!! I don’t know anyone that likes to hear me spouting off more then I do!! (Insert more smug laughing here) ahhahahahaahhaa

But what is really funny, I mean fall down rolling on the ground funny, is you guys can’t take the heat!

All I’m really doing is attacking the name-calling, mud slinging, trash talking policies of the I Hate Bush Club. Isn’t that what you keep saying you are doing to Bush, attacking his policies? So what’s the beef???

(Insert even more smug laughing here by the Self Important Gas Bag; a.k.a. JFlosum)

Ahahhaahahahaha!!!! Hehehehehe!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: With All Due Respect
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 6:25 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
If anyone is interested in that state of civility on
this board, simply read Flosum's posts. Name-calling, name-baiting (i.e. the games he has
played on this board with my name), laughing derision masquerading as response, an absolute refusal to respond to factual statements, and a
penchant for labeling those he disagrees with -- "Bush-haters," etc -- frequent context shifting
accompanied by accusations that others are "back-pedaling," etc. Now, he wants to poll us on civility.


The fact is that the state of civility in political matters, at least, hasn't changed much
over the years. As Kathleen Jamieson in WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT POLITICS AND WHY YOU'RE WRONG
points out, politics in this country has often been a dirty business. With mass media, we see it
more often, and we discover that audiences respond to it better than to carefully reasoned debate and discussion. The ultimate key to civility, as Barrett points out in his book, RHETORIC AND CIVILITY, is the audience. Civil discourse requires an attentive and courteous audience that is prepared to respond to ideas, to compare and
contrast information, to judge the value of various sets of facts and arguements. Bless his
heart, Flosum has his own ideas about civility which do not resemble what is described above. But I will defend to the death his right to rant.
That is what freedom of speech is all about. It may not be perfect, as Flosum's posts vividly illustate, but it is better than any system going.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr