| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Harry Reid throws down the gauntlet | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 1 2005, 01:03 PM (1,653 Views) | |
| Jack Frost | Nov 2 2005, 07:29 PM Post #76 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Indeed I do. Goodnight my friend. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 07:57 PM Post #77 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It was OED. The "real" English, not the murky rhetoric of political soundbites. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 08:07 PM Post #78 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
True -- the old liberals... there is not much difference between FDR and the other great socialists of the time (Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini). It was something about the era -- the 1920s is when the Roman fasces (whence "fascist") became fashionable as a symbol of authority in Washington and even on the Mercury dimes. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 2 2005, 08:46 PM Post #79 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I believe he has Libby's own notes of a meeting with Cheney, in Libby's own handwriting, indicating that Cheney mentioned it, long before Libby started talking to reporters about it. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 2 2005, 08:55 PM Post #80 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Larry, I read your comments in this thread and all I can say is that you are too stupid for words. I don't know how Quirt puts up with you day after day. Why thank you, Jack. I always considered you the smarter of the two in your household. That isn't saying much, but I still gave you that slight edge. Go ahead and think I'm stupid. I've read the posts you and your wife have written too, and in light of that, your opinion of what constitutes stupid becomes rather lightweight. I don't think you or your wife either one are stupid. But you both are so ideologically constipated that you wouldn't know the truth if it rode up on a white horse and slapped you. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 3 2005, 10:10 AM Post #81 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Where do you get that we was lying about who sent him. I just re-read his whistle blowing article published in July of 2003. There is no lying there. He doesn't not say that Cheney sent him, or even intimate that he did. The closest he comes to saying this is, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. " Earlier in the same article he says "The agency officials [referring to CIA] asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." Here's the article. Where's the lies? Wilson's 7/03 NY Times Article Once, again, it looks like your swallowing the Rovian spin on this. As to the hiring and firing bit, yes, the president has always had the privilege of being able to choose his cabinet and advisers at his pleasure, but it's a dangerous course of action when the pattern is to fire anyone who dares say nay. It's been no secret that Bush doesn't like people who dare to question him. Even some of the staunchest conservative pundits have recently harshly criticized Bush for surrounding himself by yes men. "The Emperor's New Clothes" could have been written about Bush. |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 3 2005, 10:15 AM Post #82 |
|
MAMIL
|
I'm sorry, but to equate Roosevelt to Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini is completely idiotic. Roosevelt was one of the only American politicans of the time to want to come to Britains aid in resisting tyranny. If you lot had listened and come in a bit quicker, a lot less people might have died. What is this? You're so upset about being late for the first two World Wars, you making sure you're nice and early for the next one? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 3 2005, 11:09 AM Post #83 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
No, he did not say in the article that the Vice president's office sent him. He did say that in interviews on television and with the press after the article was written. However, the point is not whether Dick Cheney picked up the phone to the CIA and said, "Someone find Joe Wilson and send hime to Niger". The fact is that such a request never came from the office of the Vice President. That has been established and is documented in the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee (7/7/04): “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” The reports he refers to in his article that were supposedly the point of such a request (the ones he refers to as having probably been forged) did not even come out until months after he went to Niger. in addition he claimed that his findings confirmed that there had been no attempt by Iraq to acquire yellow cake from Niger when the analysts who debriefed him came to the opposite conclusion. The fact is that he acquired no information that would change the existing assessment. Again, from the select intelligence Committee's report: “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” Joe Wilson was lying (in his article and other places) about not only the conclusions drawn from his trip but how he came to be sent there in the first place. it was in the course of getting the truth out that his wife's name came up since she worked at the CIA and she, in fact, recommend that he be sent. Again, from the Select Intelligence Committee report: “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” I would like to keep this on a civil level but you are unhelpful in that regard when you accuse me of "swallowing Rovian spin". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 3 2005, 08:26 PM Post #84 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Again, JB, what he said months later is irrelevant to the point you made; ergo, that Libby, et al were justified in releasing Plame's name to the press because Wilson had lied about who had sent him to Niger. Get your timeline straight. |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 3 2005, 08:28 PM Post #85 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
??? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 3 2005, 08:32 PM Post #86 |
|
one of the angels
|
man... that was my answer!!! i was just about to write exactly those three question marks.. but I was trying to think how to write in Latin.. Nice latin words sprinkled in. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 3 2005, 08:48 PM Post #87 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
"Idiotic" is perhaps a bit strong word, there D'oh boy. Massive state funded work programs. Forced internments. Expansion into war time economy to solve domestic economic problems. Centralizing power grabs. Empire building. Use of the fasces as a symbol of authority... You might well want to hold up FDR out of patriotic reasons for what he did for Britian, but there are strong parallels between these mid century leaders, tempered by particular historical and political contingencies. PS ''less people"??? You're cute when you rant. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 3 2005, 09:27 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
This isn't possible. Whacki has made it quite clear that *no* violence is proper, and coming to your aid at all was a mistake. We should have stayed home and not used violence to help you, because that made us the bad guy - and besides, don't you know that if we hadn't fought them in the first place they would have simply had tea and gone home?...... What? If it hadn't been for violence Whacki's British ass wouldn't even be here, you say???? ![]() |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 3 2005, 09:36 PM Post #89 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
In all fairness I would not equate the views of JD with the hyperbolic rants of WI simply because they both hail from the UK. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 3 2005, 09:44 PM Post #90 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Oh, I didn't mean to do that. In fact, the opposite. It wasn't so much that JD is from Britain, it was because he made a normal, logical, common sense statement. It was the contrast between JD's logical and common sense remark and how it flew in the face of Whacki's ignorance that I found humorous. No disrespect intended toward JD. In fact, I liked it so much I'm using it for my signature.... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 4 2005, 05:25 AM Post #91 |
|
MAMIL
|
Actually, idiotic was me being polite. Roosevelt was nothing like Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. It's easy to draw silly parallels. Hitler was a vegetarian and loved animals - he had so in much common with Ghandi! Edit - something I wrote that was rubbish Did Roosevelt ever kiss the Popes ring? Edit - Is it really so difficult to admit that someone who's politics you don't agree with was an effective president and wartime leader? Oh, so much easier to claim he was a fascist. How do you feel when the left claim Bush to be a fascist? It's equally idiotic. The behaviour of the right (with almost the sole exception of Churchill) both in the UK and the US prior to WWII was shameful. The UK's appeasement of Hitler and the US's ignoring of the problem as 'European' both contributed significantly to the greatest loss of life the world had ever seen. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 4 2005, 05:27 AM Post #92 |
|
MAMIL
|
Now, that is a distinction not many people can claim.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Wacki Iraqi | Nov 4 2005, 05:40 AM Post #93 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I tell you what Larry, you start a post counting all the ways that violence works and i'll even help you with the content and you'll be proved correct that violence is worth teaching to our children in schools to prepare them for the realities of their future...........a little on how torture can glean important information from a criminal..............a few lessons on how to halt a nasty attacker with a single blow shattering the bone into the brain.............and a whole semester on knife throwing and the joys of a serrated edge thrust into the rectum. "No not there little Jonny, in the face, in the face." |
| You're an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.........I just go one God further. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 4 2005, 05:56 AM Post #94 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
And just what purpose would be served by spending time explaining such obvious reality to an individual incapable of understanding it, and unwilling to listen? I have a better idea. You start a post explaining how nonviolence would have been a better answer to, say..... WWII. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Improviso | Nov 4 2005, 08:13 AM Post #95 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
|
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism. We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 4 2005, 09:21 AM Post #96 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You really need to undertand the argument before you jump in so vehemently, D'oh boy. First, I did not say he was a fascist. Nor did I say he was not a great war time leader. Fascism is not a political ideology, it is an ethic. Stalin and Hitler were both fascists, one from the far "right" (as Hitler is popularly miscast) one from the far "left". FDR was not a fascist. But it would be accurate to characterize FDR as a "national socialist" except for the fact that that term is one of opprobrium due to the Nazi. FDR was not as expansionist as Mussolini or Hitler, but he did politically hold an extreme Statist position. He also did not have anything like the Jewish problem, but was quite willing to imprison American citizens without due process based on racial profiling. Go ahead and split that hair into four pieces if it makes you feel good. These are significant parallels that have nothing to do with accidentals such as vegetarianism or that they both wore size 9 shoes. They have to do precisely with their political temperaments and philosophy. That you think the parallel with vegetarianism is of the same order leads me again to think that you simply do not understand the argument. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 4 2005, 12:25 PM Post #97 |
|
MAMIL
|
An extreme Statist position? What, like Stalin? LOL. Not as expansionist as Hitler? That's a bit of an understatement. Britain had internment camps. Was Churchill a socialist as well? In fact, most of your points could be applied to Churchill. Don't you see a rather obvious difference between Bergen Belsen and the internment in the US? Jewish problem? What do mean by 'problem'? Hitler was gassing them by the million. How many Japanese did Roosevelt gas? If it makes you feel better, I'll say 'Liberals bad, conservative good' but the world really is more complicated than that. I understand your argument. The main distinguishing characteristic of Stalin and Hitler was that they were brutal dictators, not that they followed the points you outlined. Brutal dictatorship was not an 'accidental'. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 4 2005, 12:43 PM Post #98 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Now you get it. "Brutalist dictator = Fascist" -- it is an ethic. FDR did not share in that ethic, which is a very good thing that he did not. But the (political) philosophical differences among these very fascinating mid century leaders can be understood as one of degrees meditated by historical, cultural and political contingencies. And it is not simplistic like "'Liberals bad, conservative good'" -- I am a liberal in the classical sense, not the bizarre modern Democratic sense. Think Burke. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 4 2005, 12:53 PM Post #99 |
|
MAMIL
|
IT, your actual original phrase was 'there is not much difference between FDR, Hitler and Stalin'. I'm sorry if my use of the word 'idiotic' was rude, however I believe that your assertion was misleading and incorrect in the extreme. You also alluded to 'fascism' being popular in Washington, therefore painting FDR with that label by inference. Either way it still doesn't detract from the fact that FDR's understanding of the foreign situation at the time was a lot better than the isolationists in the US, and the appeasers in the UK. My original point was that he had more backbone than most of the other politiciancs in the US. As an aside, it is worth pointing out that the first people Hitler started getting rid of were Social Democrats. What you would call 'liberals'. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Nov 4 2005, 01:21 PM Post #100 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
He stole my idea! Has Krugman been reading TNCR?Defending Imperial Nudity By Paul Krugman The New York Times Friday 04 November 2005 Hans Christian Andersen understood bad rulers. "The Emperor's New Suit" doesn't end with everyone acclaiming the little boy for telling the truth. It ends with the emperor and his officials refusing to admit their mistake. I've laid my hands on additional material, which Andersen failed to publish, describing what happened after the imperial procession was over. The talk-show host Bill O'Reilly yelled, "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" at the little boy. Calling the boy a nut, he threatened to go to the boy's house and "surprise" him. Fox News repeatedly played up possible finds of imperial clothing, then buried reports discrediting these stories. Months after the naked procession, a poll found that many of those getting most of their news from Fox believed that the emperor had in fact been clothed. Imperial officials eventually admitted that they couldn't find any evidence that the suit ever existed, or that there had even been an effort to produce a suit. They insisted, however, that they had found evidence of wardrobe-manufacturing-and-distribution-related program activities. After the naked procession, pro-wardrobe pundits denied that the emperor was at fault. The blame, they said, rested with the C.I.A., which had provided the emperor with bad intelligence about the potential for a suit. Even a quick Web search shows that before the procession, those same pundits had written articles attacking C.I.A. analysts because those analysts had refused to support strong administration assertions about the invisible suit. Although the imperial administration was conservative, its wardrobe plans drew crucial support from a group of liberal pundits. After the emperor's nakedness was revealed, the online magazine Slate held a symposium in which eight of these pundits were asked whether the fact that there was no suit had led them to reconsider their views. Only one admitted that he had been wrong - and he had changed his mind about the suit before the procession. Helen Thomas, the veteran palace correspondent, opposed the suit project from the beginning. When she pointed out that the emperor's clothes had turned out not to exist, the imperial press secretary accused her of being "opposed to the broader war on nakedness." Even though skeptics about the emperor's suit had been vindicated, TV news programs continued to portray those skeptics as crazy people. For example, the news networks showed, over and over, a clip of the little boy shouting at a party. The clip was deeply misleading: he had been shouting to be heard over background noise, which the ambient microphone didn't pick up. Nonetheless, "the scream" became a staple of political discourse. The emperor gave many speeches in which he declared that his wardrobe was the "central front" in the war on nakedness. The editor of one liberal but pro-wardrobe magazine admitted that he had known from the beginning that there were good reasons to doubt the emperor's trustworthiness. But he said that he had put those doubts aside because doing so made him "feel superior to the Democrats." Unabashed, he continued to denounce those who had opposed the suit as soft on sartorial security. At the Radio and Television Correspondents' annual dinner, the emperor entertained the assembled journalists with a bit of humor: he showed slides of himself looking under furniture in his office, searching for the nonexistent suit. Some of the guests were aghast, but most of the audience roared with laughter. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee oversaw an inquiry into how the government had come to believe in a nonexistent suit. The first part focused on the mistakes made by career government tailors. But the second part of the inquiry, on the role of the imperial administration in promoting faulty tailoring, appeared to vanish from the agenda. Two and a half years after the emperor's naked procession, a majority of citizens believed that the imperial administration had deliberately misled the country. Several former officials had gone public with tales of an administration obsessed with its wardrobe from Day 1. But apologists for the emperor continued to dismiss any suggestion that officials had lied to the nation. It was, they said, a crazy conspiracy theory. After all, back in 1998 Bill Clinton thought there was a suit. And they all lived happily ever after - in the story. Here in reality, a large and growing number are being killed by roadside bombs. |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








Has Krugman been reading TNCR?
6:29 AM Jul 11