|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Sept 29, 2004 19:36:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Sept 29, 2004 21:17:23 GMT -6
I knew about the Vote for Change tour, but I didn't know about the other anti-Dubya tours and albums or the online radio stations (as I'm sure there's probably more than one, after finding out about that one). Cool!  |
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Sept 29, 2004 23:24:30 GMT -6
Ooops, I thought rock against bush was a different subject.
Gosh, the political climate this year is just nasty. I was at a parade this past weekend and this lady, ha, lady, next to me started throwing the candy back at the politician walking in the parade. He threw too much, if I may say so myself. But sheesh! Made me have to run further to grab the stuff from the kids.
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Sept 30, 2004 13:23:51 GMT -6
There are few things as pathetic or laughable as B grade and over the hill entertainers trying desperately to achieve some sort of relevance (or is it just applause / ego gratification) by involving themselves in what they perceive to be the current popular political cause.
Somehow, I just don't associate being politically informed with knowing "what Bruce Springsteen thinks".
Bill K
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Sept 30, 2004 13:25:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 2, 2004 23:28:12 GMT -6
Where do you get your political info Bill?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 3, 2004 1:50:19 GMT -6
Oops, I missed your post, Bill. I was actually laughing at G-Stick in my last post.
But now that I have noticed and read your post, I will respectfully disagree with you. I believe their real motive (at least for most of them) is to keep a bad President from winning re-election, and I would be touring right along with them if I could. Natalie from the Dixie Chicks certainly wasn't trying to be popular when she criticized him last year, and considering how it actually hurt their popularity, I wouldn't expect the others to think it would be good for their careers to be so outspoken about it, either. On the contrary, they set this tour up despite the bad press that others have gotten from criticizing him.
I do agree with you that being politically informed isn't the same thing as knowing what Bruce Springsteen or anyone - whether a musician, actor, lawyer, or even a former president - thinks, whether I like that one person or not. But after witnessing for 4 years in several speeches what an arrogant biggot Dubya is, and after reading several reliable Democratic AND Republican sources as well as seeing copies of actual documents, I just happen to think the same way on this issue as Bruce does.
BTW, just so I'm not assuming anything, you didn't just stereotype musicians, did you?
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Oct 5, 2004 12:58:59 GMT -6
Well, I get my news the same place as everyone else, although I interperate it in my own way. In my post LG, I also used the terms "relevant" and "ego gratification"which is what I think the Dixie Chicks were looking for....I doubt they expected the backlash they got. The article in this thread's original post commented that it was now fashionable to attack the current administration so the risk would seem to be much lower now. If you want to jump start a lagging career, the risk is worth it for the publicity. I just don't think being a celebrity or an entertainer automatically makes you an expert on how the country should be run and entertainers do a disservice to their fans when they cross the line to political activism. Pick one or the other, but they don't mix well. I don't get the "hate Bush" thing. He certainly didn't get the presidency he expected, after 9/11, and I am thankful I haven't had to make the decisions he has been faced with since then. I'm sure he has got it right sometimes, and wrong others. Don't think we'll really know until years down the road when this all plays out. There was plenty of hate and abuse heaped on Abe Lincoln during the Civil War, cartoonists drew him as an ape, etc., but he is somewhat more highly regarded now, so who knows? Am I steriotyping musicians 'cause I criticised a handful of them who think they know how I should vote? Don't think so. What would make you draw that conclusion? You're not steriotyping conservative white guys are you?  Bill K |
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 6, 2004 0:24:44 GMT -6
Hi Bill. I agree on entertainer types, espousing their opinions, as a bit obnoxious. I am not the type to belittle them for it, however, and here is why. They are in a unique position in that they are their own product. Each star helps fuel a big ole industry with this product. Their face or voice, sometimes their writings, even, can have a big influence over millions of people's lives, even if you don't purchase it. Tempting it would be, no? If you felt passionate about politics and knew, in one night you could make a basket of money toward a campaign........
Many businessfolk do use their influence for good and to contribute to good causes. But companies and products can be singled out, too, for their funding a particular political side.
And, we cannot forget that, if I am not mistaken, Ronald Reagan used Bruce's Born in the USA as his campaign song. So, a polictician can gain influence using a song/songwriter for their influence, as well.
Dum de dum, what else? Oh, my political information is based on beliefs about how economics, social programs and international relations should be conducted to help even out societal differences enough to avoid rebellion and such political unrest. I look about me, talk with neigbors, family, read voting records, and see the results of those policies decided upon. I have to add that in the family/neigbor area Bruce would fit in. After all, his music is in millions of homes and some folks know more of him than their own family. It is irrelevant the age of his music, of course, any more than it is the age Arnold's movies. They are both know faces with charisma and money.
So, yes, fame is a wily thing and I have to say I would like to see stars without politics but.......oh well.
What else? This is actually a good intellectual conversation Bill. Oh, I know. Abe, Republican. Before Presidency Lincoln opposed the Mexican War and slavery. Elected, then S. Carolina seceded. The war started when Fort Sumter was attacked by Confederates. He entered into a war over freedom of rights in this country (knew it before Presidency). A very noble and highly disputed issue (slavery). But, very different in that......well, he attaced the right group for the correct reasons. I think this is BIG departure for the US. Our first initiated war, as far as I remember from history class. Iraq did not attack us. What I worry about is this leadership invading more countries each with a big old price tag and spreading us too thin.
Okay, I think that is it. Bye gang. Sorry about typos. I don't like proofreading. Think I shall go back to my humor section where I belong. Night all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Oct 6, 2004 1:31:01 GMT -6
This is just my opinion, not meant to offend.
Opinions are like @ssholes....everybody has one. We can choose to ignore the people who have the money and power to say what they think on a broader scale than just around the water cooler. Or we can choose to listen. Chances are you won't be listening if you don't already agree. I know what I think, I know how I'm going to vote and no one famous or not is going to change that (excepting extreme as yet unforeseen circumstances).
At least these people get other people talking and hopefully voting. Either way. On a side note, I love the Dixie Chicks music and admire their willingness to say what they think regardless of the consequences. And I hate Bruce Springsteen’s music but admire him for the same reasons as I stated before. Basically, it’s still a free country (for the time being) and we are still allowed to have our own opinions regardless of social status………
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 7, 2004 1:18:10 GMT -6
Do you think Ronald Reagan was a good president? He was an actor, after all.
I agree that being a celebrity or entertainer doesn't automatically make someone an expert on how the country should be run, but it also doesn't mean they're incapable of knowing what's good for this country and what's not. It all depends on whether they inform themselves on something or not, and that goes for all people of all professions.
As well, being the president doesn't automatically make you an expert on how the country should be run, either. Dubya is an excellent example of that, as he has continually ignored advice from most of the world leaders and even his own expert advisors. In fact, he's pretty much been the poster boy for what not to do these past four years.
You don't get the whole "hate Bush" thing, and I don't get how so many people can still support him. Maybe it's a case of people believing what they want to believe. Personally, I want to believe that our country is moving in the right direction and that we have a great president. I want to believe that all those people, both American and Iraqi, aren't dying for the wrong reasons. I want to believe that we can bring peace to the Middle East, and to countries all over the world. But even more importantly, I want to know the truth, and the truth is that we have a horrible president who has made all the wrong decisions for all the wrong reasons. And this isn't a matter of opinion, it's been proven as fact.
Entertainers who inform themselves and try to inform others are not doing a disservice. On the contrary, they are doing a great service to this country, and as I said in a previous post, I would be touring right along with them if I could. If I could buy air time for Iraqi citizens to speak to the American public, I would. I think it is everyone's duty to speak up when they see injustice, and these musicians are doing just that.
Since I don't have the capability of reaching millions of voters, I do what I can. I put my Kerry/Edwards lawn sign out on the front lawn and a strong anti-Bush statement in my car window. I state the facts to anyone I hear making misstatements, and I make posts on this message board to inform people. I don't do it to be confrontational. I just want what's best for America and humanity all over the world, and Bruce obviously wants what's best for America. After all, you can't write about how great America is all these years unless you love America.
There is so much more I want to say here, but I'd rather stick to the issue of why Bush needs to be voted out, because that's the most important issue here.
|
|
A1ecto
Whooshite Apprentice
Posts: 101
|
Post by A1ecto on Oct 7, 2004 17:03:45 GMT -6
I think a lot of people are missing the point of these tours.
We need younger people to vote. Potential younger voters listen to what their idols say. Their idols are at the least saying to get up and vote for someone, regardless.
Most of the tours are anti-Bush. Ever stop to consider why? There are plenty of reasons, so I feel bad for you if you can't think of just one.
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Oct 8, 2004 12:47:29 GMT -6
Ronald Reagan wasn't a good president, Lesigner Girl, he was a great president! But like I said, entertainer / politician, you pick one or the other, and Ronnie did, got out of acting and into politics. I'm not saying if you're an entertainer you can't know anything about how the country is run, just that your opinion isn't any more important or necessarily better informed than mine, or anyone else's, just because somebody sticks a microphone in front of your mouth 'cause you're famous. The Whoopi Goldberg's and Barbra Striesand's of the world are a little much if you ask me. Whatever desicions GWB makes, they are his desicions, that's his job, and if all 270 million of us have to sign off on every one of 'em, it'd be one fine way to run the country. A lot of us are fond of GWB because he at least did something......a refreshing change from his predecessor who gave us 8 years of smoke and mirrors and casual sex. No wonder those terrorists thought they could fly airplanes into our buildings! If you could buy air time for Iraqi citizens, a lot of them would be thanking us for helpling them dump Saddam. I saw one guy interviewed who had named his newborn "Dick Cheney" And what about all those Iraqi women who can now remove their vales, go to school, hold jobs, do you think that's a bad thing? I, for one, am glad my Iraqi sisters can now be free to be all that they can be. You are selling the Iraqi people short if you think they are not capable of having varying opinions on all of this. And are you sure we really want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire just to spite Mr. Bush? The many flaws of his opponent are old news by now, but how is he gonna run the country when he's on 3 sides of every issue (for, against, & let the States decide). Can you even tell me what he intends to do re Iraq? Think about it, you'll be stuck with this guy for 4 years......... Don't necessarily want to get into a pi**ing match with you LG, 'cause neither one of us is likely to change their mind (Well, if I had more time, I'm sure I could have you voting straight Republican) but I'll be happy to respond to any of your opinions, and yes, unless you are sitting in on cabnet meetings, and have access to all the info that GWB has, they are opinions, not necessarily facts. Bill K |
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Oct 8, 2004 18:34:32 GMT -6
Yes, indeed...he did something. He took what was the longest period of economic expansion in the nation's history and a surplus of nearly 250 billion dollars, enjoyed under the Clinton admininstration, and turned it around in a period of four brief years to the largest deficit in history, rapidly approaching one trillion dollars.
Not just my opinion, but facts - numbers rounded, of course.
Oops...shoot. I told myself, I'd stay out of this. <Slinks back to her corner to continue lurking>
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 9, 2004 17:14:54 GMT -6
Iraqi blog (written by an Iraqi citizen): Baghdad Burning
I won't sit here and say ALL Iraqis hate us, because many of them are grateful that Saddam is no longer in power. In fact, Here is a letter from an Iraqi citizen, one of several who wholeheartedly support what we are doing there. But even this guy admits something that the Bush administration adamantly denies: He ends his letter with this: I'll get into some other points later, but I need to sign off and get ready for work now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 9, 2004 23:39:02 GMT -6
Would somebody please tell me what I was saying? Where did my grammar go, Kelsey?
Gams, let's slap each other silly if we enter politics again, deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Oct 9, 2004 23:51:06 GMT -6
I was here? Are you sure? Consider me slapped silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Oct 9, 2004 23:55:35 GMT -6
Slap.............oh, 300
|
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Oct 10, 2004 0:06:28 GMT -6
You are slapping 300? Dang, and I thought I was old when I was slapping 40.
Those days are gone now. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by asso on Oct 10, 2004 23:13:50 GMT -6
I've listened to what Bruce and company have had to say and as a matter of fact, they're well informed and they're expressing their views in a responsible fashion, so they are certainly doing a service to society by informing people.
Bill, concerning your assertions about the artists motives, they just amount to unfounded personal attacks. You don't know these people personally, You've never sat down and had a conversation with any of them, you don't know what their motives are for doing what they're doing, you have no basis for accusing them of having alterior motives, you're just speculating.
Concerning the election being the popular political issue right now, of course it is, that's not a perception, that's a fact, in case you've forgotten, it's only a few weeks away now.
By your own admission, you don't know what these artists reasoning is for their political views, because you haven't listened to them, due to your believing they shouldn't be taken seriously, so you have no way of knowing whether what they have to say is informative or not, you're just assuming it's not. You talk about the right way to be informed, but basing your decisions on assumptions and mere speculation is certainly not the right way to be informed.
Concerning this notion about it being "fashionable" to "attack" the administration, so there's a lower chance of suffering repercussions for doing so, well, it's a false statement. The fact is that there are still people in the media, like the Dixie Chicks, who are dealing with boycotts of their products, for simply using their constitutional right to express their opinion and disagree with the Bush administration's policies. As well, there are people on the receiving end of personal attacks because they disagree with the administration, such as your attacks. It's ironic, you saying that it's safer for someone to express their opinion right after you've made these personal attacks on people for doing so. There have also recently been threats and intimidation tactics used against those that have spoken out against the administration, like what's happening with the Lone Star Iconoclast. So, like G Stick said, the current political climate is very nasty and the fact is that someone in the public arena has to have quite a bit of courage in order to speak out against this administration.
No celebrity that I know of has claimed that because they're a celebrity, they are automatically a political expert. Once again you're unjustly making derogatory remarks about the character of these people in order to try to make your point, instead of giving sound reasoning to do so.
Concerning whether Bush made the right decision or not, and whether we need to wait and see, we already know that he didn't make the right decision. He took us to war, claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat because he had weapons of mass destruction, and was planning on using them against us. He mainly based this claim on circumstantial evidence, in the form of documents that showed Hussein was buying uranium from Niger. Bush had no concrete evidence that Hussein had even started a weapons program, just that he had uranium with which to do so. This makes his claim to the American people that Hussein had weapons and was an imminent threat, a false claim. The fact is that he rushed to judgement, drawing the conclusion that Hussein had weapons, from mere speculation. He didn't even take the time to do a thorough investigation of the documents in order to see if they were legitimate. Later, after he had invaded Iraq, they were found to be forgeries. In reality, Bush took us to war with absolutely no evidence that Hussein was a threat. This of course, has been confirmed by the fact that we found no weapons of mass destruction after occupying Iraq. Of course, the administration claims that they had more evidence to go on than just the forged documents, but the fact that we've found no weapons shows that if there was any other evidence, outside of some hearsay from Nigerian officials that we know about, that it too was circumstantial at best. This is well documented and the information is available to anyone at a number of reputable sources on the net, I got it from Factcheck.org, it's a good source for information concerning any issue surrounding the election. Given what we now know, the only sensible conclusion that can be drawn is that Bush made a tremendously irresponsible decision and that he's proven he's not qualified to remain in office.
Concerning whether you are stereotyping artists or not, of course you are, at least the ones who happen to express their opinion in public. Your comment about keeping this within the scope of the group of artists that are touring with Bruce, is a false statement. You've made additional comments, such as the Streisand, Goldberg comment, or the one where you accused all artists who are "activists" of thinking they're experts, that distinctly show that you haven't just been insulting a small group of musicians from one particular tour, but an entire group of people in our society. On a side note, you, by default, are actually stereotyping all artists, because the moment they speak out in public, they're automatically labeled an activist.
G Stick, entertainers espousing their opinions are no more obnoxious than you or I doing so right here on this message board for hundreds of people to read. They are American citizens, they pay taxes just like everyone else, and if they feel the need to speak out and express dissatisfaction with the administration, they certainly have the right to do so.
A1ecto, it's true that one of the objectives of tours like these, is to get younger voters to the voting booth, but they're putting just as much emphasis on criticizing the administration.
Bill, Ronald Reagan was an artist, and according to your standards, he shouldn't have been taken seriously when he expressed his political views, therefore, he shouldn't have been taken seriously when he went into politics. You can't have it both ways, either he was qualified to publicly express his opinion or he wasn't. Obviously, you don't use the same standards in judging Reagan that you use when judging Springsteen, and the reason is evident. You attack the liberal artists, but you praise the conservative one. You're demonstrating partisanship here, you're attacking the liberal artists regardless of whether it's justified or not, simply because they're the opponent.
Concerning your implication that we shouldn't complain about the job the President's been doing because "they are his desicions, that's his job", well, that's true, it is his job, but we hired him, he works for us, the fact is that all of us have the right to "sign off" or not on his decisions, it's called an election.
Concerning your claim that Clinton was the reason that "terrorists thought they could fly airplanes into our buildings!", in case you've forgotten, the World Trade Center was attacked after Bush had become president.
Concerning your claim that Iraqi women are now free, simply because we've taken Hussein out of power, it's false, they're still being treated like second class citizens. Quote from MSNBC, "Despite the Iraqi Women's High Council’s ambitious goals, the women of Iraq have a long way to go before Iraqi men acknowledge them as political or social equals. Indeed, male attitudes may even be hardening in the post-Saddam era as Shiite clerics reassert themselves: a Gallup poll conducted last September found that the majority of Baghdad residents--70 percent--say that in the future, women should follow more traditional roles than they did under Saddam. On the streets, some Iraqi women complain that they no longer feel safe appearing in public without veils."
Concerning your claim about Kerry being a "flip flopper", it's false, it's been well documented at this point that the Bush campaign has taken Kerry's voting record out of context in an attempt to discredit him. Information on this can also be found at Factcheck.org.
Concerning your claim that cabinet members are the only people who know the facts, it's false, due to the fact that we live in a country with a free press and the fact that we have the Freedom of Information Act, the facts are readily available to any of us who are willing to do the research to learn them.
~Asso
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Oct 12, 2004 11:41:38 GMT -6
Bill, concerning your assertions about the artists motives, they just amount to unfounded personal attacks. You don't know these people personally, You've never sat down and had a conversation with any of them, you don't know what their motives are for doing what they're doing, you have no basis for accusing them of having alterior motives, you're just speculating.
Exactly my point Sparticis, how many of these artists / entertainers and assorted Bush Bashers have sat down with George W. and his people and had a conversation with them, tried to understand things from their point of view? Aren't they just speculating as well?
For a splendid example of what I've been trying to get at in these posts, check out the 'net for the story on Sean Penn's letter to the two "South Park" guys, kind of sums up the whole thread IMO.
Bill K
~
|
|
|
|
Post by asso on Oct 15, 2004 6:05:19 GMT -6
Hey Bill, none of these artists had to sit down with Bush and his people and have a conversation with them to know that the administration deserves to be critisized. None of these artists that I know of have been discussing Bush and company's motives, they've been discussing their actions. As I stated in my last post, it's been well documented that Bush and co's actions have been irresponsible. I believe the Springsteen tour's main critisism of the administration is the fact that they've mislead the American people, claiming that Hussein was an iminent threat. As I've pointed out, their critisism is well founded. Both Bush and Cheney, as well as other senior administration officials, have claimed publicly that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Bush claimed it at a 2002 White House press conference, Cheney claimed it in 2003 on NBC's Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice claimed it in 2003 on PBS's Newshour with Jim Lehrer, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed it in 2003 at a White House press briefing. The fact is that four separate intelligence agencies have investigated the issue and all have drawn the conclusion that there was no conclusive evidence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including the British Butler Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the CIA.
As for the issue of Sean Penn, on this we agree, his assertion that if someone decides not to vote, they're ultimately responsible for "the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitation, and death of innocent people throughout the world." is ridiculous. It's a hyperbolic statement that I thought would be fun to pick apart for the fun of it, heh. Firstly, it's just the opposite, if someone decides not to vote, then they can't claim any responsibility for who becomes the leader of the free world. By the same token, his statement suggests that the American president somehow has the power to directly effect the suffering of people all over the world, which is also ridiculous, our country's leader can only directly effect the suffering of people in our country, and only has the ability to influence leaders of other countries in making decisions that effect their citizens. The only way an American president can have a direct effect on the citizens of another nation is to wage war on that nation. Which brings us to what Sean is really trying to say but just can't seem to eloquate. Being the liberal that he is, he's obviously blaming Bush for the suffering of innocent people in Iraq, but he uses the phrase "throughout the world", which is an exageration. Bush can be held responsible for the suffering of innocent people here in the US, in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, and a case could be made for Palestine, but certainly not throughout the world. Of course, given the fact that he's put this blame on bush's shoulders, he's obviously asserting that voting a liberal president into office would solve all the problems of people throughout the world. The problem with his reasoning here, besides the problem I've explained above, is that he's making the unfounded assumption that everyone who isn't voting is against the war and if they were to vote, they would vote Democrat, heh. He certainly shouldn't be taken seriously making statements like this, and he's being irresponsible in respect to the influence that he has with his fans. At the same time, he's not representative of all artists who've spoken out about politics, from what I've seen, most of them are well informed and they're doing it in a responsible fashion, he's the exeption to the rule.
~Asso
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Oct 15, 2004 12:32:32 GMT -6
OK Spartacis, let me see if I've got this straight......I shouldn't be criticizing Hollywood types for getting political 'cause I've never sat down and talked with them myself, however, it's OK for them criticize the current administration without talking to GWB, DC, etc to get their viewpoints, because we all "know" that they are misleading us, and it's OK for you to pronounce that the motives of these celebrities are pure and good. Am I following you correctly here? This would be a good place to point out to all who are interested enough to be reading this by the way, that all my posts are my opinion, and just that, as opposed to, for instance, some of these anti-Bush types whose every statement is absolute fact.......... Anyway, your statement that a President can only effect people in other countries by going to war with them is only half right, he can also effect those same people by doing nothing, for instance not going into Iraq and leaving all those people and who knows how many generations following under a brutal regime that quashes their rights and cares little for their well being. And, who knows how much more trouble we may have headed off because we have given Iran and the guy in North Korea and others something to think about with the knowledge that we are not afraid to actually commit our armies if they push us too far? The threat of force only works as long as the bad guys think that you are not afraid to use it. Meanwhile, our military is getting in-field experiance in dealing with these terrorists, and that may proove to be very valuable in the future. So you guys who are hanging your hats on this WMD thing just aren't seeing the big picture here. It's called statesmanship, and you are not to be blamed if you don't recognize it after eight years of the Clinton administration, where statesmanship mean't lobbing the occasional missle into a hospital or pharmicutical plant to distract the media from the latest "bimbo eruption". Well, let's see, in your prior post you accused me of calling Mr. Kerry a "flip flopper" (your words), while what I actually said was that he is on three sides of every issue (for, against & let the states decide), and in that he is consistant, as is his liberal voting record. This is the guy who, after all, is for clean air, but has a big SUV in his driveway (his wife's), is for assault weapons ban but owns a Chinese assault rifle, was against the Vietnam war when it was fashionable to do so, but is now "reporting for duty" and voted to authorize military force in Iraq, but not for Bush to "screw everything up", as if any military operation or war or anything else, for that matter ever went exactly as planned. Then there is his grand statement to Diane Sawyer that he wouldn't have voted to go to war "knowing then what we know now"....well, pointing out the obvious here, we didn't know then what we know now, and if we hadn't done what we did, we wouldn't know now what we know now, and would still be fretting over those supposed WMD's. We have gotten way off the original topic here, those annoying self important Hollywood celebrity types who jump on every liberal bandwagon that comes creaking down the road, and for that I'll pass the torch to the South Park guys, Stone and Parker, who, I understand, do a pretty good job on Baldwin, Robbins, etc in their new movie ("Team America"). And I thought I was the only one guilty of "steriotyping". Bill K So you guys who are hanging your hats on this WMD thing just aren't seeing the big picture here. |
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 16, 2004 1:54:15 GMT -6
Absolute fact: Dubya and his administration have not been keeping us safe. The parts listed that precede Dubya's presidency are meant to show how they ignored the signs from day one of their term, since there was obviously nothing they could do before they took office. - Aug 7, 1998 - U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by al Qaeda, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, killing 258 people and injuring 5,000.
- Aug 20, 1998 - In retaliation for the U.S. embassy bombings, U.S. destroys a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan, as well as a the Shifa pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Both financed by Osama bin Laden.
- June 7, 1999 - The F.B.I. adds bin Laden to its 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list.
- Dec 14, 1999 - Soon after border agents nationwide had been warned to look for suspicious activity, Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian, was caught at the US/Canadian border before he could set off a bomb at LAX. Ressam is later found to be connected to Al Qaeda.
- Oct 12, 2000 - USS Cole bombing. Prime suspect: Osama bin Laden.
- Nov 2000 - Many voters are disenfranchized in Florida. Bush Jr. is successful in stopping the Florida recount, creating a lot of controversy that I won't get into here. Despite losing the popular vote, he becomes the next president-elect.
- Jan 2001 - Bush Jr. takes office.
[/font] [/li][li] 1989 - May 2000 - Several people living in the U.S. are found to be connected with Osama bin Laden ( see link), who had committed acts of terrorism against us during the few years prior; yet Bush and his administration are focused on Saddam Hussein. [/li][li] July 10, 2001 - Memo sent to Washington, warning that Osama bin Laden followers might be training at U.S. flight schools in preparation for future "terror activity against civil aviation targets." ( See copy of actual document) [/li][li] Aug 6, 2001 - Memo presented to Bush, titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," stating that "Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists."[/li][li] Sept 11, 2001 - Four planes are hijacked by Al Qaeda. Two hit the WTC, one hit the Pentagon, and the 4th plane crashes in a field. The official word is that passengers caused it to crash, knowing about the other planes that had hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. But several eyewitnesses describe hearing and seeing things that lend to a credible conclusion that it may have been shot down by missiles. To interject my own editorial comment: If the administration had acted on the warning signs and heightened airport security prior to September 11, it's more than likely that none of the terrorists would have been able to board the planes with the box cutters they used as weapons. [/li][li] Sept 17, 2001 - Bush announces: We want Osama "Dead or Alive" [/li][li] Nov/Dec 2001 - U.S. enlists the help of warlords to catch Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, some of whom reportedly help him escape into Pakistan. [/li][li] Late 2001 - Obviously fake documents detailing the supposed sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq were produced, allegedly by an underpaid Nigerian diplomat in a tiny embassy of Niger, located in Italy, and (also allegedly) sold to Italian officials for a few thousand dollars. Regardless of who produced the documents or what channels they went through, they were obviously fake, with outdated letterhead, conflicting dates, and supposedly signed by someone who was no longer prime minister of Niger. [/li][li] Feb 2002 - Cheney told the CIA that there were definitely WMD's in Iraq, but said they weren't looking hard enough for the evidence -- not taking no for an answer, regardless of the fact that the only "evidence" he had was the obviously faked documents. The CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger, to investigate whether these documents had any validity. After his meeting with a Nigerian official, Wilson reported to the CIA that he saw no credible evidence of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger. Wilson's report was ignored by the Administration. [/li][li] Mar 13, 2002 - Bush on Osama: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."[/li][li] Oct 2002 - National Intelligence Council issues a 90-page report in which they say they don't believe Saddam had nuclear weapons. [/li][li] Jan 28, 2003 - Bush said in his State of the Union address that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." After former Ambassador Wilson's report was made public, the White House later admitted that that statement should not have been written into his speech.[/li][li] Mar 7, 2003 - “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” referring to the late 2001 fakes. “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking,” said another IAEA official. It took Jaques Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. [/li][li] March 17, 2003 - Bush issues 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq. [/li][li] March 19, 2003 - Beginning of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Excuses given for the war have been: • Saddam aided al Qaida in the 9/11 attacks. • Saddam might give WMD's to al Qaida and/or other terrorists. • Saddam has WMD's and poses an imminent threat to us. • Saddam has material for building WMD's. • Saddam is trying to acquire uranium, and has plans for building WMD's. • Even though no WMD's (or even plans for building WMD's) were found, Saddam was a bad man and needed to be taken out of power. [/li][li] June 2003 - When asked where Osama might be, Bush said, “If Osama bin Laden is alive . . . slowly but surely we’re dismantling the networks, and we’ll continue on the hunt,” adding that locating bin Laden “could take years.” In other words, he has no clue. Maybe it's because he "truly" is "not that concerned about him."[/i] [/li][li] Jan 2004 - Despite Nabil al-Marabh's connection with 9/11, he is freed to return to Syria. ( See link) [/li][li] July 2004 - Disc found in Baghdad, containing blueprints of schools. The computer belongs to an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities. The information was found in July but it was reportedly not given urgency until the school massacre in Beslan, Russia. ( Link) [/li][li] Aug/Sep 2004 - Terrorists take over school in Russia. Hundreds die. [/li][li] Sep 2004 - FBI finally contacts superintendents of schools, telling them of the blueprint disc found in Baghdad. Lucky for us (sarcasm), the Russian school tragedy happened first. [/li][li] Oct 13, 2004 - Bush claims in the 3rd presidential debate that he never said he wasn't concerned about Osama. (See March 13, 2002 above) [/li][/ul] "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." -Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Now for a little humor... And Bush calls Kerry a flip-flopper.  Why We Went In: Version 10.0
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 16, 2004 4:10:46 GMT -6
Oops, got a couple more: Absolute fact: The wealthiest got the highest percentage tax cuts with Bush's tax cut package. The poorest Americans only saved 0.4% off their taxes, while Americans with the top one percent income saved 4.4% off of theirs. Also, the lower 90% of Americans saved an overall total of 2.6% off their taxes, while the top 10% saved 4.4% off of theirs. Source: The nonpartisan TaxPolicyCenter.orgIn the 3rd and final presidential debate this month, Bush claimed: "Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair." That is simply a false statement. Absolute fact: We are still seeing a total net job loss since the beginning of Bush's term. Whether that job loss will be made up by the end of this term remains to be seen. If those jobs are not recovered in the next couple of months, it will be the first net job loss during any one presidential term since the great depression of the 1930's. |
|
|
|
Post by asso on Oct 17, 2004 8:38:09 GMT -6
Well Bill, heh, no, you don't have it straight, I didn't say you shouldn't be criticizing Hollywood types for getting political, I said you shouldn't be criticizing the motives of Hollywood types for getting political. You have no basis for accusing them of alterior motives.You see Bill, it's simple, you're talking about the motives of these artists, the artists are talking about the actions of the administration, two very different things. We do know the administration has mislead us, I've given ample evidence of it, Le has given more than enough evidence of it, heh, you see Bill, the president's actions are on record.
Now, from talking to you, I can see that you're not too stupid to understand this simple concept, you're just choosing to ignore the facts right in front of you, and you know, if you choose to ignore the facts and be ignorant about the issue, that's your perogative, but in doing so, you're certainly not in a position to say that artists, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be taken seriously, when you don't have any credibility yourself. Now, when did I pronounce that the motives of these celebrities are pure and good? I don't know their motives for the same reason you don't. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Your argument is obviously so weak that you have to resort to personal attacks and making things up in order to try and make it sound stronger, but you're not going to do so at my expense.
These things you've had to say may be just your opinion, but your opinion is insulting, and if you go around being insulting, then you're going to get an adverse response from people, that's how life works.
Concerning your inference about anti-Bush types who think their every statement is absolute fact, well, I'm not one of them, so if that's what you're implying, you're sadly mistaken, unlike yourself, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, most of the people here can testify to that, I made a pretty big mistake when I was a mod and I had no problem admitting it. Now, the fact is, you're right, there are a lot of liberals out there who won't listen to reason when it comes to certain issues, but there are just as many republicans who stubbornly refuse to admit when they're wrong as well.
A president, or anyone else for that matter, can't have an effect on anyone or anything by doing nothing, heh, you're starting to sound like Sean. However, your point that something should have been done about trying to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime is a great sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree that we should try to do something to free people from oppression all over the world. The problem is that you've missed the point, had the administration not had their supposed evidence of wmd, Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and he would have done nothing about the plight of the Iraqi people. The administration didn't make a case for war based on the plight of the Iraqi people, Bill, they made the case for war based on Saddam supposedly being an imminent threat.
Now that their ineptness concerning this has been proven, they have changed their story a number of times, trying to give other reasons to justify the invasion, one of which is the plight of the Iraqi people. The fact is, this is obviously fraudulent, and it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people. If Bush was actually so concerned with human rights issues, like he's proclaimed in one of the versions of his story for justifying the invasion, he would have done something about the genocide taking place in Sudan for instance. The Sudanese people's need for assistance is much more urgent than the Iraqi people's was, as we speak, they continue to be victims of ethnic cleansing. If Bush were truly concerned about human rights and willing to invade a country to free people from oppression, then Sudan would obviously be his first priority, but he hasn't expressed any concern about it. As well, there are many places in the world where people are being oppressed just as badly as they were in Iraq, yet he hasn't expressed any concern about them either.
This notion of yours that because we've shown that we're not afraid to commit our armies to war, that we're going to intimidate the leaders of other countries into remaining peacful, is asinine, we've demonstrated on many occasions that we're not afraid to use force, and yet our enemies keep defying and attacking us. We recently demonstrated our willingness to use force in the 90's, in Kosovo, it certainly didn't intimidate the Taliban, they didn't have any reservations about supporting Bin Laden's attack on the US.
The military isn't getting any experience at dealing with terrorist tactics in Iraq, they're fighting a ground war with an insurgency that uses guerrilla warfare tactics, it's nothing we haven't seen before. The fact is that half of the insugents aren't even Al Queda members, but civilians who have taken up arms against the occupation. We're killing as many of those innocent people that we were supposed to be freeing, as we are terrorists Bill.
Sorry Bill, but you're in no position to be trying to lecture anyone here on being able to see the big picture, when you're too stubborn to see the facts that are right in front of your face.
You know, every time I have a conversation with a republican about the ineptness of the Bush administration, they almost immediately start making critical comments about the Clinton administration for some unknown reason, heh, what's Clinton got to do with it Bill? What Clinton did or didn't do is irrelevent, Clinton isn't running in this election.
Bill, you're being petty. "Flip flopper" and "three sides of every issue" means the same thing. You're saying that he's not consistent, in respect to his voting record, and you're full of it. If you actually took the time to look at his record, you'd find that it's pretty sound. The fact that you'd say that he's inconsistent simply because he's a liberal shows that you don't think for yourself as you claim, but that you simply tow the party line. In fact, most of the statements you've made are virtually verbatum of the administration campaign rhetoric. Sorry to tell you Bill, but it's just naive to believe everything your leaders tell you. Most, if not all politicians, republican and democrat, take things out of context, fudge numbers, and tell a fib from time to time in order to win an election.
Unfortunately, that's how the game is played, and I've never seen one yet who hasn't played the game at least a little. The key to choosing the right guy, and hopefully soon, girl, for the job is to find the one who is less interested in the gamesmanship and furthering their career or agenda, and more interested in doing something for society, as well as finding the one who is more responsible with regard to the power that the position gives them. You don't figure this out by listening to campaign ads, Bill. You figure it out by researching records, reading reports from reputable sources, and therefore learning the facts.
Speaking of the administration campaign rhetoric, we've all heard the SUV story, and yeah, it's his wife's. He didn't make the decision to buy it, Teresa did. He can't tell her what kind of car to drive, and you can't blame him for the decisions she makes.
"Reporting for duty" is a quote from Kerry's speech at the Democratic National Convention, and has nothing to do with the war. What he meant by it is that he accepts the democratic nomination, Bill, you're getting less credible by the sentence.
Yes, Kerry voted to authorize military force in Iraq, but "as a last resort." His statement concerning this is a matter of public record. So he certainly has a right to criticize Bush's handling of the war, since Bush certainly did not use force as a last resort. The UN had inspections going on in Iraq that were refuting the so called evidence the administration had, being that no evidence of a weapons program was being found. Bush didn't let the UN finish their inspections, which, had they been allowed to finish, obviously would have shown that Hussein had no weapons program. Based only on the evidence the administration thought they had at the time, that Hussein was buying uranium, which obviously wasn't sufficient proof that Hussein had developed a weapons program, Bush took us to war. So you're wrong again, Bill. "We" didn't have to do what "we" did, in order to know what we know now. Bush just needed to be more responsible, and therefore more thorough, and we would have determined that Saddam had no weapons program without having to go to war.
As far as those Hollywood celebrity types, who, as you claim, jump on every liberal bandwagon that comes along, well, all celebrities aren't liberals, Bill. Being that a number of them spoke and performed at the Republican National Convention just recently, that's something you really should know, heh.
You giving kudos to Stone and Parker for criticizing "liberal" actors is a little bit premature. The fact is, Stone and Parker aren't taking a stand on anything, they're just trying to get some laughs by poking fun at both liberals and the administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by asso on Oct 17, 2004 8:40:26 GMT -6
Due to the fact that there's a 10,000 character limit here, I have to put my final thoughts in a second post. So, concerning the assault rifle issue, the fact is that it's inconclusive whether Kerry owns an illegal rifle or not. It's a "he said, she said" type of situation, with Kerry saying he doesn't own one, one of his aides having said he does, and Kerry claiming his aide was mistaken. I don't think the aide was mistaken, I think it's evident by the fact that the aide was so competently specific in his description of the gun, that Kerry does own an assault rifle, although it's obvious that it's a collector's item that he keeps for sentimental reasons, and doesn't use. After all, Kerry is certainly no gun fanatic, he only owns a couple of guns, the other one being a shotgun that he hunts with once in a while.
This isn't the only discrepancy that Kerry has been caught up in. He's also fudged the numbers with unemployment, and he's leveled a false charge against Bush, claiming he never met with the leaders of any civil rights groups. This is the gamesmanship I was talking about. Like I said, most, if not all of them, do it. In that respect, Kerry is your typical politician. At the same time, his sound voting record shows that we can most likely count on him to try to do what he says he's going to do, and his involvement in the MIA/POW investigation with John McCain, as well as writing a large part of the Patriot Act, shows that he's actually dedicated to doing something to help society. These things about his record obviously prove that he's dedicated to helping people other than himself, which is a far cry better than the self-serving, special interest funded, irresponsible, collateral damage causing, unethical, Geneva Convention breaking, inconsistent, evidence falsifying record, that Le just posted above, heh.
~Asso
|
|
Bill K
Whooshite Candidate
Posts: 33
|
Post by Bill K on Oct 20, 2004 13:19:09 GMT -6
Hey Spartacis, you remind me of James Carvil, you know, the guy who fires off so many words, so fast, it's almost impossible to respond without getting a headache. If my opinions are insulting, well, they are what they are. I see plenty of insulting, mean things posted around here about Bush / Cheney etc....oops, sorry, I guess those are "facts". I do agree with you about Bill Clinton being irrelevant, in fact he was irrelevant during the whole 8 years of his administration. Well, there I go again, being insulting. John Kerry's "Reporting for duty" remark, complete with salute, wasn't mean't to have any military connotation!? Oh Puullease! By the way, the reason were helping the folks in Iraq and not in the Sudan, is that the Iraqi's have all that oil under their feet. Just some cold hard reality. Anyway, I thank you for pointing out all of the things I am wrong about. I've only voted in 9 of these Presidential elections so far, so am still kind of an amateur. If you are shakey enough in your support of JK that you must insist I have got it all wrong, instead of just having a different viewpoint, well, OK. If Kerry's your man, then by all means vote for him, but don't say I didn't warn you. I just can't warm up to the guy, a shallow, phony opportunist in my opinion (yes, I know, more insults) but that's the way I see him. After experiancing the aforementiond Bill Clinton, as well as the perfectly awful Jimmy Carter, I'm just a little leary of who I flip the keys to, so, like Xena in "The God You Know", I'm sticking with the guy I've got, and the election will sort all of this out anyway. Bill K |
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Oct 20, 2004 21:41:03 GMT -6
At least we agree on one thing, that it's all about the oil. But Bush isn't interested in helping the citizens there. He's interested in putting someone in office there who will make them rich, just like the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's funny, I made that reference earlier today. But the saying, "The god you know is better than the god you don't" just comes from a long line of similar sayings... The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. The devil you know is better than the angel you don’t. The enemy you know is better than a friend you don't. The hell you know is better than the heaven you don't. ...and if everyone had that attitude, nothing would be likely to change for the better. But then again, a lot of folks in the GOP are afraid of change, and the more things change, the harder they'll try to revert our policies to reflect the stone ages. Well, colonial times, at least. As someone in the over 50 crowd, I'm sure you remember Reagan's " Trickle Down" economics, which is essentially what Dubya has furthered with his own tax cuts to the rich. Can you actually sit there and tell me it's a good thing? By the way, I've been meaning to ask you. You said you get your news from the same place everyone else does. Well, I don't know what station is watched by the most people, so can you tell me more specifically what your source is? It wouldn't happen to be Fox News, would it?  Gotta love the sarcasm in that quote! Bill, I'm not naive enough to think I'm going to change your 50+ years way of thinking in a week's time, but consider this... If the only reason you're voting for Bush is because he's "The God You Know" (well, he seems to think he's a god, so it kinda fits), at least consider the importance of checks and balances. With a republican majority in government, there's no way they'll let Kerry pass a law they don't agree with.  |
|
|
|
Post by asso on Oct 22, 2004 11:17:21 GMT -6
Hey Bill, James Carvil? Nah, I'm not familiar with him, I think I heard it mentioned that he's on CNN, right? I don't have cable, so I don't know. At any rate, yeah, I'll concede that, you're not the first person that's accused me of being a tad wordy, but at least I've got something substantial to say, heh, I can be just as much of a smart ass as you. Come on, admit it, the real reason you can't respond to most of the things I've said, is that you have no justifiable argument against them, heh. Look, you're entitled to your opinions, I'm not the thought police, you want to go around insulting people for no good reason, be my guest. If you ask me though, it's an excuse, that just because some others around here have said some insulting things about your leader, then that makes it ok for you to do the same about theirs, I mean, come on, that's just childish. I've seen plenty of immature right wingers say insulting things about Kerry and Edwards too, it doesn't mean I'm going to lower myself to their level.
At any rate, it's a free country, and you can do what you want, well, except put words in my mouth. Where did I say that everything that everyone has posted on this board, that is critical of Bush and Cheney, is fact? Would you care to point out the post where I said that? You do realize that everyone here is literate, right? Heh, I mean, you insult everyone's intelligence by making claims that someone said something they didn't on a message board, because everything's recorded for posterity. Heh, what's really funny, is that if you knew a little more about me, you'd know that I don't have the time to read every thread on the board, because I only drop by every couple of days or so and don't really stay that long. I usually only follow a thread or two, so there's no way I could possibly make a statement about the validity of every claim that's been made here. So you know, it's kind of a ridiculous claim to make, you see, this is a good example of why it's beneficial to get to know something about a person, before you state an opinion about them, heh.
On the other hand, maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to you being a smart ass again, heh, kind of like the "Reporting for duty" remark. Sorry about that, I didn't see that you were using it in the proverbial sense the first time around, but in my defense, you say so many ridiculous things in at least a somewhat serious fashion that I find it hard to tell when you're joking and when you're not, heh. Since we're on the subject of not so serious topics, what is the purpose of continuing to dwell on the Clinton administration for no good reason? What are you republicans up to? Heh. Ok, now to something a little more serious, you said, "By the way, the reason we're helping the folks in Iraq and not in the Sudan, is that the Iraqi's have all that oil under their feet." Well, I'm not prepared to make that accusation, although, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests that that's true. If it is true, then thanks for making my point for me, if the administration chooses oil interests as a higher priority than human lives, then it's an administration that's certainly not qualified to hold the position of the presidency, or any other position for that matter, in which human lives are at stake.
You're welcome for the information I've provided, even though you really ought to be thanking Le where that's concerned, heh, it's just a shame that you're too stubborn to give it serious consideration. As far as your age goes, well, I guess it's true what they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, heh, sorry, couldn't resist. Now, about that, you're not going to get all condesending just because you're the elder statesmen around here are you, I mean, you're not going to start calling me a whipper snapper or anything like that are you? Heh, you know, I may just be some snot nosed punk to you, but I've seen my share of seasons go by, hey, I've got the daily aches and pains to prove it, heh. Anyway, you misunderstood me, I'm not shakey about Kerry, I'm perfectly confident that he's the best man for the job, between the two we have to choose from. You see, that's the sad part, that dumb and dumber are our only two options, heh. Like I said, I don't expect Kerry to turn out to be comparable to the once great president that was unjustly killed in Texas, but he's a damn sight better than the now president who did all of the unjust killing in Texas, heh.
If Bush's your man, then by all means vote for him, but don't say I didn't warn you. I just can't warm up to the guy, an irresponsible, dishonest, egomaniac according to the facts, (yes, I know, more of those annoying facts you don't like) but that's the way he is. After experiencing the last four years with George Bush, as well as the perfectly awful thought of another four years, I'm sure of who I'm not going to flip the keys to, so unlike Xena in "The God You Know", I'm not sticking with the guy we've got, and hopefully this year, the election will be fair, and will sort all of this out anyway, heh.
Now for some other issues I've been wanting to mention but haven't gotten to, so many issues to discuss, so little time, heh. G Stick, Phalon, I don't know why you think you shouldn't get involved in political discussions, you've both had some insightful thoughts to contribute. G Stick, about your comment that it's innapropriate to compare Bush to Lincoln, that absolutely true, comparing Bush to Lincoln is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, not only are they not comparable, they're complete opposites, Lincoln went to war to defend American land that was under seige by treasonous aggressors. In the Iraq war, the attacking of another nation without provocation makes Bush the aggressor.
Phalon, you made a great point when you said, "what was the longest period of economic expansion in the nation's history and a surplus of nearly 250 billion dollars, enjoyed under the Clinton admininstration". Of course, as I've already stated, I don't have much of an interest in talking about the Clinton administration, since it has nothing to do with the current election, but there is one thing about your statement that is relevent now, and that's that Kerry's financial plan is reminicent of Clinton's. This shows that Kerry's plan is going to be beneficial to the economy because it's essentially tried and true. This also shows another reason the administration is incompetent. A competent president would continue doing what's working, instead of implementing a policy that's very much like one that's been proven not to work, as Bush has, by basically reimplemented Reagan's trickle down policy.
Scrappy, your comment about it still being a free country (for the time being), heh, is absolutely right. Due to this administration's policies, there are many American citizens whose civil rights have been infringed upon. I just recently heard about a case in South Bend Indiana, in which a highly reputable professor, Tariq Ramadan, who was supposed to begin teaching at Notre Dame recently, isn't being allowed to, due to the fact that the US government revoked his visa. He's a Swiss citizen, and he had traveled freely in the United States as a visitor, but because of his employment at Notre Dame, hence, the fact that he would be teaching students to consider views other than the viewpoint the administration wants everyone to adhere to, he isn't being allowed to enter the country. The fact is that the government doesn't have any sound reasoning for keeping him out of the country, there's no evidence that he's involved in terrorist activity, or supports it. The only reason he's being banned from the US is because he's a Muslim, who has views that are critical of US policy in the middle east.
A1ecto, about your comment, "Most of the tours are anti-Bush. Ever stop to consider why?", is a good point, but the question was rhetorical right? Heh, I mean, it's commonly known that most republicans don't ever stop to consider what the democrats are saying and vice versa. One of the biggest problems we have with our political system is that most politicians get more involved with fighting the political battle between the parties, and less involved with actually doing things to help society. Citizens with a strong political affiliation also tend to get caught up in this partisan bickering, and lose sight of the issues. For them, it's more about winning the argument for their side, than it is about having an intelligent discussion about the issues. At the present time, most republicans aren't concerned with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people worldwide oppose the war in Iraq, obviously showing that there is definite justification for the critisism the administration has received. They'll continue to support their leaders just to spite those on the other side of the isle, right Bill? Heh.
~Asso
|
|
