let's see...skunk ...genteel ...pissy ...and i thought i couldn't get any more confused.
i guess it just goes to show:
you can tickoff [ ] some of the people all of the time and
you can tick off [ ]all of the people some of the time
but if you try REALLY hard...
you can confuse even yourself !
that genteel thingy - that was an insult wasn't it?
mcelrah wrote: A Republican with integrity, John McCain, today expressed skepticism... - Hugh
[quote="gary"Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:14 pm ]
...if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote for these republicans if the character and independence they once appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in possession of his soul....right?) [/quote]
personally, i'm beginning to feel that the polarization ... yada, yada, yada...all that stuff - has become the overall thing that bothers me the most... and the thing that i would most like to see addressed by a new administration. then possibly a lot of other things would fall in place in a reasonable fashion.
so, yep, next time around i wouldn't care which party backed what guy if i felt he could do something in that department.
(would this be a good time to get a woman in there? oh, wait...thatcher...nevermind, 'don't necessarily matter)
Colin Powell did make a pact with the devil, and he knows it. Says
he will have to live with that bogus UN speech on his record.
Perhaps if the Hizbollah wing of the Republican party is discredited,
McCain and others can seize it back. The majority party has to
govern, not try to wreck the government. I hope McCain continues in
good health - I think he's 68, and the Hanoi Hilton was no spa. - Hugh
On 30 Sep 2005, at 16:35, deveil wrote:
>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> A Republican with integrity, John McCain, today expressed
> skepticism... - Hugh
> (end of quote)
>
>
> [quote="gary"Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:14 pm ]
> ...if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone
> that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no
> greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote
> for these republicans if the character and independence they once
> appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in
> possession of his soul....right?) [/quote]
>
> personally, i'm beginning to feel that the polarization ... yada,
> yada, yada...all that stuff - has become the overall thing that
> bothers me the most... and the thing that i would most like to see
> addressed by a new administration. then possibly a lot of other
> things would fall in place in a reasonable fashion.
> so, yep, next time around i wouldn't care which party backed
> what guy if i felt he could do something in that department.
> (would this be a good time to get a woman in there? oh,
> wait...thatcher...nevermind, 'don't necessarily matter)
>
I do not take responsibility for extreme positions of the
demonstration organizers (e.g. strong anti-Israel bias). Jesse
Jackson does not speak for me. Although this is looking a lot like
Vietnam, the way we got out of it (massive demonstrations,
Congressional funding cut-offs etc.) was decidedly sub-optimal and
is not a good model for how to get out of Iraq. Immediate
withdrawal would be irresponsible. If we are lucky, this war will
not last long enough to tear the country apart the way Vietnam did.
This is Bush's war, let him take responsibility for extricating us
from this no-win situation. If the Democratic party became the "anti-
war" party, would that assist Bush in his school-of-hard-knocks
learning process? Would being the peace party serve the Democrats in
the long run? They've spent decades since Vietnam proving that they
can be trusted to care about national security - too easy for Bush
play the macho card against them. Meanwhile, he's stuck to the tar-
baby...
I agree that the Kurds "deserve" their own country, but there's going
to be a lot of blood shed over that proposition; Iran and Turkey
won't give up their Kurdish areas without a fight. The Iraqi Kurds
understand this and were actually trying to make a go of it in a
federated Iraq. The Iraqis don't have until January 2009 - they've
got about two weeks to come up with a constitutional arrangement the
Sunnis will sign up to. Zarqawi is doing his worst to keep a
constitutional settlement form being successful - and U.S. military
presence seems powerless to counteract him. Even the non-militant
majority of the population is powerfully allergic to foreign troops
on their soil. This factor was ignored in Scooter Libby's biased
"intelligence". (Scooter was the guy (along with Karl Rove) who was
so mad at Wilson for not finding an Iraq-Niger uranium connection -
and eventually going public about it when the administration still
tried to use that "fact" - that they outed Wilson's wife.) - Hugh
On 29 Sep 2005, at 23:46, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh,
>
> There have been specific discussions on this forum with regards to
> immediately withdrawing from Iraq, which I now argue is pointless
> since there are no pols, even Dems, who are willing to take this
> position. I posed the question to everyone, but especially Dem
> supporters, as to why they did not attend the rally, and gave my
> views as to why they did not show up.
>
> Do you ( or anyone else) have a position or rationale as to why
> they did not attend the rally,.....Joan Baez, Jessie Jackson, and
> Cindy Sheehan found time to attend it?
>
> The central theme of the rally was to stop the war NOW, not in a
> few months or years.
>
> As for the troop withdrawals, I think you are right....Bush will be
> making that decision.....the Iraqi's have to assume more and more
> of the burden of securing their own country, and as they do, the US
> should be able to pull troops out of there. Nobody wants to stay
> there longer than we have to , and certainly not indefinitely. The
> Iraqis' know that Bush is only in office thru Jan 09, so they have
> to get their s*** together before then, since there is no guarantee
> that the following administration will "continue the deployment"
> there. The clock is ticking..........
>
>
> The reason I have optimism here is because there is a reasonable
> "back up" plan, namely, that even if the democratic process breaks
> down between the factions, the country of Iraq can be partitioned
> into three or more separate states, something along the lines of
> the No-Fly Zones, similar to what happened in Yugoslavia. The
> Kurds can have their country in the north, The Shiite's in the
> South, and the Sunni's in the Sunni Triangle. The oil reserves can
> be divided according to the percentage of the population, or by
> some other similar formula. And if the Sunni's don't like that,
> then the Kurds and Shiite's are free to destroy them, and we could
> even help them out if needed. Didn't Marc even advocate nuking the
> place at one point?
>
> I would just like to hear from some Dem/Liberal types as to why the
> Dems didn't show up at this important rally. My two Maryland
> Senators were right here close by, and for some reason(s) , did not
> attend. Any explanations?
>
> Marco
>
> [/b]
>
mcelrah wrote:
Meanwhile, he's stuck to the tar-baby...
from the posts style invitational, comical college courses:
literature 421: "gilligan's island" as a metaphor for the iraq war. what starts out as a three-hour tour turns into a trip to uncharted territory with no clear exit strategy.
gary
>
>
>mcelrah wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, he's stuck to the tar-baby...
>
>(end of quote)
>
>
>from the posts style invitational, comical college courses:
>
> literature 421: "gilligan's island" as a metaphor for the iraq war. what starts out as a three-hour tour turns into a trip to uncharted territory with no clear exit strategy.
> gary
mcelrah wrote: A Republican with integrity, John McCain, today expressed skepticism... - Hugh
Paul Tjaden wrote:... in Wichita, Kansas .... I find ..."conservatives" who should more appropriately be classified as "extremists"...
[quote="gary"Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:14 pm ]
...if john mckain were to run with collin powell against anyone that the dems had put up in the last go around (or anyone new of no greater caliber)...my initial viewpoint would be that i would vote for these republicans if the character and independence they once appeared to exhibit still held. (btw, collen (sp?) is still in possession of his soul....right?)
personally, i'm beginning to feel that the polarization ... yada, yada, yada...all that stuff - has become the overall thing that bothers me the most... and the thing that i would most like to see addressed by a new administration. then possibly a lot of other things would fall in place in a reasonable fashion.
so, yep, next time around i wouldn't care which party backed what guy if i felt he could do something in that department.
a thought for those who might not otherwise vote republican in the next presidential election:
would there be an overall gain for the country if, instead of voting for a democrat, someone such as McCain were to win and thereby wrest control of the republican party from 'shi'ites of the right' ?
would that not be a more effective way for 'non-republicans' to change things, on the whole, more to their liking?
the 'shi'ites of the right' might not be marginalized nearly as effectively IF a dem were to win the presidency (?)
actually, marco, by his dismissiveness of McCain, planted the seed of this idea for me.
...genteel 
...pissy 
