rideside.net

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-06 15:45:38 +0000

" the elephant truly wants to hear the lamentations of the Democrats. "

Nice.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-06 16:18:54 +0000

My favorite:
"All that happened on his (Rumsfeld's) watch was an abysmal post-war plan and a prison scandal. This confirms that the only ones held accountable in this Administration are welfare mothers and struggling third grade students. For them, standards and accountability apply."

It would be funny, if were not true...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-14 19:47:56 +0000

Andrew Sullivan and John McCain have been giving it to Rummy pretty good the past couple days. At least Bush hasn't given Rumsfeld a medal of freedom.... yet.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-17 04:58:51 +0000

Now even Trent Lott wants Rummy out, "in the next year or so."
Story here
It really is just a matter of time...

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-20 16:44:16 +0000

Rummy's already got a MoF. Sometime in the '70s. Don't know if it was for involvement in one of those other land wars in Asia we keep finding ourselves in.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-20 17:17:28 +0000

OK, so like a third (just a guess) of the Republican Senators want Rumsfailed out, and I would speculate that close to all of the Democrats (maybe not Zell Miller) want him out too. I also read that 70% of America wants Rummy to step down (from msnbc.com no less, but I can't find the link now).
Reported in the NY Times
Can we put it to a vote, like a "no confidence" vote or something? It seems like this is what the country and congress want, and needless to say, it would really help our efforts in Iraq. Just wondering...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2004-12-20 17:45:59 +0000

Really interesting question, especially considering some of the footage I've seen of Rummy speaking to troops in Iraq (if you haven't seen it, I'll try to find an online video of some of it - well-spoken militarymen putting the Rumster through the wringer).

A preliminary check on the official US Government (www.firstgov.gov) website only references Parliamentary governments which have votes of no confidence. Anyone else (i.e. someone smarter than me, which should be all y'all)know about this?

Posted by G lib on 2004-12-21 19:03:37 +0000

I think that all of the hoopla around Rummy has been created to be a lighting rod to take attention away from something pretty horrible to be slipped through by the Bush administration. Rummy has always served in that capacity since he started in the Bush 2 camp.

I'm just scared to find out what that might be (well, besides the war...) And this is coming from someone who is usually not a conspiracy theorist.

Plus, who the hell cares about Rummy, because he'll just get replaced by someone just as bad, or worse. At least we knew that we were getting the spawn of Satan with him...

________________
I've got a broken face!

Posted by pamsterdam on 2004-12-21 19:12:28 +0000

I'm sure you're right, G. I just get so tired of having to explain why it is that we have this clearly evil man in such a powerful and prominent position. My Euro-pals get W, to an extent. They see it as an extension of the John Wayne complex. They don't see enough of Cheney to understand how wicked (not in the NH way) he is. But Rumsfeld is all over the news spewing all kinds of nasty all over everyone and no one here can understand why he still has a job. Unfortunately I'm not sure anyone over there gets it either. I guess every administration needs a bogey man, and Rummy fulfills that nicely, but at least when Colin Powell was in there I felt like they kept each other in check to an extent.

The idea I've been favoring recently is splitting the US into 3 or 4 separate countries. Look at the EU - it's a quarter to a third of the size of the US and they're having huge problems coming up with a cohesive administration they can all agree on and is actually representative of their respective parts to any kind of meaningful degree. What about The Northeast, The West Coast, The South, and This Midwest? Anyone with me?

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-21 19:23:24 +0000

In America, everyone should be treated equally, and a person should be able to rise or fall on their own merits. Not on who you know, or the color of your skin. Maybe the Constitution doesn't set out to explicitly create a Meritocracy, however, I think that merit is a reasonable way to determine who rises to the top (Caveat: this country continues to have many barriers that keep people from achieving what they are capable of, all things being equal).

Wolfowitz, Bremer, Tenet & Rumsfeld have in no way shown any merit in the policies and decisions and planning they have conducted over the past four years. It's seems a slap in the face to the relatives of our dead soldiers (another 22 today) and the tens of thousands of injuried solders that W, B & T should <b>merit</b> a Medal of Freedom and Rumsfled should <b>merit</b> a slap on the back and a "fine job".

It just galls me, that's all. I know Rumsfeld won't be replaced with Joe Biden, but... C'mon! Rummy's not doing a good job, even if you do think the policy is a good idea. Can I get some conservative voices to back me up on this one?

I guess I shouldn't whine so much, we do have the MBA president. Based on my experience with how corporations work, merit is not the top criteria when decisions are made.

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-21 19:25:56 +0000

<a href="http://www.rideside.net/drupal/?q=node/879">some people</a>

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-21 20:38:04 +0000

Why would Bush try to slip something in? He says he has a "mandate."

Yes, there are many people worse than Rummy. But as someone whose read multiple biographies on him, he undoubtedly has gotten worse. The smugness, the disinformation, and the straight up lies are all a fairly recent development.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-21 22:54:30 +0000

So, Rummy is now blackmailing the countries he has been indicted in.
Story from The Voice in a nutshell: "If you go through with the lawsuits, we (the US) won't support NATO." I'd love to see Belgium and Germany call him on this one...

Posted by G lib on 2004-12-22 14:46:05 +0000

Pamarama, you should really read the "Let's Queeb This Shit Up!" post election discussion-- many people here talked about secession or moving.

But Dawn-- You seriously don't think that W is trying to slip legislation through? He's drawing attention from the little things by saying grandiose things like 'mandate.' And the worst damage he's been doing (besides the 'war')is on a much less grand scale-- strongarming/hobbling departments that are supposed to hold him accountable for education, the environment, etc, and forcing through policies that will take 50 years to unravel.
________________
I've got a broken face!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-22 18:08:40 +0000

Not really, no. While I think it is evident Bush 2 is the worst President since Harding (says a lot), I don't think he's malicious. Very misguided, but not evil. The EPA is a good example, and one I know most about.(Good Outside magazine article)
Christine Todd Whitman uses classic GOP speak about government regulation. She just says regulation is not the answer, but then refuses to give an answer. The EPA under Bush is still working to make the environment better (decreasing diesel pollution, increasing SUV mpg standards), even though it is run by lobbyists who refuse to persecute. But I don't think EPA workers go into the office at 9:00am and say, "How can we make our water supply worse?"

Posted by G lib on 2004-12-22 19:39:11 +0000

The battling links:

How about this Sierra Club article about "Clean Skies"?



________________
I've got a broken face!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-22 20:12:30 +0000

This is exactly what I mean by misguided. The EPA (actually the majority of the adminstartion) is run by lobbyists for coal, timber, and oil businesses. No one argues that. But since they have very little scientific knowledge, they honestly think that they are helping, like Bush. It isn't deviant. I think they're proud if their actions, regardless of the facts.

It's like uneducated conservatives: they honestly think Bush will lower their tax burdern, and they say as much. But when you show them the facts, they think you're trying to put one over on them. I think that Bush looks at that Sierra Club post and thinks they're trying to distort.

Posted by rladew on 2004-12-22 21:29:35 +0000

heres the elitism that helped to defeat Democrats this year rearing its ugly head again...

_______________________________

Jazz is not dead...it just smells funny. - F. Zappa

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-12-22 21:33:40 +0000

Dude shut up! That kind of attitude flies in the face of the diversity this board is shooting for.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-22 22:00:11 +0000

I don't think Bush an elitist, by the way rladew. Yes, he was silver-spooned, Phillips to Yale to Harvard educated, but he seems to generally embody and enjoy the down-home, average guy image. And Bush's "elitism" doesn't seem to be hurting him, like it hurt the Dems. I believe Bush supporters see he "elitism" as tenacity and progress, not shunning and upper class.

Plus Bush has appointed latinos and blacks, and although you could argue convincingly that they are elitist minorities, it seems a bit strained.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-22 22:03:02 +0000

Thank you BQ! (I take it you were being sarcastic) Let's here something from accross the aisle.

Posted by rladew on 2004-12-22 22:29:42 +0000

i heartily agree with yr statements about Bush, here dawn. I meant (said in a stammering tone of voice) the 'elitism' sentiment was coming from yr post, not GW....
and that the so-called "uneducated" conservatives got a little frustrated by being talked down to by Mr. Kerry and it bit his party in the ass...
_______________________________

Jazz is not dead...it just smells funny. - F. Zappa

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-23 15:50:36 +0000

How was I being elitist? By pointing out the facts about people making less than $78,000 a year? We can all use a dictionary to look up elitism. My geometry teachers who told me that I was wrong, when I thought you could tri-sect an angle weren't being elitists. That's insane. And they were not talking down to me either, even though I was uneducated on the topic. Yes, it can be frustrating when you're wrong, but do you honestly think that frustration helped Bush win?

Posted by rladew on 2004-12-23 17:36:52 +0000

so you simply think you can label people's opinions as 'wrong' by justifying them with your logic and then be upset that the 'correct' candidate didn't win?

I'm not sure I understand this...

_______________________________

Jazz is not dead...it just smells funny. - F. Zappa

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-23 17:41:18 +0000

What are the "people's opinions" you speak of?

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-23 17:50:48 +0000

My opinion of your opinion is that it's wrong.

Posted by rladew on 2004-12-27 12:46:00 +0000

I wholeheartedly support divergent opinions TGL!, I really do...

All Im getting at is that being informed about politics isnt as simple as one side being more educated than the other, and its also not as simple as an analogy of geometry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this quote suggest that the anti-Bush side knows for a FACT that 2+2 = 4 and anyone who disaggrees simply doesn't know how to add?

Liberals and Conservatives both have a whole laundry list of facts, supporting arguments, etc, but I would argue that one's political side of choice doesnt necessarily have better or more correct facts than the other, and I feel like that is the message Dawn and others are trying to convey here.

_______________________________

Jazz is not dead...it just smells funny. - F. Zappa

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-27 17:35:12 +0000

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this quote suggest that the anti-Bush side knows for a FACT that 2+2 = 4 and anyone who disaggrees simply doesn't know how to add?"

Wrong. It says nothing about the "anti-Bush side" as a whole. But yes, anyone who disagrees with 2+2=4 does not know how to add.

Seems like we're going down the same road here about who lies more , and who has more facts. But educating others is not showing elitism.

Posted by Rory_Stark on 2004-12-27 17:38:18 +0000

I would be a liar if I told you I enjoyed reading text that eeks slowly to the abyss that is the right side of the screen.

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-27 19:32:47 +0000

Get yr. "Flat list - expanded" selection on at the bottom of this page, Rory.

You must be a Bush supportor b/c yr. so uneducated...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-12-27 20:24:36 +0000

Stop patronizing, tgl. I feel people are taking my use of "uneducated" as a general sentiment, not specifically case by case. Would you rather I use ignorant, unschooled, unknowledgable, or how about "stupid"? Uneducated is what I like to be called best.

And a stupid person can also dislike Bush...

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-27 20:43:49 +0000

Unknowledgeable works.

The stupidity of some on the Left is embarassing.

However, it seems that the Left is called to the mat far more often the Right, i.e., why is it that I have to defend Whoopi Goldberg to the last breathe, while Anne Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy are assumed to represent only a very fringe element on the Right?

Posted by Rory_Stark on 2004-12-27 22:43:40 +0000

Well that worked.
Now everythings's left.
Terry G. however, is still a smarmy dick.

Posted by tgl on 2004-12-28 01:32:04 +0000

That's right, everything's left.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-12-29 06:48:11 +0000

Left is right and right is wrong and shit.