posted on February 6, 2004 03:09:22 PM new
I stopped throwing things at the TV after I tossed my phone at it one day during CNN, missed, hit the wall behind it and shattered the phone. Now I just yell alot.
Don't you want to watch him sqiurm?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 6, 2004 03:28:28 PM new
He makes me squirm! Honestly, I can't stand to look at the guy. Someone here -- darn it, who was it? -- remarked several months ago that Bush was such an embarrassment that she wished he wouldn't be let out (in public) at all!
And really, Fenix, if you believe that NBC is going to harangue the president with questions he hasn't already received and is at this very moment rehearsing his answers to, I'm gonna guess you watch too much Cable...
posted on February 6, 2004 04:41:44 PM new
LOL! How did you know. The only thing I watch on broadcast TV now that I have cable again in The West Wing, with the occasional Law & Order, CSI and Without a Trace. Other than that you can just call me Cable Girl these days .
I do believe that he will given a few tougher questions from NBC than by say... Fox
The thing is, as much as he can rehearse he answer to the supplied questions, I think it's the follow ups that will bring on the imaginary words and stammering and unlike (blond female report whose name is escaping me right now) I don't think that Tim Russert is going to sit there like a dear in headlines with nothing but a stammer response if Bush gives another of his "So What" responses like he did when confronted in the post Saddam capture inteview about the WOMD issue.
Jed Bartlett For President!!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 6, 2004 04:42 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2004 04:56:41 PM new
hahaha, I knew it -- you and I watch the very same network shows and then madly veer off to Leave It To Beaver reruns on Cable!!
Unfortunately, Meet The Press is not now, as it once was, a "live" broadcast. Bush and his handlers are going to be able to squelch any gaffes he makes. Praise the Lord and pass the editing booth!
Truly, the only time to catch him off guard is at a fund-raiser or gradeschool assembly. In person, by himself, even with cue cards to read, he becomes something like Edgar Bergen's Mortimer Snerd; a wooden half-wit with a dopey grin, unable to enunciate even one simple thought in a sentence worthy of a second-grader...
posted on February 6, 2004 05:21:23 PM new
That's the way the system works now Smith. You are not going to get a choice to vote for that means anything. Certainly not a choice that would threaten any of the powerful interests that control the money in this world.
It's like picking which eye you want poked out.
All the election means is which side gets to loot the most from you for the next four years.
They can be good humored about it because even the losers will do OK.
Edited to add - And they are not going to do anything too rough with him because if they do there will be retribution.
Not like in some third world country where they will shut them down. But they can find they are cut out of the loop enough to hurt their ability to have the same stories as the other networks.
Maybe the PUBLIC is not scared of the 'knock in the night' here yet - but if the press is scared - and they sure look scared to me - that is a big first step to a totalitarian state.
posted on February 6, 2004 05:33:12 PM new
Leave it to Beaver? Ha - I have a daily diet of three episodes of West Wing on Bravo, up to four different Law & Orders between USA and TNT with City Confidential, Forensic Files , Cold Case Files and City Confidential and CNN when nothing else is on. A few years back my roomate told me he was afraid to make me too angry, I spent so much time watching police investigation shows and reading Cornwell and Reichs books that he was pretty sure I had figured out a way to kill him and get away with it.
As for Bush and Meet the Press. I remain ever faithful in my belief that our dear president will never fail to stick his foot in his mouth when given ample opportunity
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 6, 2004 06:35 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2004 05:48:32 PM new
Well sure - just drink a pint of whiskey and run the sucker over with your car. They will never do anything to you in this country. Hell they probably won't even raise your insurance rates if they don't have a payout from it.
posted on February 6, 2004 05:58:37 PM new
Yes, sadly, Gravid, you're right. It's been sh!t or sh!t ala mode for decades now in presidential races, imo. Frankly, I envy those who are so blind or party-bound that they can chant "Re-elect President Bush" and really mean it, as if their very lives depended on it. The truth is, it hasn't mattered much who was president since Nixon left office. Yes, there've been horrible scandals -- BCCI, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, to name a few -- but none of these have hindered our two-party system to any extent, and while Clinton did have a keener eye on joblessness and a healthy economy, much of his success in those areas was garnered through massive and rapid breakthroughs in technology during his presidency. The personal computer industry and the Internet exploded on his watch.
As it is now, we're either going to vote for Boneser Bush or Boneser Kerry, or toss a gratuitous "no-to-them" vote to some Libertarian or Independent or Green candidate.
Ultimately, it all boils down to their contributors and friends: would we rather have Kerry, tied to millions of of private dollars and otherwise funded by lobbyists for the various telecommunications and financial companies, or would we rather have Bush, with his Grandpa's treasonous past and his father's failed first war in Iraq and the support of worldwide oil and venture-capital conglomerates?
Really, I'm starting to think there's no difference between the two... Kerry might balk at granting further intrusive powers to our government agencies, but he might do nothing to dismantle those that Bush already set in place. Bush will continue to push for a totally fascist State and maybe, in the long run, that would be more palatable, for then those of us who know what he's up to would rise up and get this country back in line with its Constitution -- using "whatever means necessary" ...
Edited to add that y'all typed a bunch of funny sh!t while I was attempting to be serious! Pshaw!!
posted on February 6, 2004 06:08:37 PM new
The smart big money contributes to both parties now so no matter who wins their butt is covered.
Or did they just somehow figure out how to suck double the protection money out of them for the same value returned?
posted on February 6, 2004 06:50:25 PM new
Pay - I'm trying to get thru Edwards' Plan for America right now but I'm not in the right mode to just sit down and read it. What I have read though makes me very hopeful that as more people drop out and we get an opportunity to hear more for Edwards he'll start pulling closer in and maybe ahead. He's not a carrer politician, no powerul puppetmaster pulling strings to boost him farther, just what seems to me to be an honest man with good ideas, good intentions and as far as I have gotten, realistic plans for implementation that has somehow managed to swim the shark infested waters of todays politics and survive.
Lets be honest, if the democrats win this year, we can pretty much kiss off any chance of Hilary ever returning to the White House. I'm willing to trade that opportunity for Edwards.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is gtting my vote because something has to be done to protect our civil liberties. I personally don't give a tinkers damn what other countries think of us if gaining their respect means sacrificing our own self respect. Bush seems bound and determined to spread democracy everywhere but within his own borders and there is no way I will vote for that but at least if I could vote for Edwards I would know I was voting for someone that really seems to be wanting to do what is right for the nation and not just serving an agenda.
BTw- which part made you smile - the idea of killing a roomate or the getting away with it?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 6, 2004 06:51 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2004 07:39:07 PM newMeet John Kerry's brother, Cameron. See them roll in the dough together...
John Kerry's brother, "Cam", just happens to work for a Boston law firm whose clients are almost exclusively telecommunications giants like AT&T and the massive Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). This law firm -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. -- has been Senator Kerry's strongest financial contributor since the 1980's. Kerry, who sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which oversees the FCC, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor (and brother).
Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry. Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.
Ah, nothing like being able to RUN the stock market by RUNNING the country!
posted on February 6, 2004 08:39:30 PM new
Fenix, let's start with his extraordinarily weird method of gathering campaign contributions: His coffers almost snuck in under the radar, being filled $2,000 at a time, all by low-level law firm employees who barely grossed $40,000 per year, and many of whom had no voting record whatsoever.
The DOJ caught on and is investigating this steady "trickle" of funds.
As a politician, he's been just as slimy as the bigger fish, rolling over on issues that would've benefited his home state -- the constituents he was elected to serve -- when he set his sights on the highest office. He's also portrayed himself as a liberal, a centrist, a moderate -- whatever he felt necessary at the time to get where he was headed.
Frankly, if I'm gonna be flucked again, I'd just as soon have it done by a pro...
Helen, I would never endorse George Bush. I think he's one of the vilest leaders we've ever had, and his "friends" are even more dangerous than he is.
But I'll no longer let my fear of the WORST prevent me from saying what's WRONG with the alternatives. I don't like any of the people stumping right now. They're all just different versions of bought-off "public servants" and my ideal choice in this year's election would be to have a great big box marked "NO". I'd gladly "X" it and feel I'd done the right thing...
Edited to add: Good point, Gravid. We mostly use paper plates anyway...
Further edited to say that I'd vote for John McCain in a heartbeat, and I wonder what he was threatened/offered to stay out of it this year...
I'd rather vote for Clinton whether or not *you* consider him "sh't or sh't ala mode." Since we don't have that option, I will support the Democratic candidates today without regard to their personal wealth which was not by the way acquired fraudulently. In the future any other conspiracy theory that you may suggest will be considered with just as little estimation as I consider your nonsensical rant against those Democrats who are making an effort to remove the evil Bush administration.
posted on February 7, 2004 10:13:01 AM new
"Sh!t and sh!t ala mode" referred to Kerry and Bush, respectively, Helen. And it is not a "conspiracy theory" that Kerry gets the bulk of his money from his brother's law firm. I never said it was obtained "fraudulently" . John Edwards' campaign finances are being looked into, however.
It's up to you if you want to be as blind as Linda in supporting "any" democrat just to get away from "evil" Bush. I will continue to post items about all the candidates but from now on I'll warn you at the beginning of any article that might displease you so that you can cover your eyes and scroll right by...
posted on February 7, 2004 10:37:36 AM new
I'm not in anyone's "corner", Helen. But it is quite telling that you're every bit as rigid as Linda when it comes to only wanting to discuss things amicably with people who agree with your views; otherwise, the gloves come off and you become alternately rude and petty. Maybe you ought to try Twelvepole's adult approach to dissent and put me on Ignore. Really, I won't mind at all...
posted on February 7, 2004 12:44:22 PM new
Whoa...*You* can call someone rude and petty? Consider your remarks to me from the recent and distant past.
But, hey...let's just let it go. I don't put anyone on ignore. Neither am I narrow minded and rigid which you know. I have a sense of humor and an ability to see viewpoints even from Twelvepole's perspective. I have relatives in Mississippi with viewpoints like those of Linda so believe it or not, I understand her also. But, I was just wrong about your postion and when I discovered that I was so wrong, it was just a little bit shocking.
In addition, I printed two photos this morning which were chewed up by the printer. A lousy day all around.
If you are directing that comment to me, gravid...I don't put all my trust in anything or anybody. Nobody is perfect...and that of course includes presidential candidates and most certainly presidents as we can so clearly see.
posted on February 7, 2004 01:59:09 PM new
The truth is, I don't have a political "position" that dictates my beliefs (or, more specifically, dictates that I subjugate my beliefs) along strict party lines. There are decent people across the political spectrum, as well as corrupt ones.
My father hated Nixon so much he'd call anyone who felt otherwise a fascist. Heh, this was pretty funny because he'd been a republican in his 20's and 30's and worked for the Eisenhower/Nixon Administration for a while. What tipped him over to the democrats was the republicans' resistance to the civil rights movement in any way, shape, or form. I grew up on a steady diet of liberal democratic ideology, most of which I agreed with and was proud to carry on when I reached voting age. Jimmy Carter was the first President I voted for. I felt about Reagan the way you do about Bush: I'd vote for anyone but him. In 1988, I couldn't stand George Bush, Sr., so I voted for Dukakis, but not happily so. I was one of those swept away by Bill Clinton's first run, and enthusiastically campaigned for him. It took a few of his famous waffling compromises to sour me on him as a great President, although I did vote for a second term. Al Gore appealed to me about as much as Dukakis had; once again, I was having to choose between someone I despised and someone I merely disliked. And this election year it will be the same.
Do you see what I'm getting at, though? Part of what makes participating in our political process engaging and worthwhile is having a real choice amongst the candidates. Lyndon Johnson was about as opposite to Barry Goldwater as one could be; their ideals, their goals, were clearly defined and a vote for either was an endorsement not a mere rejection of the other candidate.
I don't see tremendous differences in our presidential election menus anymore; there are no liberals of the ilk I admire who'd have a chance at winning -- much less even getting the money together to run -- so I'm stuck with two rich guys from which to choose; one on the right who does oddly leftist things (Bush's Immigration Plan) that piss-off huge portions of his constituency, and one on the middle-left who does oddly rightist things (Kerry's siding with republicans to end tenure for public school teachers) .
You know, perhaps I do have a "position" afterall: I want presidential candidates I can be proud to vote for , instead of a gaggle of corporate-owned cronies I have to vote against...
Now, as to our contretemps, yep, we've had 'em before and we'll probably have 'em again; I think we're getting rather good at handling them, though, don't you?
Sorry about your printer. I trust it was the old one that mangled your photos and not the one you just bought.
posted on February 7, 2004 02:35:34 PM new
Pat, are you saying Kerry and Bush are in many ways mirrors of each other? I have to agree with Gravid's post up thataway. All of them take money from the entrenched interests. If they don't, they don't get elected. Running a campaign that has a hope of winning is expensive. Taking that money entails compromise, sometimes sell out of the constituancy, and I have no doubt that this (meaning the American government, both Republican and Democrat) is a government by, of and for the corporations. It isn't about the people. It hasn't been for a long time.
You want a choice? How? THe candidates have to be sanitized to appeal to the majority. (Can you imagine anybody trying to sanitize LBJ or Goldwater?) If they're not, they go the way of McCain and Dean.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 7, 2004 02:53:30 PM new
Is the 2-party system in effect gone? Presented to you as a shell game, pick the black it will set you back, pick the red and get ahead. Is your vote only good for placing in office, the one you perceive as the lesser of two evils or which one of the cannidates will deliver you more of a slice of the proverbial pie. Has anyone noticed the lack of party icons in recent years, that in years past were plastered everywhere. In addition,the word "bi-partisan" seemingly used more and more in describe the workings of this alleged 2-party political system.
Bonesman: Bush & Kerry-isn't it odd how overnight he emerged as the front runner in the litany of democratic hopefuls.
.
