posted on December 21, 2003 06:52:17 AM new
Good to see you back. Personally, I've been getting ready for the holidays: Ordered a party tray for Christmas Eve that set me back $60; bought gifts I couldn't afford; learned my paycheck will be 2 weeks late; went to some great holiday parties (great if you like rooms full of crazy kids); I sat on Santa's lap and asked that my eBay sales pick up and best of all as of today, I am finally over my holiday crabiness! This much to the relief of family and friends.
Translation for Canvid...Linda considers anyone left of a fundamentalist Christian right wing wacko position a "difficult person".
But those who kiss butts avoid her imprudence and the number of those butt kissers has become legion.. When krs left he called the place history. Now, an appropriate description would be pre-historic.
I'm sorry that Linda found it necessary to greet you with this rude comment.
posted on December 21, 2003 09:18:35 AM new
Hi Canvid, and Happy Holidays!
Don't listen to Linda and Helen (aka Laurel & Hardy). Because they're both alpha-females, they cancel each other out, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
posted on December 21, 2003 09:56:48 AM new
Canvid, our new Prime Minister, Paul Martin (why are they always French???), wants to overturn marijuana laws, making it legal. For that alone, I commend him. Drugs need to become legal or the corruption from sales will never end. I believe Chretien paved the way and I hope this gets resolved.
posted on December 21, 2003 11:02:24 AM new"Helen is still being her difficult self."
Has she ever been anything other?
I'll second that opinion. According to Helen, if your aren't a left (chicken) wing pacifist, and unwilling to stand up & fight for a cause, and anti death penalty, then you're always automatically wrong.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 21, 2003 11:22:53 AM new
Referring to Bear's statement about the 'passive left', does anyone know why the right, usually the Christian right, thinks that physically fighting and aggression is somehow better than assertive verbal negotiations?
posted on December 21, 2003 11:30:36 AM new
Especially since many are fighting to have the ten commandments allowed for display in schools or courtrooms. Guess that one "thou shalt not" isn't all that important to them...kinda a pick and choose approach to their religion... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 21, 2003 12:08:02 PM new
LOL - [at everyone]
alpha-females, they cancel each other out, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
So....that's the problem. I do admit to at times having thought...'when helen does vote....at least my vote will cancel out her vote'.
NTS [you're always such a good sport] - Bailey's....good stuff. I miss being able to enjoy some in my coffee.
Linda considers anyone left of a fundamentalist Christian right wing wacko position a "difficult person." ROFLMHO - Nope....untrue. After posting here with you all these years, I have come to a place where I admire and appreciate the postings of our more 'moderate/centralist' democratic/Independent posters. YOU, and YOU alone have given me that new perspective. Thank you.
KD - does anyone know why the right, usually the Christian right, thinks that physically fighting and aggression is somehow better than assertive verbal negotiations? Who said they think that way? That's an assumption, usually made by those on the opposite side. [So it is given little weight ] Most like verbal negotiations, but hey....are human and only have patience for so much/for so long. [12 years was more than long enough]. Then we quit talking and take action. As I see it, it's the left who always wants to 'discuss' EVERYTHING, for FOREVER...and then nothing gets resolved.
canvid - Lots of extra work, but not that much more sales than last year. I've heard that from a lot of sellers. Hope 2004 is a good year for you.
posted on December 21, 2003 12:54:50 PM new
Name one right-winger who doesn't think that way, Linda. Hypocracy isn't delegated to one particular party, but the view of the left as being passive by the right/Christian right, is an example of its true form. Here's a few examples in recent news...
- against drugs... Rush Limbaugh
- against drugs... George Bush
- Presidents that choose war but will never fight in one
- against homosexual marriage... Dick Cheney
- against child abuse... priests
- against homosexuality... Twelvepole ( )
- pro-segregation - Strom Thurmon
All right wingers who choose to take a stand based on total hypocracy. So when a republican says that democrats are passive, it's enough to make your eyes roll around and around in the sockets until they hurt.
posted on December 21, 2003 01:22:15 PM new
LOL Stu....so true
----------
KD - you asked: does anyone know why the right, usually the Christian right, thinks that physically fighting and aggression is somehow better than assertive verbal negotiations?
Where I felt you were making assumptions was in the area of blaming ONLY "the right, usually the Christian right". There are many, many democrats that hold those same beliefs/opinions. Just look at all the democrats who support the democrats who voted FOR this war. Are they peacenicks to you?
posted on December 21, 2003 02:10:20 PM new
Nice try, Linda.
Democrats that voted for the war in Iraq, did so because of the nuclear WOMD threat. Now you have N.K. saying they actually HAVE a nuclear weapon but that's shoved under the rug for some reason.
does anyone know why the right, usually the Christian right, thinks that physically fighting and aggression is somehow better than assertive verbal negotiations?
Have you ever heard the hymn
Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go! Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee; On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory! Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise; Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 21, 2003 04:45:03 PM newDemocrats that voted for the war in Iraq, did so because of the nuclear WOMD threat. Now you have N.K. saying they actually HAVE a nuclear weapon but that's shoved under the rug for some reason
kraft, the Democrats. esp those with 'more security clearance' got the same intelligence reports the Pres did. And it wasn't specifically Nuclear WMD's either.
As for NK, YEAH! they have them, and even announced to the world they have capabilitys to launch and hit major cities in the US and other places. The US gov't knows this, what DO YOU WANT, do you want us to go oblitarate NK, preemptive strike because they have this? And for one thing, they say they have the ICBM capability, but
who knows for sure. The world and the U.S. knows for sure they do have nuclear weapons. With the 'President' [sic] of NK, whats his name, well the son of Mental E IL, what do YOU think we or other countries should do?
Can Canada go have a summit with them, and talk them into dumping their nuclear program?
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 21, 2003 04:59:15 PM new
So right NTS
That's how I see it too. Hillary even said she did an independent intelligence check on her own. And HER security people agreed.
-------
IF we had taken immediate action against NK it would only have made them start belly-aching again about our being warmongers again.
This time we take their advice and are negotiating the NK issue with other world leaders and they're complaining we're doing NOTHING. Just can't win. So this administration might just as well continue on their own path. Either way they're not going to get the votes from those who can't be pleased no matter what is done.
-------------
KD - Democrats that voted for the war in Iraq, did so because of the nuclear WOMD threat. Now you have N.K. saying they actually HAVE a nuclear weapon but that's shoved under the rug for some reason.
No....there were many reasons, but yes....the threat of womd was one of the big ones. You know, the ones your side kept saying we were changing our 'reason for going to war'? All those reasons.
womd = see my above statement. You guys are the ones big on negotiations....that's what's happening and you're still upset?
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 21, 2003 05:05 PM ]
posted on December 22, 2003 12:14:43 PM new
Bear, 'Onward Christian Soldiers' isn't about a physical war. It's about soldiers for God fighting against evil. That's just my interpretation though.
Linda, I was just trying to point out that on one hand, there's a country that might not have WOMD (Iraq) and was destroyed by war, then you have another country that for sure has a nuclear weapon (NK) but they're supposedly, negotiating with them. Why the difference? Even if you think NK is bluffing, what's the difference?
posted on December 22, 2003 01:40:34 PM new
I was just trying to point out that on one hand, there's a country that might not have WOMD (Iraq) and was destroyed by war, then you have another country that for sure has a nuclear weapon (NK) but they're supposedly, negotiating with them. Why the difference? Even if you think NK is bluffing, what's the difference?
Timing played a part. We were already dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq when we learn NK was going to go forward with their program.
Second, that little idiot was insisting there were ONLY going to be negotiations between him and our President. Saddam wasn't demanding that. No reason for that to happen since either ...IF he doesn't go even more stupid that he already is...they too will be affected by those actions. So the thing is they too should be involved....taking a stand that he not go nuclear. In a way, just like those of you on the left are always demanding....more countries involvement.
Also we already had been involved in negotiations with Iraq for 12 years. Saddam's choice not to prove to the UN he didn't have these weapons our intelligence was saying they were a threat to us and other countries. You do recall Saddam was paying $25,000. to the suicide bombers...that's supporting terrorism. PLUS Saddam has history that proves he's not above USING those weapons.
Jong Ill had an agreement with the clinton administration. Thinks he'll get another one from this administration. We'll see....but I doubt it.
The way this President is handling NK is working. He finally understood many country's were going to be involved. Now there's an issue with Japan that appears to have stopped the negotiations for the time being.
I'd like to see countries like your, KD, who are so concerned about this get involved in those negotiations. Put YOUR solutions on the table...see IF you can come up with a way to convince Jong Ill to stop producing these weapons. Maybe YOUR country could offer money or special 'favors' to him like food and heating oil, etc. to help him change his mind. So many depend on/expect the US to deal with ALL the world's problems ourselves and then criticize what we do or how we handle the issues. Or blame us for getting involved where we don't belong.
No pleasing everyone. This administration's had a lot on it's plate and it's doing a GREAT job imho.
I'd LOVE you hear your answer to NTS's questions on what YOU would like to see done? How YOU'D like to see us handle NK. Would you want us to bomb them?
posted on December 22, 2003 01:48:36 PM new
Linda, thats all true. Also, you have to factor in China. In China, they could care less that we went to Iraq, but if Kraft or anyone else thinks we're going to 'drop in' on NK, we, and previous Presidents know we cannot do that, one of the biggies is China.
Ya think they want WWIII in their backyard? I don't think so. China has about the same nuclear capabilities as the U.S. and Russia had. They have theirs pointed at the 'Super Powers'. Now we go blasting into NK, you think they are going to sit by and watch this in their backyard, no way!
Personally I think China, Japan and other countries near NK, go in and take over all negotiations, but it ain't gonna happen, it should though.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 22, 2003 09:06:42 PM new
I couldn't agree more about other countries helping out with solutions or financial aid. Especially in Iraq. I think it's deplorable that other countries have the attitude that the U.S. will look after everything that goes wrong in the world... it's no wonder Americans get sick of the BS.
posted on December 22, 2003 09:48:05 PM new
Linda, Korea’s contract was with America not Clinton.
Otherwise you acknowledge that no contract with America is worth the paper it is written on, past the incumbent’s term in office.
It’s a good lesson to others wanting your president’s ‘word’.
You still don’t get it.
Saddam can’t ‘prove’ there are no womd in Iraq, just as you can’t ‘prove’ that you haven’t concealed womd in Texas.
Linda...“You do recall Saddam was paying $25,000. to the suicide bombers...that's supporting terrorism. “
Wake up and smell the botulism Linda You supported it!
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/iraq.php
1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state.
Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funnelled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat.
And as far as America loosing money in Iraq War II; I have no problem with that.
NO PAIN: NO GAIN.
It’s the surest way to get the message through to all Americans.
