• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Who are you leaning towards?

But is there a compound out in the middle of nowhere having group sex and waiting for the world to end that I can join? Everyone should join an end times cult at least once in their life.
 
Litany said:
But is there a compound out in the middle of nowhere having group sex and waiting for the world to end that I can join? Everyone should join an end times cult at least once in their life.
Click to expand...

I plan on joining one of those in early 2012. As much fun as it sounds, I guess even constant group sex gets tiresome after a couple of years, and I don't want my reaction to the end of the world to be "Finally! I was starting to chafe."
 
Champagne said:
I think it's interesting that in this election the "values" candidates haven't done so well. Maybe we've finally reached the point where people's concern about their own future in terms of whether they'll still have a home, a job, or any savings in a couple of years' time has become more important than their desire to use the law and the Constitution to impose their beliefs about what other people may or may not do in bed.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how people can come to oppose economic initiatives that would benefit them the most. Healthcare isn't supposed to be socialized-though everyone knows that state insurance plans are the best. We also have middle class people who oppose the "estate tax." What is it? A tax on property that hits the wealthiest 1%. However, republicans falsely claim that it hits people who inherit family farms and the like, though there hasn't been one documented case of a family losing a farm due to high taxes on property. Don't worry, the "useful idiots" will play a significant role in Novemeber-especially with gay marriage appearing on the radar screen again the democrats running that muslim candidate from Illinois.:D
 
Libra said:
I think there is a difference between "killing people" and "defending their country".
Click to expand...

Without wanting to turn this into a Vietnam war thread, I think there's a difference between defending your own country and invading someone else's. But even so, I maintain that having been a soldier is not necessarily the single most important experience a president can have - personally, I'd rather have someone who knows how to avoid wars, but...
 
beer good said:
Without wanting to turn this into a Vietnam war thread, I think there's a difference between defending your own country and invading someone else's. But even so, I maintain that having been a soldier is not necessarily the single most important experience a president can have - personally, I'd rather have someone who knows how to avoid wars, but...
Click to expand...


You are picking just one thing and running with it, There is only one point I wanted to make with McCain: When the war started whoever spoke against it was anti-american and how we are going to go in there and be done in 3 weeks and so on, and McCain would have been an honorable man with his background then, Now, after so many years with the war still going on ofcourse people are scared with any mention of a candidate and his opinion about war.

You are going to tell me that the war taking sooo long has not changed peoples feelings? The president who started this was voted in office twice!

In the thread "cadidate flaws" is the same point I am trying to make.

Now, you can make smart remarks about me watching "spoof" news, so why don't you tell me what you watch so I can get more educated like you?
 
The thing is that so many people apparently believed this nonsense that the Iraq war was easily winnable and we'd be spreading Western-style democracy throughout the Middle East and all that wonderful stuff. My husband and I both said at the time that these people were fantasising (or lying), but we were in an extreme minority because so many people had bought into the nonsense that we were attacking Iraq as part of the War on Terror. As though Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it. The terrorists were Saudis, financed with Saudi money, recruited in Pakistan and trained in Afghanistan, and we're somehow fighting the War on Terror by ignoring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and invading Iraq? It was a disaster waiting to happen, and it ought to have been obvious. Heaven knows, it was obvious enough from the start to both ordinary people and those in high places all over Europe.

The US media should be damned ashamed of themselves for following along like sheep when the Administration was peddling this rubbish.
 
The US media should be damned ashamed of themselves for following along like sheep when the Administration was peddling this rubbish.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest lies about the whole thing runs along the lines of: "Well, know one knew at the time that the WMD didn't exist, other nations said that he weas a threat too." There was plenty of evidence on the internet that was out there, the press just didn't care to cover it at all. The Bush administration was hell-bent on having this war and they definitely played up what they could. The media did play into their hands big time but I don't think it's due to the Bush administration. I have been out of college for a long time, but it was my experience that journalism majors aren't necessarily politically minded folks. If they were bright and enterprising, they specialized in the dog and pony show stories at a school/local paper and then went on from there. That is the reason why McClellan's book is being discussed as a gossipy "tell all" as opposed to the story being covered as what he has said went on, which should be investigated! So, it's aired and it disappears, they don't have the interest or mindfulness to dig deeper into his account to determine-hey!, did two White House officials meet to get their stories straight about outing a secret agent? Was McClellan knowingly asked to lie?
 
I remember hearing at some point early in the war that you had to read European papers to get anything remotely resembling real news. I believe Greg Palast was having to write his columns in one of the London papers because none of the major US ones was interested. It seems to be the case that some of the most high-profile journalists (and of course their bosses) move in the same circles as the major movers and shakers in Washington, and when push comes to shove they've decided that preserving this access to the powerful people is more important than investigating the truth and informing the masses.

I'd love to know why McClellan didn't resign on principle at the time rather than waiting till George Bush's reputation was already in tatters and publishing his book now when it really isn't any more use as anything other than gossip fodder. It's interesting how brave some of these people have become once they don't have anything to lose. I believe he himself had some harsh words for Richard Clarke when he wrote a critical book during an election year, and he was very positive about the Bush administration all the way through his tenure there and during his amicable parting from them.

I know Dan Rather has said that he feels the media didn't do a good job and that he's as guilty as any of them for falling for the Administration's line, but I didn't see any resignations on principle from his direction either, and he was an experienced enough journalist to know when he was being fed a lie, especially when the European press weren't being all that quiet about it.
 
Libra said:
You are picking just one thing and running with it,
Click to expand...
You're the one who brought it up.

There is only one point I wanted to make with McCain: When the war started whoever spoke against it was anti-american and how we are going to go in there and be done in 3 weeks and so on, and McCain would have been an honorable man with his background then,
Click to expand...
Yes, the rhetoric leading up to the war was stupid, and McCain was one of those who were spouting it. Whether that makes him honourable is up to you, I guess.

Now, after so many years with the war still going on ofcourse people are scared with any mention of a candidate and his opinion about war.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily say "scared", but yeah. And I'd say that if he wants to reach war-weary voters, then his current policy on the war - for instance, that he has no problem with the US staying in Iraq for 10,000 years or that he wants to extend it to Iran as well - is a bigger problem for him than the fact that he was in another war 40 years ago. He's not being "punished" for having been a fighter pilot, he's being "punished" for promising to continue doing something a lot of people want the president of the US to stop doing. That's not punishment, that's democracy in action. Of course he should run on the issues he thinks are important, but if the voters disagree with him on one of the most important ones, then he's not going to win. Which remains to be seen, of course.

Now, you can make smart remarks about me watching "spoof" news, so why don't you tell me what you watch so I can get more educated like you?
Click to expand...
Since I'm not in the US, a lot of the news sources available to me aren't available on TV over there. Knowing that [-]Faux[/-] FOX News has spent the last 10 years or so as pretty much a republican press service, knowing the difference between an op ed piece and a news report, and applying a little critical thinking goes a long way. Then... read a paper. Read a book. Check out the news sites on the web - the BBC is a good start, for instance. Know who is saying what to whom and why.
 
beer good said:
You're the one who brought it up.


Yes, the rhetoric leading up to the war was stupid, and McCain was one of those who were spouting it. Whether that makes him honourable is up to you, I guess.


I wouldn't necessarily say "scared", but yeah. And I'd say that if he wants to reach war-weary voters, then his current policy on the war - for instance, that he has no problem with the US staying in Iraq for 10,000 years or that he wants to extend it to Iran as well - is a bigger problem for him than the fact that he was in another war 40 years ago. He's not being "punished" for having been a fighter pilot, he's being "punished" for promising to continue doing something a lot of people want the president of the US to stop doing. That's not punishment, that's democracy in action. Of course he should run on the issues he thinks are important, but if the voters disagree with him on one of the most important ones, then he's not going to win. Which remains to be seen, of course.


Since I'm not in the US, a lot of the news sources available to me aren't available on TV over there. Knowing that [-]Faux[/-] FOX News has spent the last 10 years or so as pretty much a republican press service, knowing the difference between an op ed piece and a news report, and applying a little critical thinking goes a long way. Then... read a paper. Read a book. Check out the news sites on the web - the BBC is a good start, for instance. Know who is saying what to whom and why.
Click to expand...


The "Faux" (very cute):)

Thanks for the breakdown, I appreciate it. My typing got a bit out of hand and I do apologise for my abruptness.

I want to clear up something, I made a thread to get peoples opinions on what is being said on t.v (and not only on Fox), and try and have a discussion. It is not my personal opinion on McCain but what is being discussed on different channels, my only pov is that about the war having an affect on people and how they vote.:)
 
So far not much has been said about policies here............so I guess the choice is
Old
Black or
Female

I'll go with Old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top