Really a good read... thanks Tom
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mvermeer Jun 06, 2005 3:13 AM EDT |
Bringing democracy to Middle East societies is a laudable goal, in spite of the vultures making it part of their propaganda. And a working democracy can only be based on citizen participation. Linux and Linux advocacy can be a small, small part of this. |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2005 6:21 AM EDT |
My appreciation to the editors for including the reminder about Kuwait in the opening. As bad as the 1991 war was fro Iragis, I'm a guessin' it was much worse for the Kuwaitis who were raped, slaughtered and plundered by the Iraqis. Or, for that matter, Shi'ite Muslims in Basrah who were slaughtered, imprisoned, and tortured by Hussein's henchmen in the aftermath of the 1991. That, by the way, was a true example of the US at its worst, cowardly abandoning people whom we had encouraged to rise up. Democracy is a good thing, and Iraq, having been slammed between a rock and a hard place, deserves to come out of all its suffering with a stable and free -- even if noisy and contentious -- society. The Iraqis have suffered far too much at far too many hands. |
| tuxchick Jun 06, 2005 8:27 AM EDT |
I'd like to see democracy come to the US someday. |
| SFN Jun 06, 2005 9:12 AM EDT |
We can't even get HDTV or IPV6. Democracy hasn't a chance. |
| tadelste Jun 06, 2005 1:13 PM EDT |
I'd like to see democracy come to the US someday. You may have said that in jest, I don't know. But, technically we're a Republic and a democracy. Federally, I think I would say Republic and locally more of a democracy. During the 1960's, I would say with the draft and Viet Nam - more of a Dictatorship. 58,000 Americans killed - mostly minorities and people who couldn't get student deferrments. But then we killed 3 million Viet Namese. On a different subject, I'd like to see fair trade come to the US someday and that would mean breaking up Microsoft. |
| mvermeer Jun 07, 2005 4:58 AM EDT |
On a different subject, I'd like to see fair trade come to the US someday and that would mean breaking up Microsoft. It's not really a different subject, unfortunately :-( Dino: "...a true example of the US at its worst..." agree. Still I hold Bush Sr to have been one of the more honorable presidents, Rep or no. Right after Eisenhower. |
| pyellman Jun 07, 2005 5:52 AM EDT |
> mostly minorities and people who couldn't get student deferrments That is a fairly malicious piece of misinformation you are attempting to perpetuate there. I don't know about the "people who couldn't get student deferrments" part -- you might as easily have said "people who failed to dodge a bullet", but as for your malicious misinformation regarding minority casualties, the facts are available and you have a responsibility to check them before making comments that implicitly disregard the sacrifice of "non-minority" soldiers. At best, the truth could be phrased "minorities were overrepresented in the casualties", but even that statement would probably depend on taking a selective view of the numbers. Peter Yellman |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2005 7:53 AM EDT |
mvermeer - Agree on Bush, Sr - at least with regard to being an honorable man. Will admit that it's easy to look back with hindsight... At time, Bush had built coalition that included arab nations and a lot of folks who might not ordinarily stand beside the US. A more charitable view than mine might presume that Bush didn't want to needlessly shatter his coalition in the hope that it might be a powerful force for positive change in the region. |
| number6x Jun 07, 2005 9:35 AM EDT |
I can't remember who said it, but I remeber the comment well:
"Geoge H. Bush is the 'real Ronald Reagan'." Former President Bush was a real war hero, he didn't just play one in the movies(RR was a little too young for ww1 and a little too old for ww2). He was a truly religious man for his whole life, he didn't lead the life of a Holywood playboy, only to become 'born again' later in life. Former Presdent Bush was a dedicated public servant, doing what his country asked of him, even though he could have become much wealthier if he had stayed in private industry. (remember public servants didn't get to build up the big campaign funds politicians did.) He had strong family values from his first and only marriage, not divorces. Many of the images we Americans have of Ronald Reagan were true of George H. Bush. Only President Bush usually was like that on his first try, he didn't have to fall and stumble and try again. He truly is a remarkable member of a remarkable generation. |
| mvermeer Jun 07, 2005 9:53 AM EDT |
"...A more charitable view..." Yes, I heard that theory too and don't believe it. As you say, hindsight is easy and nobody's perfect. What I admire George H. most for is precisely that coalition building, when even the UN Charter would have allowed him to just send in the cavalry, all fair and legal. Precisely like Truman with Korea. That's vision for you. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2005 11:00 AM EDT |
Martin -- This is more agreement than I can stand!! I may have to sing the praises of W (Who I really do think mostly well of) just to set the universe straight again. I really do wonder what kind of man W would be if he'd been forged on the same anvil as his father. But, then, I guess that's true of anybody you compare with a parent of that generation. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2005 1:59 PM EDT |
This is a truly nauseating thread. The Bushes and Reagans are corrupt evil robber barons who are hand in glove with the Saudi oil families, and don't give a rat's ass about anything but increasing their own wealth and power. They sure don't care about you or me, except as lambs to be fleeced. How horrible do things have to get before people wise up? How many lost jobs, how many useless wars, how many civil liberties lost, how much of a theocracy do you want today? Sheesh. No you won't change your minds about them and I don't care- I just want to inject a bit of truth. |
| richo123 Jun 08, 2005 2:12 PM EDT |
I don't think the personal character of these guys is relevant. That's the problem with the US media, they pretend that the acting that guys like W and his dad carry out equates with a real person. It doesn't. These guys are servicing a large machine whose objective is to service contributors: It's a business! The contributors are in the main the large oligarch's (eg Gates, Walmart owners, Oil stockowners etc etc) and Bush is presently repaying his contributors. What is surprising about that? Additionally this oligarch service agency uses the best propagandists (read liars) money can buy and the electorate just thinks its W being decisive and down home. Makes you want to puke! |
| dinotrac Jun 08, 2005 5:12 PM EDT |
tuxchick and richo123 -- Glad to see some folks from the other side chime in. It's what makes America great -- the freedom to be as wrong as wrong can be. |
| richo123 Jun 08, 2005 5:59 PM EDT |
Good to see you fit the bill (wrong as wrong can be). Say what you really mean.... |
| dinotrac Jun 08, 2005 6:19 PM EDT |
richo123 -- Note that I never mentioned who was right or left, er, wrong.... The thread was pretty rant-free and thoughtful until you guys went off, and I know that Martin and I are actually quite far apart on matters political. He does, however, possess the class to appreciate a good man for what he is. So long as we're in the rant zone -- Kudos to the Democrats for finally deciding not to block every black, latino, and female judge nominee that comes their way. If only Howard Dean could learn that black people can now be found outside the servants' quarters... |
| richo123 Jun 09, 2005 2:58 AM EDT |
Snide rather than honest comments always provoke rants. With regard to your comments: 1) The Republicans blocked far more appointees when Clinton was president. Just because they (the Republicans) can occasionally find some one on the right from ethnic minorities doesn't make your comment relevant. The overwhelming majority of blocked appointees were hard right extremists and white. 2) The unwarranted smear of Howard Dean isn't classy at all. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2005 7:55 AM EDT |
richo -- So -- You don't like rants, either. Rant tends to lead to rant because rants don't focus on anything that can be argued, just an avalanche of characterizations. I sincerely doubt that you are right on point 1, however it is possible, given that Clinton served two terms and Bush has only served one. Still, it does seem odd that the Democrats seem to have a special relish for blocking any minority candidate who dares to think for him or herself. As to point 2, there was nothing remotely unwarranted about it. Howard Dean's recent statements could have come from a Klan rally. C |
| richo123 Jun 09, 2005 8:56 AM EDT |
You've missed the point on judicial nominees: The Republicans are just using the ethnic identity of a small minority of their hard right slate to bash the Democrats about the head with a phony PC argument. Clever but basically BS. Seems like you are repeating their propaganda tactics. As far as Howard Dean goes, I must have read a different source to you (maybe you watch Fox News ;-)). To equate his recent comments with a Klan meeting is typical right wing misinformation. The tactic here is again clever but BS: Bash and distort Howard Dean because he is outspoken. Bonus points because he is Democratic Party Head Honcho. These kind of smear tactics were perfected in the last election by the modern day Goebels, Karl Rove. Lying seems to have become yet another MO for Republicans hard arses. Just remember one day in the future the truth WILL come out and I will not be surprised then to see Rumsfeld and Chaney in jail. Have a nice day ;-) Bloody hot one here in NYC... |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2005 9:12 AM EDT |
richo123 : "Typical Right Wing misinformation?" I heard the tape and it sounded offensive as hell to me. What about that is a smear tactic? Sounds like typical liberal hypocrisy to me. Raise a ruckus when Trent Lott offers a kind word at a colleague's retirement bash, look the other way when political cartoonists portray Condaleeza Rice as some Jemimah, or infer that the servants must be black. I always try to have a nice day. Hot in Chicago, too. |
| dave Jun 09, 2005 12:50 PM EDT |
dino, give references for your story, please. mp3 file, preferably. I'm most interested in hearing this (which is news to me, since my head is in the sand and I don't watch TV or read news unless it pertains to Linux) :) dave |
| tuxchick Jun 09, 2005 1:16 PM EDT |
Dino, why do you assume that every black, latino, and female judge nominee is qualified? That sounds a bit racist and sexist. Not to mention knee-jerk, as though any objection to a nominee is automatically for the wrong reasons. Ever since the Gingrich era, the Republican party has been dominated by some seriously hardass power-mad people. The whining is deafening- something like ten judicial nominees out of hundreds are blocked, and Frist is bitching "mean obstructionist Democrats who hate everything we try to do." Every disagreement over policy is criticized with "the Democrats are not being bipartisan." These clowns do not care about what is best for the country- only about taking and holding as much power as possible, and squelching dissent. It's their way or the highway. Anyone who truly cares about the Constitution and what this country used to stand for should be scared, because it's melting away fast. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2005 4:39 PM EDT |
tuxchick - I don't. i never thought Clarence Thomas was qualified for the Supreme Court, for example, though he has grown into the job nicely. Thing is -- The people who the Democrats have been trying to keep off the bench are extremely qualified. I don't put much stock in the ABA ratings -- they have been shown to lack objectivity -- even the ABA considered Priscilla Owen "Well Qualified" -- it's highest ranking. Janice Rogers Brown is certainly conroversial, but not because of her qualifications. included in her more than 25 years of public service are nine years as a California Supreme Court Justice. Miguel Estrada, a Harvard Law School graduate, had not served on the bench before, but had distinguished himself in nearly every other legal capacity. In short, these are real candidates with real qualifications. Would they be the best judges ever? Probably not, but that is true of most federal judges. I'm certainly entitled to presume that racism and sexism plays a part in the Democratic opposition to these candidates, just as I believe racism led to the Democratic Party's race to find "anybody but Jesse" Jackson in 1998. I could be wrong, but I'm entitled to my opinion. As to caring about the Constitution, I dearly wish somebody in Washington would start. There never has been a political party that could handle power with being checked by a lively and viable opposition. I'm afraid that the Democrats have been so busy drowning in bile that they've taken their eyes of the prize. That can only spell disaster. |
| SFN Jun 10, 2005 5:25 AM EDT |
"I don't put much stock in the ABA ratings" Oh, come on! What do you have against the ABA? They seem pretty fair to me. After all, they gave Lake Charles, LA a team! Which, btw, shouldn't they be the Lake Charles Lil Bessie Girls? What? |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2005 7:13 AM EDT |
SFN - Good point. I stand lambasted. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!