Seig Heil Bush!!! [Archive] - woxy.com

quidam

06 May 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by matt
Another one of those "separation of church and state" things that I never understood:

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-seventh.

GEORGE W. BUSH"

What if he believes in a Lord and I don't?

If Georgie was addressing this to me personally, not as an official government document, I would just shrug it off. But this is being signed into Public Law as on official government document, used by the government of, for, and by the people. "In the year of our Lord" is quite exclusive.

In the year of our lord is just the english translation of Anno Domini, or AD. It's just a system of notation, indicating that this is the 2003rd year after either the birth or death of Jesus (I think it's birth, but I'm not entirely sure.) So, I'm sure that the president could have said AD instead, but "in the year of our lord" is more appropriate in a formal setting. I'm pretty sure you'll find this language in most official US documents. Unless you'd like us to start using the Hebrew or Chinese calendars.... Just an FYI.:)

Duemellon

06 May 2003, 04:59 PM

In the year of our lord is just the english translation of Anno Domini, or AD.whew, i thought he was post-dating this and I would have to make up for missing 4005 years of this.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm so glad that our society is whipped into such a furvor that we could come together and celebrate the day we all renew our pledges to the motherland.

postfeminist

06 May 2003, 09:19 PM

lawdog, are you kidding me? they have my home address...my phones have been tapped off and on for years. i used to live in a socialist commune! :)

and i, for one, would be fine with the Hebrew calendar. i'm more than glad to say that Adar is a great month. :D

solomon

07 May 2003, 12:56 AM

i used to live in a socialist commune!

For real?

Why did you leave?

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 07:36 AM

And your problem with this is...?

"We are honored by the service of foreign nationals in our Armed Services whose willingness to risk their lives for a country they cannot yet call their own is proof of the loyalty this country inspires. Their service and sacrifice are a testament to their love for America, and our soldiers' honor on and off the battlefield reaffirms our Nation's most deeply held beliefs: that every life counts, and that all humans have an unalienable right to live as free people."

This is what this is about. How can you downplay that. Get your heads out of your anuses and have a little respect, or just complain about everything that comes down the pike. Grow up.

Sometimes you people amaze me about how ingrateful you are.

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by monkey neck

"We are honored by the service of foreign nationals in our Armed Services whose willingness to risk their lives for a country they cannot yet call their own is proof of the loyalty this country inspires. Their service and sacrifice are a testament to their love for America, and our soldiers' honor on and off the battlefield reaffirms our Nation's most deeply held beliefs: that every life counts, and that all humans have an unalienable right to live as free people."
[/B]

I don't disagree with you here.

My problem with this white house posting is that Bush has spent his entire presidency exploiting our "Nation's most deeply held beliefs." In fact, his "Top Gun" stint was the greatest of mockeries of our military. He should be ashamed of himself.

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Sovrana
In fact, his "Top Gun" stint was the greatest of mockeries of our military. He should be ashamed of himself.

I've heard some people have a problem with that, and I can kind of see that, but give me your opinion on why that was so bad. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just interested in your opinions, because I thought it was kinda cool. Bush himself was a pilot. If he never flew a plane, I might have a bit of a different feeling about it.

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 08:30 AM

As many of you, I am familiar with the power of the media and more recently the "news" simply disgusts me as mere performance pieces. I mean, How many time have you heard "you could be dying in your own kitchen and not know it....tune it at 11."

Now back to Bush's performance:

My basic problem is that his military service is questionable. Sure, he is (was?) a pilot, but to put on a military uniform and parade around as a Commander in Chief without any known experience is an embarrassment. Also, while the White House insisted that he had to fly in military style because of the location of the ship...it's been shown that he could have simply taken a helicopter and simply thanked the military for its service, and therefore celebrating the military instead of himself!

The following link is for a NY Times op-ed piece that speaks to why presidents do not historically appear in military attire....even those who were proven war heroes. Again...it's an op-ed piece so there is a slant, but the writer I think notes best the problem with this appearance.

While those on the ship were probably excited to see their boss as a guest, the whole event was a charade meant to promote Bush and not to thank those fighting... the real heroes.

And yet Bush continues to promote patriotism! He is a mockery of this.

As a cousin of someone who is fighting the fight in Iraq for Bush, I cannot help but be irate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 08:51 AM

Everything depends on how the observer looks at the situation. I really didn't have a problem with his landing on the carrier, but I can't argue with your point, either.

I sincerely hope your cousin (and all of the troops) come back safely and soon. I hope they know how much they are appreciated.

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 08:56 AM

thank you. :)

onest2.0

07 May 2003, 09:18 AM

There's quite a history of leaders wearing military uniforms.
Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Khadafi, Amin,Hussein...the list goes on.

DudeMan

07 May 2003, 09:30 AM

Geez Sovrana... I was just flipping through this thread and there's yet another rant by you against Bush.

I thought the landing on the aircraft carrier was really cool. And the sailors looked like they appreciated his coming, giving a speech, breaking bread & mingling, and spending the night on the ship. It's going to make for great campaign footage, that's for sure. But of course theatre is part of the presidency -- name a television-era president who hasn't used photo-ops to his advantage?

If he walked around every day wearing military attire and carried one of those little Hitler-whips, well, I would agree that this was bizarre. But he wore a flight-suit while flying in a military plane, and then changed into a suit-suit once he landed, and gave his speech. Big f'ing deal -- get over it.

Geez, if he didn't go talk to the troops you'd probably be going on about how he sends them off to war but is too high and mighty to actually meet with them. But you're not a Bush-hater, I forgot.

One thing I will admit is a little bit goofy is when presidents salute troops as they walk by. Reagan started this, and every president since has dutifully continued the tradition. Clinton looked the most awkward, but even he got used to it toward the end of his presidency and snapped 'em off like he was a regular Patton.

RichmondVA

07 May 2003, 09:30 AM

The President is the commander-in-chief, and as such he's like the coach of the military. As such, I look to professional sports to provide a suitable dress code.

If you dress up in a suit a la NBA, you look like an idiot because the rest of your team is in tank tops and running around sweating. It's just not a suit occasion.

On the other hand if you dress up in the team uniform a la MLB you look like an idiot because you are 50 or 60 years old-- it's not like actually going to play, so why the spikes and stirrups?

The NFL and NCAA basketball have it right. Wear a sweater or sweatshirt.

So the President should wear a sweater.

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by RichmondVA
So the President should wear a sweater.

During the war, he was chewing on a towel like Tarkanian.

dcXhc

07 May 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan
It's going to make for great campaign footage, that's for sure.

http://home.millsaps.edu/~mcelvrs/Dukakis_tank.jpg

postfeminist

07 May 2003, 09:46 AM

solomon asked For real?

yup, for real. i left because i got into graduate school and have to leave cincinnati.

bush should wear a sweatshirt. i think he should wear a Fat Wreck Chords sweatshirt so Candyass could say he is jockin' her. :)

BigSugar

07 May 2003, 09:57 AM

first, for the Bushhating Sovrana.....Flight suits are designed to inflate at the legs to keep blood in the rest of the body so the pilot and copilot of fighter jets don't pass out.....it's not really feasible to wear a suit/sweater/baseball uniform/clown suit in a fighter jet unless you want to die from lack of oxygen in the brain.....so, your rant about Bush wearing a "uniform" is so freaking wrong it pathetic.....step back from your hatred and use your brain once in a while.

second, where the fuck were you when Clinton spent a half day on an aircraft carrier doing a "photo op"....wanna talk about lack of military service, but i'm sure it didn't bother you b/c you loved Clinton, right?? and i can guarandamntee you that Bush's staff didn't steal all the robes, ashtrays, pens, and other souvenirs from the ship like Clintons juvenile staff when they left.....

so, here we sit with you hating Bush and me astounded at the level that your hatred compromises your ability to reason. The only person that should be ashamed is you Sovrana....you should be ashamed that your hatred of Bush clouds your judgment and reason so badly that you can't get past it....

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 10:11 AM

I don't recall Clinton ever making a claim to military service and employing henchmen to claim that he HAD to fly military aircraft and it was a potentially dangerous mission.

He could have taken a helicopter if he was so concerned about lack of oxygen.

btw Big Sugar...are you chasing me down on this threads? If there is anyone here who emits hatred it is you...towards me.

I have not once called Bush any hateful names yet you keep calling me out.

Who is the one who's judgement is clouded?

Docta

07 May 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan
I thought the landing on the aircraft carrier was really cool.

always a good measure for making a presidential decision on something.

postfeminist

07 May 2003, 10:40 AM

there are those who like to discuss their thoughts, feelings and opinions...

...and those who like to discuss the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of others.

Docta

07 May 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by onest2.0
There's quite a history of leaders wearing military uniforms.
Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Khadafi, Amin,Hussein...the list goes on.

funny, that's the same thing i was thinking.......

BigSugar

07 May 2003, 11:22 AM

it's quite clear that the hatred of GWB on here will cause most of you to slag the guy for even the smallest thing, even if he's dead right....Sov, if he'd taken a helicopter, you'd still be pissed that he wore an official military life preserver, i'm sure of it. You'd still be slagging his trip as unnecessary, despite the fact that as commander in chief he'd just sent these young soldiers and sailors into harms way and he personally went to greet their return and say "thank you" personally....it was his right and his perogative....like it or not....

so, i'll stop pointing out the ignorant things said by y'all about Bush simply b/c i have better things to do, like make money and oppress the weak....if you slag him for something, and you're right, i'll happily post and congatulate you your cunning and skill.....and in closing, a "flight suit" is still not a "uniform".....

Ghengis Khan

ps: Sov, calling Bush a liar, an embarrassment and a mockery is "name calling", whether you recognize it as that or not....so don't sit back and throw sh*t and then deny it with a straight face...over and out <snappy salute included>

matt

07 May 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by onest2.0
There's quite a history of leaders wearing military uniforms.
Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Khadafi, Amin,Hussein...the list goes on.

Which is why we elect a civilian President. Last I checked, civilians didn't wear uniforms. I think Krugman pretty much sums it up by saying:
"...the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb."

and: "Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

By the way, did you know Mike Dukakis is a Lesbian?

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by BigSugar
Sov, if he'd taken a helicopter, you'd still be pissed that he wore an official military life preserver, i'm sure of it. You'd still be slagging his trip as unnecessary.

No...I don't think I would have spent much time thinking about it otherwise. And obviously from this comment you missed my point. My concern is that he and his pals INSISTED that he had to travel this way. If Bush wants to do a photo op....just do it and don't try to justify it with lies.

oh...here is a gift for your slandering me...Bush is a liar.

But hey...you seem okay with this point afterall, he wore merely a "flight suit" and he was enlisted in some kind of military position or and we WILL find WMDs.

despite the fact that as commander in chief he'd just sent these young soldiers and sailors into harms way and he personally went to greet their return and say "thank you" personally....it was his right and his perogative....like it or not....

In my post I conceded to the understanding that the soldiers we probably pleased to have him as a guestand thank them personally. You conveniently ignored this...or you can't read.

Orestes

07 May 2003, 11:53 AM

jesus fvcking christ

why does everyone insist on being so friggin nasty??

:mad:

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by matt
Last I checked, civilians didn't wear uniforms

The ones that work at Wal-Mart do. :D

BigSugar

07 May 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
oh...here is a gift for your slandering me...Bush is a liar.

slander is spoken....libel is written....what we're doing to each other here is libel, but only if it's untrue...truth = complete defense....either way, i already quit b/c it's useless arguing with you....

and please post a link to some source where the administration argued that he "had" to travel this way....i haven't found it yet but i'm sure you have it handy....thanx.

Duemellon

07 May 2003, 05:16 PM

why does everyone insist on being so friggin nasty?? I can honestly say, it's BS that creates such a hostile environment.

It's not just what he says, it's how he says it. I'm glad I'm on quasi-ignore, he interjects bitter hatred less.

========

All-in-all, "Loyalty Day" is an unecessary day. IF we truly need to designate one day out of the year to "reflect on the principles our country was founded on and those who defended it" then we are truly an ungrateful and trivial lot.

Labor day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, President's Day, and others, are long-standing days reserved for the smaller components comprising his new "Loyalty Day". If we truly used these days as moments of revered reflection instead of discount sales & cookouts, we'd have the solemn moment we needed.

FURTHREMORE

The name "Loyalty Day" is god-awful. It's the 1984 doublespeak CRAP that sends anyone with the slightest cynicism into "alert" state. Memorial day, well, that day makes sense. The name fits. President's Day, again, logic. Loyalty? loyalty from the purpose he listed? Rememberance day would fit..

oops, taken.

The name suggests you celebrate "Loyalty Day" by recommitting yourself to our society. A yearly reminder to be "good citizens". Which implies that without this day we would not be able to remember to be loyal. It implies an added level of dedication and commitment.

It reflects the concepts we have of propoganda and totalitarian regimes. "Seigh Heil" is an appropriate response to the name, and the timing, of this day.

I wish Bush didn't tie it to principles and concepts I do honor, because he's making it hard to be a dissenter.

That's his goal. A nation of free-thinkers falling in line into his idea of righteousness and abandoning individuality, dissention, cynicism, and alternatives, in favor of a deep blinding patriotism.

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 05:16 PM

well here it is....the most recent article on the USS Abraham landing that is not an op-ed piece.

It was Ari who maintained this need....in this article he retracts it after Democrats criticized this photo-op as "staged-managed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/07/politics/07CARR.html

postfeminist

07 May 2003, 05:31 PM

I thought the end of the NY Times article; they had no information on the trip's cost.

I wonder how many starving kids in downtown NY or rural WVA could have had free school lunches on the money it cost to dress up and play "maverick"...

but i'm just being grouchy and anti-bush...

Duemellon

07 May 2003, 05:37 PM

but i'm just being grouchy and anti-bush...but aren't u bisexual?

oh..

u meant to capitalize Bush, sorry.

(yeah, a joke in poor taste, imagine that)

postfeminist

07 May 2003, 05:45 PM

hahahahaha.

but i'm in a monogamous gig with a man, so yeah...i'm pretty much outta touch with bush.

slow-dog

07 May 2003, 05:58 PM

1. Loyalty day is stupid, but I'm mildly amused that it coincides with May Day.

2. Loyalty day is not an invention of GW Bush. link (http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002390.html).

3. GW Bush doing a carrier landing was cool, but self-serving and not particularly called for. Take the helicopter, save the taxpayers some money.

4. There's at least one picture on the internet of Clinton in a flightsuit, so don't get too excited.

Duemellon

07 May 2003, 06:34 PM

2. Loyalty day is not an invention of GW Bush. link. thank you. My ire takes a rest now.

Oh, wait, it doesn't

It's still a dumbass name with serious connotations of our incapbility to appreciate other holidays where we also do the same..

ah nevermind.

DudeMan

07 May 2003, 07:03 PM

http://nasaa-home.org/asa/buley/clinton.jpg
Looks like W is just following in the footsteps of President Clinton. I'm sure everyone will be just as horrified by this.

RichmondVA

07 May 2003, 07:17 PM

I think whenever the Pres. visits a unit, ship, whatever they give him some kind of jacket or apparel. So I'm sure every President has appeared in military gear. It's still stupid, no matter who does it.

Sweartshirts, I tells ya.

DudeMan

07 May 2003, 08:30 PM

Sweatshirts would work just fine by me.

Going one better... I often wish I could wear a jump-suit uniform to work every day, as opposed to the slacks-and-oxfords uniform that us corporate automoton capitalist oppressor-types wear. It would really save on my decision-making process every morning, not to mention dry-cleaning expenses. And best of all, since it's a jump-suit I wouldn't feel really tight and uncomfortable when I get lazy, stop going to the gym and put on a couple of pounds. Elvis knew what he was doing, let me tell ya...

volume11

07 May 2003, 08:31 PM

Just another Hallmark holiday to sell greeting cards and flags. :)

And when is "Fealty Day" scheduled?

BTW: Krugman for President 2004

monkey neck

07 May 2003, 08:45 PM

Tell me, do you think the helicopter ride to the ship would have cost that much less in taxpayer money? It's still has a cost either way, doesn't it?

DudeMan

07 May 2003, 09:00 PM

Good point:

When the president rides in a helicopter, he uses Marine One.

If he uses Marine One outside of DC, they load it in a C-130 transport plane and whisk it from DC to wherever it is needed.

So, by riding in this 4-seat military plane from the mainland to the carrier, I reckon they actually saved quite a bit of money versus lugging Marine One all the way out to California in a fuel-hogging transport plane.

Thanks President Bush -- you're helping save the tax-payers money!

Sovrana

07 May 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by DudeMan

Looks like W is just following in the footsteps of President Clinton. I'm sure everyone will be just as horrified by this. [/B]

The problem is not the photo-op, or even the money...in Bush's case the white house tried to play down the fact this was an act and tried to make it a necessary maneuver. Just do the photo-op and stop pretending that it isn't!

*throws hands up in the air* g'damn!! no wonder Bush is in the White House...too many of you eat this crap up and refuse to see the problem: the outright lies then mumbled retractions.

Next you all will be suspicious about Kerry not mentioning that his grandfather is Jewish....this btw is the latest Republican spin...and coming soon: Kerry's sex life....watch the headlines as they fill with (self-admitting) factless accusations....i.e. lies.

matt

07 May 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
*throws hands up in the air* g'damn!! no wonder Bush is in the White House...too many of you eat this crap up and refuse to see the problem: the outright lies then mumbled retractions.

No New Taxes!

Shit, they coulda saved some cash and called Ringling Brothers and sent him over there in true circus-style.

WAAH HOOO!!
\
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jul-02-Sun-2000/photos/cannon.jpg

DudeMan

07 May 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
The problem is not the photo-op, or even the money...in Bush's case the white house tried to play down the fact this was an act and tried to make it a necessary maneuver. Just do the photo-op and stop pretending that it isn't!

*throws hands up in the air* g'damn!! no wonder Bush is in the White House...too many of you eat this crap up and refuse to see the problem: the outright lies then mumbled retractions.

Wait a minute, Sovrana... you devoted almost an entire post decrying the fact that Bush was doing a bad thing by wearing a flight suit. Then I posted a pic of Clinton wearing military clothing, too, and you then turn around and say that's not the issue. So, are you going to condemn Clinton, or are you going to admit that you were over-reacting to Bush wearing a flight-suit? Pick one, please.

As for your other point... I read the article you posted from the NYT, too.. Ari F. said that at first the carrier was going to be farther out to sea, out of range of a helicopter, but that due to weather they actually ended up being closer to land, but Bush wanted to ride in a plane (thus saving money, btw, not wasting it) and land like a fighter pilot would. Is that spin? Maybe. But is it an outright lie? I dunno, could be, but it's also a plausible explanation. Politicians have dual-motives and use spin all of the time. Mr. Clinton certainly did his fair share. This rates somewhat below the Teapot Dome scandel in my book.

blue_kitten

07 May 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by DudeMan
Geez, if he didn't go talk to the troops you'd probably be going on about how he sends them off to war but is too high and mighty to actually meet with them. But you're not a Bush-hater, I forgot.

Well said.

slow-dog

07 May 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by RichmondVA
I think whenever the Pres. visits a unit, ship, whatever they give him some kind of jacket or apparel. So I'm sure every President has appeared in military gear. It's still stupid, no matter who does it.

Sweartshirts, I tells ya.

Oh, that was point 5 that I forgot:

5. I am totally behind RVA's sweatshirt/sweater initiative. Just no Cosby sweaters.

blue_kitten

07 May 2003, 10:31 PM

You know, I can really feel the love on these boards.

dcXhc

07 May 2003, 10:37 PM

Wasn't the sweater the downfall of Jimmy Carter (ignoring the 21% interest rates, half-mile gas lines, failed hostage rescue, and general "malaise")?

And as for sweatshirts -- I just get this ugly visual of Ted Knight in Too Close for Comfort wearing a different college sweatshirt every episode.

I say we bring in Bootsy as Presidential Wardrobe Consultant

http://espn.go.com/media/pg2/2002/0520/photo/a_bootsy_i.jpg

slow-dog

07 May 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by dcXhc
Wasn't the sweater the downfall of Jimmy Carter (ignoring the 21% interest rates, half-mile gas lines, failed hostage rescue, and general "malaise")?

And as for sweatshirts -- I just get this ugly visual of Ted Knight in Too Close for Comfort wearing a different college sweatshirt every episode.

I'm thinking RVA's suggesting the Rick Majerus look.

onest2.0

07 May 2003, 11:10 PM

Oh, so Bush is just jockin Clinton's style. Man, get some originality Prez! First, you steal strategy from 1984 and now this.

I'll admit that Clinton looks just as retarded in a flight suit, but at least I didn't have to sleep with one eye open when ol' Billy was president. I snoozed soundly knowing that my elected President was gettin some.

And isn't that what its really about?

Sovrana

08 May 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan

Wait a minute, Sovrana... you devoted almost an entire post decrying the fact that Bush was doing a bad thing by wearing a flight suit. Then I posted a pic of Clinton wearing military clothing, too, and you then turn around and say that's not the issue. So, are you going to condemn Clinton, or are you going to admit that you were over-reacting to Bush wearing a flight-suit? Pick one, please.

Bush is lying on both accounts....my focus was on the continuous lying. Let me try to outline it here for you.

1. wearing a flightsuit he tries to lay claim on military service he has no right to claim (Clinton did not make such a claim).

2. outright lying about the need to fly this aircraft instead of just admitting FIRST that he simply wanted to...in my opinion, if he's the president and he wants to fly it, go ahead...but don't lie about it!

But Dudeman...you f'ing amaze me with your blindness. I bet you would buy stock in a company that was manufacturing shower stalls that held 100 people or so.

matt

08 May 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by onest2.0
First, you steal strategy from 1984 and now this.

Did you mean "strategery"?

dcXhc

08 May 2003, 08:41 AM

2. outright lying about the need to get a hummer instead of just admitting FIRST that he simply wanted to get a hummer, if he's the president and he wants to get a hummer, go ahead...but don't lie about it!

monkey neck

08 May 2003, 08:48 AM

Nice.

BigSugar

08 May 2003, 09:25 AM

LOL!!!! DAMMIT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND.....IT'S THAT HE LIED ABOUT BEING REPUBLICAN.....i mean, be republican, but just don't lie about it!.....

btw....i heard from Sovrana that John Kerry is a hermaphrodite!! pass it on!

DudeMan

08 May 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Sovrana
But Dudeman...you f'ing amaze me with your blindness. I bet you would buy stock in a company that was manufacturing shower stalls that held 100 people or so.
Wow, first I f'ing amaze Docta, now I f'ing amaze you. I had no f'ing idea I was such an f'ing amazing guy! Thanks -- right back atcha!

And a shower stall for 100? Sounds like a party -- heck yeah I'd buy that! (as long as it's 99 supermodels and me)

monkey neck

08 May 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan
And a shower stall for 100? Sounds like a party -- heck yeah I'd buy that! (as long as it's 99 supermodels and me)

I could be wrong, but she may be referring to a big shower that "cleanses" you with a little Zyklon B, if you know what I'm saying. I might be reading that a little too deeply, I dunno.

Like I said before, this whole situation depends on the person looking at it and what their viewpoint (or degree of cynicism) is:

Person A looks at a man that rescues children from a burning home and calls him a hero.
Person B says that man started the fire.

DudeMan

08 May 2003, 11:54 AM

Nah, I'm sure as much as she may dislike me because of my views, or dislike my views because of me, Sovrana would never stoop so low as to call someone a nazi, or intimate as much. Least I'd like to hope not -- I like to think people around here are well-meaning even when they disagree.

Here's a good op-ed from this morning's WSJ, by the way, which puts it rather well:

President Top Gun

Sometimes we wonder if Democrats need to get out more, break out of their Washington echo chamber: Consider their latest rap that President Bush's tailhook landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln last week was "flamboyant showmanship."

So charged Senate sage Robert Byrd this week in a speech saying he was "deeply troubled" by the President's actions, which he characterized as an "affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq." Meanwhile, Representative Henry Waxman asked the General Accounting Office to spend taxpayer money to make a "full accounting" of the cost of the trip. Even Karl Rove couldn't make this stuff up.

The pictures of Mr. Bush dressed in a flight suit and surrounded by smiling troops will be enduring images of his Presidency. Sure, it was a photo-op, as if those are unknown in politics. Has Senator Byrd never had his picture snapped with West Virginia coal miners or in front of one of his legendary pork-barrel court houses?

The only "affront" going on here is the Senator's churlishness in begrudging the commander in chief the pleasure of welcoming home some of the sailors and Marines he had ordered into harm's way -- and the sailors' obvious pleasure in meeting their President. The men and women aboard the USS Lincoln had been at sea for 10 months -- the longest deployment of a Navy ship in 30 years; dozens of seamen were about to see new sons or daughters for the first time.

We suspect that what's really upsetting Messrs. Byrd and Waxman -- and fueling their rewriting of last week's events -- is what took place after the President landed on deck. The enthusiasm with which the sailors greeted their commander in chief could not have been stage-managed. They clearly like Mr. Bush, and he obviously likes them.

Our free advice to Democrats is that they stop worrying about Mr. Bush's stagecraft and start looking for a candidate of their own in 2004 who could engender the same outpouring of admiration and respect that Mr. Bush met as he made his way around the Lincoln's flight deck.

monkey neck

08 May 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by DudeMan
Sovrana would never stoop so low as to call someone a nazi, or intimate as much.

I wasn't implying that, I'm sorry. I just took it as if a company was touting its 100 person shower, but not telling about its intended use. See what I'm saying?

Sorry, I think I got a little too deep on that one.

matt

08 May 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by DudeMan
Our free advice to Democrats is that they stop worrying about Mr. Bush's stagecraft and start looking for a candidate of their own in 2004 who could engender the same outpouring of admiration and respect that Mr. Bush met as he made his way around the Lincoln's flight deck.

Do you really think that any of the Democratic, Anti-Bush military personnell surrounding him on that flight deck would have booed him? I'd like to shake the hand of the man/woman who had the cajones to do it, that is to say if they survive being beaten and thrown overboard. Don't get me wrong, by saying this I am not voicing contempt for the President. I'm not 100% Anti- or Pro-Bush. I just find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would disrespect the President in that setting. It would be like Bin Laden waltzing into a NASCAR race wearing a Jeff Gordon shirt , sippin' a Bud and yelling "Jeff Gordon Sucks!".

Sovrana

08 May 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by monkey neck
[B]

I wasn't implying that, I'm sorry. I just took it as if a company was touting its 100 person shower, but not telling about its intended use. See what I'm saying?

gotta love metaphors...and especially admire those that can read them! ;)

cuddlyevil

08 May 2003, 01:35 PM

I don't have the patience to read this whole thread, but I have a silly question...were we just supposed to know about this special day? I don't recall this ever being formally announced or anything--are we to just automatically know to read the whitehouse website?

lawdog

08 May 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by cuddlyevil
I don't have the patience to read this whole thread, but I have a silly question...were we just supposed to know about this special day? I don't recall this ever being formally announced or anything--are we to just automatically know to read the whitehouse website?

Hmm...interesting. I wondered about this, too: just where did this "Loyalty Day" come from? So I went back and looked at Bush's announcement. Towards the end, it notes that "The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as 'Loyalty Day.'"

This is interesting because the "85" in that Public Law number stands for the 85th Congress, which means this law was passed in 1958! That's right, folks, Loyalty Day was created in the halcyon days of red-baiting and McCarthyism. Good times!

Loyalty Day seems so dated and anachronistic now, though, doesn't it, in our society where political dissent is not only tolerated, but embraced? :rolleyes:

Oh, and Cuddles, you don't want to read this whole thread. Just head home from work early and turn on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. The binkering and vitriol there is much more amusing.

monkey neck

08 May 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lawdog
This is interesting because the "85" in that Public Law number stands for the 85th Congress, which means this law was passed in 1958! That's right, folks, Loyalty Day was created in the halcyon days of red-baiting and McCarthyism. Good times!

Are you sure it wasn't a bill about making days like this that was passed in 1958? That's what it sounds like to me. Loyalty Day was just created recently, but the ability to make days like this was granted in 1958.

cuddlyevil

08 May 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by lawdog
Oh, and Cuddles, you don't want to read this whole thread. Just head home from work early and turn on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. The binkering and vitriol there is much more amusing.

Hmmm...you might be right, maybe Springer will have another one of his "hill billy love triangle" shows--wait, maybe not the last one gave me nightmares.

RichmondVA

08 May 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by monkey neck
Are you sure it wasn't a bill about making days like this that was passed in 1958? That's what it sounds like to me. Loyalty Day was just created recently, but the ability to make days like this was granted in 1958.

Nope. It was formally recognized in 1958, but has its origins before that. And as lawdog indicated, the chosen date is no coincidence. It was a direct reaction to the celebration of Mayday and the socialist ideas that represented.

So basically a bunch of people get killed in the US in May.
European socialists invent a holiday commerating the victims, which is kind of a jab at the US and our capitalist system. The US reacts by inventing a NEW holiday to stick it to the Europeans. ahhh, politics.

DudeMan

08 May 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
gotta love metaphors...and especially admire those that can read them! ;)
I think the word you are going for here is 'allusion', not metaphor.

Welcome to Ignoreland, Sovrana. Table for one, no waiting.

Phil

08 May 2003, 05:02 PM

Hey everyone, remember to Play Nice

a friendly reminder...

-Phil

solomon

08 May 2003, 05:29 PM

What amazes me is that people can sit here and defend these two parties back and forth to each other without seeing what is right in front of their nose. politicians are SCOUNDRELS. 98%. On both sides. Lying is the NATURE of the game. To say this president is a lying dirtbag and this other one is upright and really after what's best for the american people is just a joke to me. I don't get it.

Sol

Duemellon

08 May 2003, 06:52 PM

http://home.fuse.net/Artist4Hire/BinLaden-NascarAsshole.gif
B/c i thought that was funny as hell to read.

matt

08 May 2003, 08:56 PM

whew. I'm glad somebody noticed.

wojo

09 May 2003, 12:38 PM

I should just mention that, from what I read, the carrier was only about 30 miles from shore. Bush had them actually slow down, people who had been away from their families for 10 months already, just so he could have some dramatic visuals for his campaign ads (what, he couldn't do the same thing at the base?). Okay, according to the article they deny this point, but come on, why couldn't he have done the exact same thing back at the base? He was also on record as saying that he wanted to go in on the jet because he wanted to experience what a tailhook landing (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-landing7may07,1,509723.story) was like.

I agree about the whole Loyalty Day thing--my first thought was that the name sounded so Orwellian as to not be believed. It ranks up there, even above "Total Information Awareness." And I agree, we don't need it, it's just classic syncretism. Take one holiday in a culture, replace it with another one with a different message.

And by the way, calling a politician a liar is hardly the worst thing you could say. In fact, it's so bland and obvious as to be redundant, like accusing an astrophysicist of being "good at math." By definition it doesn't qualify as libel. Heck, I could randomly pick any president...."Millard Fillmore is a big fat liar." I guarantee you I'll be right. If it were necessary to constantly precede such a statement about Bush with a condemnation of the lies of every previous office-holder, we'd never get to an accounting of the current president's wrongs or deceits. Can we all just take it as a given that presidents lie, and get down to explaining how this one is doing it, and the consequences of them?

P.S. Here's a handy table (http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html#87590816) outlining Bush's experience in the armed services. Makes amusing reading.

dcXhc

11 May 2003, 10:08 PM

An editorial from that mouthpiece of the vast right-wing conspiracy....The Washington Post[/sarc]

Misfiring at 'Top Gun'
Sunday, May 11, 2003; Page B06

DID PRESIDENT BUSH arrive by fighter jet when he could have taken a helicopter -- for $7 less per hour? Did the USS Abraham Lincoln delay its return by a day so that Mr. Bush could make his dramatic tailhook landing? Did White House press secretary Ari Fleischer lie when he said that Mr. Bush had to arrive by jet and then switched his story to say that the president chose to land that way? Are the Democrats who are raising these questions secretly working for Karl Rove?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) questions "the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech." Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) wants a General Accounting Office inquiry into the trip, citing its "clear political overtones." Rep John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) demands that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "determine what the cost to taxpayers was for transporting the president to the carrier, his stay on the carrier, his flight from the carrier to shore, and any changes made in the carrier's or the jet's schedule or procedure for the president's visit." Well, guess what, guys? Presidential travel is inherently political -- like when President Clinton spent taxpayer dollars to fly onto an aircraft carrier on the very day his defense secretary announced a new round of base closings -- and wore a green flight jacket to boot while he watched fighter jets catapult off the carrier. (Major distinction here: Mr. Bush got the bottom half of the outfit, too.) Presidential staffs -- and we know this is a shocking concept -- worry quite a bit about the way their visits will look on TV -- and they work to get the most picturesque backdrop! And a president who wins a war -- whether you agreed with that war or not -- pretty much gets to greet returning troops wherever he wants.

Not since the ado over whether Mr. Clinton held up Air Force One on the tarmac for an hour to get a $200 haircut has there been a controversy this fundamentally silly. The difference is that the Republicans scored political points with haircut-gate; here, Democrats are only hurting themselves with churlish and petty complaints. Their real gripe with Mr. Bush is that he looked great; the president pulled off his "Top Gun" act as much as Michael Dukakis flubbed his spin in a tank. And what was the result of their agitating? Even more showings of the same dramatic footage of a triumphant commander-in-chief. The only rational explanation for this conduct is that it is a brushback pitch designed to intimidate the Bush campaign from using carrier footage in campaign commercials -- but even then, it seems destined (a) not to work and (b) to backfire.

Yes, yes, Republicans seemed to demand investigations every time Mr. Clinton -- or Hillary Clinton, for that matter -- went outside the Beltway, but Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think the "they did it too" argument is going to have any sway with voters. Mr. Bush's visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln may have been the real kickoff of his presidential campaign. If the Democrats' tone-deaf handling of this episode is any indication, he may well get his four more years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40386-2003May10.html

silvertone32

12 May 2003, 02:58 AM

Methinks people are making a big deal out of nothing.
First of all being delayed by one day for a visit from the commander in chief is something i doubt that many on board would bitch about. It is rare for service member to meet and greet their president and I think the average sailor on board would want that chance.
Second of all the men and women of that vessel just spent alot of time running continous combat ops and are getting a well deserved attaboy from the president in person. Those of you who have not served really do not understand just how much that means to the average joe.
I am not the biggest fan of the president, but sitting here in the hospital in landsthule, germany after being wounded in bagdad,i will say this..... the task which we just did was an enormous strain on everyone involved and recognition from the higher ups goes along way to healing the wounds (both physical and emotional) of those of us who served in this short but savage war.
i recieved a visit from my commanding general here in the hospital and although it will be a long long time until i recover he made me feel like i undertook a very important task, one worth my career(which is now over).
Photo op...yes......campaign stump ...... more than likely......worth a one day delay to the saloirs on board....YOU BET!

classicgrrl

13 May 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by lawdog

Hmm...interesting. I wondered about this, too: just where did this "Loyalty Day" come from? So I went back and looked at Bush's announcement. Towards the end, it notes that "The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as 'Loyalty Day.'"

This is interesting because the "85" in that Public Law number stands for the 85th Congress, which means this law was passed in 1958! That's right, folks, Loyalty Day was created in the halcyon days of red-baiting and McCarthyism. Good times!

Loyalty Day seems so dated and anachronistic now, though, doesn't it, in our society where political dissent is not only tolerated, but embraced? :rolleyes:

Oh, and Cuddles, you don't want to read this whole thread. Just head home from work early and turn on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. The binkering and vitriol there is much more amusing.

this is why I like this man...

The Schnoo

13 May 2003, 05:40 PM

i do so enjoy the way our freedom to say what we want has turned into an amazing farce.

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949

i also like how we have to read what we're told to

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/opeds/20030508100516.asp

and what happened to freedom of press?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/msnbc-iaea-report.htm

everything is going wrong, and what can we do? little, apparently, as we will be labeled an enemy combatant.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0503/11lewis.html

oh well, i'm gonna go back to sleep and dream whatever i want... until they put that chip in my head that doesn't let me.

-The Schnoo

monkey neck

14 May 2003, 07:33 AM

Schnoo, Schnoo, Schnoo. You are such a whiny conspiracy theorist. "Woe is me, I have no freedoms, Big Brother is watching me".

Please.

"i do so enjoy the way our freedom to say what we want has turned into an amazing farce."

You do NOT have the freedom to threaten people. Are you against taking people's freedom away (jail) if they kill another person?

"i also like how we have to read what we're told to"

If you read a book about how to make a bomb, I want my government to know about it.

"and what happened to freedom of press?"

Looks like they pulled it themselves. There was no Gestapo knocking on their door telling them to yank it.

"everything is going wrong, and what can we do? little, apparently, as we will be labeled an enemy combatant."

Are YOU planning an attack, Schnoo? If not, then don't worry about it. Simple as that. Hey, I've got a great idea...Let's put barriers down so we can't see another September 11th coming. That would be a GREAT idea.

You are not so important that the government is looking at you and following your every move. Trust me. If you're not up to something, what the heck do you have to worry about? Get over it.

IPrayForSound

14 May 2003, 07:55 AM

Ah, personal attacks...the prefered argument of champions the world over.

monkey neck

14 May 2003, 09:21 AM

OK, I went a little over the edge with the 'whiny' comment, but you know what? I'm right.

If you're going to make a ridiculous post, someone's going to call you on it, and this time, it happened to be me.

I apologize if I hurt any feelings.

Duemellon

14 May 2003, 04:03 PM

Personally I feel Schnoo's post was a bit on the paranoid side, but was still extremely relevant.

MNeck, I dont' just find your "whiney" statement to be a bit insulting, I find the rest of the post to have a tone of dissmissal which was meant to be humiliating.You do NOT have the freedom to threaten people.Yes, you do.

Wait, no you don't.

We USED to be able to threaten our govn't, but now if we hint at a threat they start tappin your line. I can threaten you, but without means and/or additional circumstances, nothing can be done about it.If you read a book about how to make a bomb, I want my government to know about it. What if you didn't read about a bomb, but you read about the dangers of farming, specifically regarding fertilizer? Perhaps you read how to create a spark using a triggering mechanism? How deep will the probe go to piece together the portrait of a terrorist? A person doesn't have to look for specific instructions on how to build a bomb, they can simply read the components and NEVER be busted, right?

Just think of some of the precautions you go through for some of the minor illegal crap you do. Now imagine what someone who is planning such a feat would do to cover their intents.Looks like they pulled it themselves. There was no Gestapo knocking on their door telling them to yank it. We already talked about this in another thread. Basically the press realizes that if they send out such a statement the govn't will exclude them from exclusives or access, and/or the general populace, blinded by the red-white-and-blue-ism catching on, may react adversely to it. Their choice was business-climate driven, the society forged the business-climate, and the govn't has deluded the society through limiting what the press knows in the FIRST place.Are YOU planning an attack, Schnoo? If not, then don't worry about it. Simple as that. Hey, I've got a great idea...Let's put barriers down so we can't see another September 11th coming. That would be a GREAT idea.Ugh, this "if you're innocent you don't have anything to worry about" crap is laughable. The innocent and the guilty require the same amount of protection because we assume innocence! Of course, if we whisk them away and the only ones with information regarding the guild/innocence doesn't have to speak, how could we possibly find out?

Innocents being locked up, tried, and such, are not collateral damage from a "just" society. They are flaws in a broken society.

postfeminist

14 May 2003, 06:41 PM

i forgot...what was this thread about?

dcXhc

14 May 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by postfeminist
i forgot...what was this thread about?

Duemellon is ugly.

The Schnoo

15 May 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by monkey neck
Schnoo, Schnoo, Schnoo. You are such a whiny conspiracy theorist. "Woe is me, I have no freedoms, Big Brother is watching me".

Please.

Actually, i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I definitely supported the war with iraq recently, and i never really think about conspiracies, as i think they are ridiculous. These were not conspiracy links, if you look at them, they are legitimate stories from legitimate sources.. not art bell's website.

"i do so enjoy the way our freedom to say what we want has turned into an amazing farce."

You do NOT have the freedom to threaten people. Are you against taking people's freedom away (jail) if they kill another person?

First off, it was never established in that story whether or not they ever threatened anyone. Secondly, if you think that the secret service coming and questioning minors in a school without their parents present and without being allowed to have legal representation there as not being extreme then you are blinded by the glare of the flag, my friend. I am wholeheartedly in agreeance with sending murderers to jail.. but i am not all for taking away the personal liberties of anyone based on a vague threat, if it even was a threat.

"i also like how we have to read what we're told to"

If you read a book about how to make a bomb, I want my government to know about it.

I don't think the gov't should have any say whatsoever in what i read, regardless of if it's a book about building a bomb or a book about knitting. I think the gov't should stay as far out of my life as they can as I am paying THEM taxes in order to keep THEM running so they CAN stay the fuck out of my life. But this isn't happening and i'll be goddamned if I wanna read oprah's book club suggestions the rest of my life. By the way, that link was to a congressman's website, sorry about all my kooky conspiracy links.

"and what happened to freedom of press?"

Looks like they pulled it themselves. There was no Gestapo knocking on their door telling them to yank it.

Saying something unpopular tends to make you unpopular on the whole. And if you think they pulled it themselves out of the kindness of their own heart, you are clueless.

"everything is going wrong, and what can we do? little, apparently, as we will be labeled an enemy combatant."

Are YOU planning an attack, Schnoo? If not, then don't worry about it. Simple as that. Hey, I've got a great idea...Let's put barriers down so we can't see another September 11th coming. That would be a GREAT idea.

You are not so important that the government is looking at you and following your every move. Trust me. If you're not up to something, what the heck do you have to worry about? Get over it.

Actually, you can be labeled an enemy combatant if you're not up to something, it really doesn't matter, please do your reading on exactly what powers the patriot act and other intrusions on our freedoms gives the president and his lackeys. Second, september 11th is ridiculous to bring up in this instance, as it was pretty well allowed to happen, i'm sorry, but it was. There is no way in the entire universe that every single intelligence agency on the face of the planet missed this scale of an attack taking place, impossible. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but it's becoming clearer to me that maybe something was going on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

I have a lot to worry about when the bill of rights and constitution are begining to be nothing but pieces of paper, you do too.

-The Schnoo

P.S. thanks duemellon, that is the first and only time i think you've ever come to my defense.

solomon

17 May 2003, 01:37 AM

Second, september 11th is ridiculous to bring up in this instance, as it was pretty well allowed to happen, i'm sorry, but it was. There is no way in the entire universe that every single intelligence agency on the face of the planet missed this scale of an attack taking place, impossible. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but it's becoming clearer to me that maybe something was going on.

Look at what has happened since then. With that in mind, think of what would have been smarter (if, indeed, they knew it was going to happen): stopping the attack, or allowing it to continue?

I have a lot to worry about when the bill of rights and constitution are begining to be nothing but pieces of paper, you do too.

They haven't been more than pieces of paper for quite awhile. It's bound to happen when the interepreter of the binding document, and the subject of the binding document are the same thing.

Sol