Total number of words spent addressing the actual speech : 66 Total number of words spent addressing Clinton's facial expressions: 117
He's obsessed. The only thing that gets him off more than the thought of Bush in the White House is Sen. Clinton feeding him lean pockets while he surfs a little Match.com.
Hilarious! One of the 'worst people of all time', yet apparently you weren't familiar with him! Meangle?!?
you're seriously interested in the other person's opinion- lack of name calling, gratuitous graphics of ostriches, etc...the powell as beeotch thread qualifies, not because i started it but i thought the general tone was more respectful than much of what occurs here. i don't think it was the same- in the Nixon case, i just didn't understand the comparison, and i posed a question that i never really got an answer to: what point were you trying to make? i wasn't being sarcastic, just didn't understand what you were getting at. other than their both being republicans i see few similarities. of course it's subjective! i don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, and i certainly can't speak for holocaust victims. i can say that perhaps you should pay a visit to Yad Vashem and you might understand why the comparison is meaningless. well, i think i do know what appeasement means, and france, germany, etc. and most of those screaming "no blood for oil" in the streets were guilty of it. and the irony of accusing gerhard schroeder of acting like chamberlain in the very reichstag that hitler destroyed doesn't escape me.
I'm very familiar. It was a mis-spelling. They taught spelling at Katy and Texas State about as well as they taught Reading Comprehension in Waco and at Rice.
I've heard Edwards riff on this, and IIRC, he does say that there are some good things in the bill. He goes on to say there are some bad things that need to be taken out and there was the impression that an opportunity to do just that would be presented by the leadership, which of course, never materialized. I'd like to see some context for your quotes.
And it is apparently a more important skill than employing good arguments causing said warriors to run away from fights they started in the first place. Still waiting for a response in the two threads, ass king. Damn! Got me again!
No, I meant legitimate in terms of historical comparisons. And that's also what I was asking for in terms of historical comparisons. What are all these other examples you mention which show the dangers of allowing a governemtn to use fear, misguided patriotism, etc. to get the populace to swallow being deceived? What are all these other historical examples...examples with which most would be familiar, as was the point...of the kind of You're Either With Us or Against Us, forget what the rest of the world says, they're all wrong, no matter how many times they end of being proven right, etc. kind of rhetoric? But the reaction...not just yours...was essentially the same. The end result is that the only things we can compare the US/Bush to are fluffy white clouds or possibly Gandhi... And I did answer your question. I;ll answer it again. no end of the day point, merely interested in the differences and similarities, and in the way those will speak about how we have and have not changed. With all respect, if you don;t see the similarities, you're not looking. yes, you do. You A) Defined what was and what was not a 'legitimate' comparison with Nazi germany. Now unless a defnitive work on the subject, something like " The Definitive Work and What Are And Are Not Legitimate Comparisons To Nazi Germany, than your very characterization of same was a) subjective, and b) you speaking for others. Do you see that? The ultimate lesson of the Holocaust, of Holocaust survivors and monuments is not " Look as few places as possible for sogns that this or something like it could be happening again. Quite the opposite. I would suggest that all of them would encourage opening your eyes rather than saying in advance " Nothing to see here." because you don;t like the comparison. You'd think wrong then, as do most who use this analogy. Let me explain it again. Appeasment was not..repeat and underline, NOT the passive process of not interfering with Nazi activities within Germany proper. In fact, at the time the UK, France, etc. had virtually no interest in internal German activities. Appeasement was the active process of giving in to Hitler's demands for territories, and thereby giving him parts of other countires or dominion over same under the assurance that he would be satisfied with same, and look no further for lebensraum. It was akin to giving into blackmail, at the expense of other countries, so that the greater countires could breath easier. The idea that some could perpetuate a comparison to those who, rather than supporting giving Saddam pther countires, were in fact opposed to an invasion on shaky grounds is silly, and ignorant. Unless I missed the part where, in addition to saying " we shouldn;t invade", people were saying..'and to placate him, to pacify Saddam..in short, to appease Hussein, we should give him Kuwait, Iran, and part of Turkey", there is no comparison on the grounds of appeasement. Taking positions on whether or not to go to war has nothing to do with appeasement without the process of appeasement being included.
(it's a good thing our server is down or i wouldn't have time for this...) i think we're kind of talking past one another here and aren't really going to find common ground. i wasn't aware thatthe definistion of "appeasement" applied only where the granting of additional territory was concerned. i won't paste in the gratuitous definition from webster.com, but clearly i meant it in the sense of giving into Saddam's demands on inspections, delay, etc. the definition clearly fits and i can't believe you don't see it, so i'll just assume you're ignoring it for some reason. Nixon and Bush: hmmm, the way your phrase the question belies your apparent lack of interest in the basis for the comparison. you're looking for some sort of parallel between nixon's paranoia, enemies list, the watergate scandal, etc, and Bush's supposed stifling of dissent (btw, if he was stifling dissent, wouldn't he shut down this board??? ), manipulation of intelligence, and haliburton and other supposed "scandals" of this admin. i'm sorry, i just don't see it, mainly because i don't buy the premise that W is corrupt. try comparing him to truman. truman faced a threat from the soviets and started the cold war. truman was thought to be dim, fought an unpopular war, won a close election, had a very similar personality. other legitimate comparisons? hmmm, well i'm tempted to pull a SamFisher and say "go look it up yourself, i don't have time", but how about the france of de Gaulle? israel under sharon? san francisco under willie brown?
you know, in a perhaps futile attempt to get this thread back on topic, i made a point several posts ago that i'm surprised no one commented on:
The people I know who were screaming "no blood for oil" in the streets were the same ones who wanted to hold Saddam accountable for his actions (gassing his own people, etc.) more than 10 years ago. This was at a time when the Republicans were making excuses for Saddam and doing deals with him. That sounds like appeasement to me.
