Boxer v. Rice

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

This is all kinda a mute thing anyway.<br />She will get the bid and people will just have to live with it.

 

[ob]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

On a brighter note...I only despised Clinton half as much as his lockbox buddy.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Originally posted by 12Footer:<br />

Powell is brilliant, but lacks the ability of any independent thought. He is a tape recorder (what Boxer mistkingly illuded that Condi was).

You could not be more wrong about Colin Powell,your comment on the general certainly contradicts itself. Let me spell it out, one who is a tape recorder and lacks the ability of any independent thought is most definitely not brilliant.<br />General Powell is a brilliant man, he rose through the ranks and excelled in all of the positions in government to which he was appointed.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Surely any opposing candidate running against a conservative candidate would have the support of a collusive media. They would also have support from a largely immoral, elitest and mentally unsound rabble from Hollywood.<br />That candidate would also have an almost orgasmic support from almost all the Socialist, Communist and Dictatorial governments in the world. <br />That candidate would have support from groups that by choice have the largest chips on their shoulders. Support would also come from the most inexperienced, emotional and reactionary citizens we have.<br /><br />So far that candidate, win or loose, has been the greatest of two evils , in my opinion, and has never come close to representing my values.<br /><br />The two opposing idealogys are more clear and divided then ever. So are the choices.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Skinny.<br />Thanks to one of your honorable conservative candidates(NIXON) they have to count the silverware in the whitehouse after a president leaves.Nixon's vice president (Spirow Agnew) was sent to jail for tax evasion. Do you remember Bush senior's little deal about guns for hostages(Iran)?Do you remember arch-conservative George Wallace?He was not exactly an angel.<br />The idea that a candidate is good,bad or honest just because of the fact that he is conservative is down right ludicrous.<br />There are good ,bad, smart, stupid and dishonest people all over the political arena.Most of those do not believe in the ideals and morals they preach.They just use them for their own polical advantage.These politicians just love people who follow them blindly.They also use their followers or drop them like rotten fruit,whatever the situation calls for.<br />I have yet to see one honest and trustworthy politician.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

The idea that a candidate is good,bad or honest just because of the fact that he is conservative is down right ludicrous.<br />

I don't think you're paying attention to what I said.<br /><br />If a political candidate was a piece of roadkill, I'd go for the freshest least damaged piece. <br />The part that was ground into the pavement, turnin' rank and buzzin' with flys, is not palatable to me.

 

[Bondo]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

The idea that a candidate is good,+ honest just because of the fact that he is conservative is down right ludicrous.

Ayuh................. You Maybe right.............<br />But,<br />Atleast the Odds are Certainly Better, than if he was a Liberal Dummycrat.......................

 

[Stratosfied]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

A while back, probably close to a year ago, I posted a question of "what would you do if you were the President?". This was, on my part, an experiment in a thought process on problem solving. Now I would suggest this, if not Ms. Rice, then who? I can say that I am probably<br />the biggest armchair QB in the business. But what would I (or you) have done, if we had all the info available to the Executive Branch of the United States. I would think that they have knowledge of some things that, quite frankly, would scare the crapola out of me. I don't know what qualifies anyone to be a Senator, Federal Judge, or Secretary of State. What I do know, is that a true picture of someone usually comes out in the end. I truly believe that there are some things that the average citizen are better off not knowing, whether or not the media thinks this is so. I don't think our lives are gonna change very much no matter who is the Secretary of State. I am proud that a person for modest beginnings has achieved as much as she has. I am also proud that she is from the great state of Alabama.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Originally posted by Elmer Fudge:<br />

Originally posted by 12Footer:<br />

Powell is brilliant, but lacks the ability of any independent thought. He is a tape recorder (what Boxer mistkingly illuded that Condi was).

You could not be more wrong about Colin Powell,your comment on the general certainly contradicts itself. Let me spell it out, one who is a tape recorder and lacks the ability of any independent thought is most definitely not brilliant.<br />General Powell is a brilliant man, he rose through the ranks and excelled in all of the positions in government to which he was appointed.

You may be right or wrong, and I could be too. I can only base any opinion on performance. And the general is a good general. His heart is with the military, but his diplomacy record is not. EWhat I mean is, he would be willing to use the military as traffic cops, while elliminating cival traffic cop funding. He is a one-trick pony. Perhaps Condi is too, but given her past, she has not only led in all things, but excelled in them. My opinion only.

 

[PW2]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Rolmops,<br /><br />I disagree with your analysis of Colin powell. He has shown an ability to disagree with this administration and is truly a statesman. While he is a good soldier and will ultimately will support the party line, he is not above arguing for what he beieves in. He is the one that gave us the " pottery barn rules" analysis of Iraq.<br /><br />Rice does trouble me, as she seems more inclined to mouth the party line regardless of the facts involved, as evidenced by her doggedly sticking to the illusion that there are 120,000 trained Iraqi security despite all the evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Which is the primary reason I think we are taking a huge backward step in replacing Powell with Rice. This administration seems bent on getting only those that are in lockstep with their ideology in their adminstration, and apparently any dissenting view is unwelcome.<br /><br />I think this is extraordinarily dangerous.<br /><br />It is why Biden suggested his support of Rice was a vote for hope over experience. I hope he proves to be right, but I doubt it.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Hello Plywoody.<br />I can see the point you are making about Colin Powell.However,if you look into his history,you will find that he analyzes a situation and then follows orders.He presents a thesis but he will not stick out his neck to support it(unless he is told to do so-presenting the war in Irak to the UN-).<br />In 1999 he was a very popular man and many people hoped that he would step up to the base and become a presidential candidate.It was a risk he was not willing to take. He certainly is a very capable bureaucrat and administrator.He is also a very likable and reasonable individual.He is not the sort of person who will represent interest above honesty and fairness. It is mostly that last quality that makes him unfit to be a president.

 

[Whaler Proud]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Condie in 2008

 

[biloxiriver]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Wow, and I thought that all I would learn on this site was about keepin' my old boat afloat! Gotta admit though, I do like Ms. Rice and it is very hard for me to swallow the nasty tones and abusive ways that many nominees are questioned; it just seems to me that if the members would just ask their question instead of making a lead in speach would better serve the process.

 

[PW2]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

At least we had a moderating force to some degree with Powell that we will no longer have with Condie in there.<br /><br />With this bunch of neocons in charge of everything, as it is today, we will have information presented on what they hope will be true, as opposed to the actual reality, and then of course blame the press for any and all failings of policy.<br /><br />And in listening to the speech today, I can only hope it is simply empty rhetoric and not really that we are planning to invade the entire middle east in some sort of 21 st century Crusade.<br /><br />I guess I don't understand what gives us the authority to impose our system of government at our whim on the rest of the world. With 45 million with no health insurance and a third of the country living in poverty, it seems to me we have a fair bit of work to do at home before we can presume to force it down the world's throat.

 

[ob]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> I guess I don't understand what gives us the authority to impose our system of government at our whim on the rest of the world. With 45 million with no health insurance and a third of the country living in poverty, it seems to me we have a fair bit of work to do at home before we can presume to force it down the world's throat.

Impose our goverment on our whim??Force our goverment down the worlds throat??? Now unless you've been living under a rock,,and I mean a very thick dense rock,Americans have been and will be the future target of several million radical muslims throughout the globe that even the staunch Islamics believe to be radical.It's them or us.It's just that simple.These groups are beyond rational reasoning and heaven forbid,negotiating.<br /><br />Are you implying that since the USA has some of its own domestic issues that need attention and that we are not a flawless ,perfect society ,that we then have no right to address our enemies abroad,beacuse that would be imposing our imperfect society on the rest of the world?? If I read you right the answer is yes.<br /><br /><br />But then ,you are plywoody and I guess we'll just have to get use to your unbelievably negative and abstract way of presenting your almost always against the grain ideology of the current administrations way of preserving your safety and right to spew at will.<br /><br />And you know what else I think.I think if the USA was simply imposing,as you put it, our way of life on the rest of the unfree world, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

 

[PW2]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

I agree that we have been the targets of extremists. That's why I have always supported going after, in whatever ways necessary. those that attacked us, and the people that supported them.<br /><br />Which is of course why I don't understand our policy in Iraq and the distraction it caused from this.<br /><br />The idea of expanding this policy region wide seems to me wildly reckless and doomed to failure.

 

[ob]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> <br />Which is of course why I don't understand our policy in Iraq and the distraction it caused from this.<br /><br />The idea of expanding this policy region wide seems to me wildly reckless and doomed to failure.

The only distraction I've seen in Iraq was the icing on the cake issue of WMDs.With so many against the US in the region and the pre war UN quibbles ,not to mention the galactic waste of time that Hans Blix and his team of inspectors spent not being able to find what US soldiers uncovered in our first two weeks in country,leaves me unconvinced that there were and is no WMDs that were hidden and or moved.Otherwise Iraq needed to be dealt with sooner or later.Iraqs terrorist friendly atmosphere is why Al Qaeda isurgents are present and killing US Marines.<br /><br />As far as expanding the our policy region wide I'd simply say get used to it.Terrorist cells are not only region wide but global wide.All this ,and then there's North Korea.And what do all of these have in common?<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />They don't like Americans and want to kill you and your family.Why? Well ,that can get in to a whole other topic of discussion.However IMO a world wide Democracy threatens many of these country leaders oppressive and self serving regimes.<br /><br />I deleted my last and somewhat tacky remark about your childhood in my first reply.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

Those who are appointed to cabinet posts are not there to carry out an independent agenda.<br />they are there to serve and carry out the policies of the president.<br />All of the insults,inuendos and diminishing of ones character and service to their country is certainly unconscionable and outright un-american <br /><br />My two cents, thats all the charity this topic deserves from me.

 

[rottenray6402]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

With what we went through with the Clinton/Gore team in the White House and Bill with wondering what the meaning of "is", is and Al inventing the internet and all of the other lies, falsehoods, and treason that went on I am not able to understand how Condie can be attacked for not being truthful. I wasn't aware the silver ware was missing after Nixon but light bulbs, computer keys, and about $500,000.00 worth of other things were gone when George W. took over. Not everyone that lives in New York is a mindless liberal!

 

[PW2]

Re: Boxer v. Rice

What does Clinton or Gore have to do with Rice's untruths?<br /><br />I also don't understand how the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, be they insugents or innocent civilians, is going to convince them we are on their side.<br /><br />And I further don't understand the Iraqi policy when clearly the potential threat to us posed by Iran was and is far greater than anything Iraq could ever do, and all the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.<br />But most of all is the incomprehensible logic that suggests that it was a waste of time for the inspectors to search for the WMD's that didn't exist, when that was clearly and specifically defined as the reason for the war in the first place.<br />And if that was not the reason for the war, it is not right to sat it was, and change as we go.