 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
Man if I don’t log on for just one day some of these posts just get buried by others. (...) I just had to address this statement. It actually reminded me of the way I felt about Clinton during his presidency. In 1992 when he was first elected I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Shrub has been AWOL and everything about his "military" career was protected and sanctified by Daddy Shrub himself -- give it a rest. It's all well covered up and with the appropriate gloss of "spin", just like his drug and alcohol record. So, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Yes, but Clinton remembered one thing, "It's the economy, stupid." People knew that Nixon was a mean man, not an honest man. But they felt he could run the country. Clinton could run the country: not one of your complaints about him precludes (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
<snip> (...) Very good quote. Essentially saying let someone else think and act for me. There have got to be better ways to achieve anti-terrorism goals than promoting fear and division. I wonder how events would have played out post 9/11 had a less (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Digression on Johnson (was Re: Should we be concerned?)
|
|
[The Real Hal Moore]¬ Interview of Lt. General Harold G. Moore by William F. Jasper (URL) recount the bitter anger and frustration that you and others in the military felt concerning the decisions in Washington to allow the Communist forces to have (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) The jury's still out, isn't it? I mean, we're still in the midst of the detentions and profiling, so we can hardly judge Dubya's policies as if they've run their full course. In addition, Dubya's internment of Arabs is worsened because he (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) "The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt. The consolidation of power that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Exactly. This "with us, or against us" stuff is crazy. Why can't a person be wholly patriotic and still want a moment to figure out what might be the truly correct response to a crisis? (...) This is why I harp on people's apparent partisan (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I doubt very seriously that the Powers That Be really would have sat on their hands if they knew 3,000 people would die. My point is that they had all the clues and they should have had a better grip on what was about to happen than they did. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I would agree that the two situations are very different, but I would classify your unwillingness to equate the two as leftist spin. Both men were caught in large lies. Nixon was lying directly to the American people, and had he not resigned (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
