58 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
You can quit worrying about it.........
You're totally wrong:)
Re: You can quit worrying about it.........
And you are the final word, in your estimation????
Just in case you didn't notice MK.......
there was a big smiley there! just kidding Him! Sheesh!
Re: Just in case you didn't notice MK.......
And a return smiley also, in case YOU didn't notice."-)
Have you noticed...........?
One of the major drawbacks of communication via the Internet is not really knowing whether someone is j/k or not?
The emoticons can be useful in letting others know some basic "feelings" behind your words. They can also be used to "cover up" what you really mean.
We need to be careful with that if we really wish for others to "catch our drift." If someone says something snide/nasty, for example, and follows it up with a smiley/winky emoticon, it is still a snide/nasty comment.
The old saying: SAY WHAT YOU MEAN - DON'T MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.
Just my .042 cents worth
minor correction only:
"say what you mean and mean what you say".
the quick, one liner replies seem to carry the most risk of misunderstanding, don't they, folks?
I'm hardly blameless in every flare-up of internet tempers.
Am lately trying to apply logic and reason to countermanding views which I see as either excesssively brief or excessively raw.
Misunderstandings will abound nevertheless.
And egos- we are all egotists who post here- will always rebell against force of reason when the particular ox if their own, is the one getting gored.
I work to restrain my own large ego- to accept lumps when logic shows me my error. To finish a public bout with an olive branch of sorts.
Maybe others can learn by my more succeeding public examples, that ego may, justifiably -motivate- the individual. But ego should not impell the individual to work destructive (autocratic) projection upon the world at large and this forum in particular.
The classic SE one-line dismissal is always "ego acting as an autocrat"; so say i from a personal standpoint of very little formal education- but a gradually maturing intelligence of common sense and self-evident truths.
"your freedoms end where my toes begin" may be a netskyism. Or it may be a netsky regurtitation- i don't know and it hardly matters, the origin of said phrase. More importantly I hold to to be a self evident truth, a basic key for better living between vastly differernt classes and individuals. It's just that old, non-godly secular golden rule wearing a sports shirt and put into republican style phrase.
Re: Have you noticed...........? Marcia
Perhaps you were reading too much into what I said? I was kidding whether you choose to believe it or not! I honestly did not see Mary Kays smiley or I wouldn't have responded the way I did! You have to admit she just loves jumping on most of my posts! Oh well:)
...I really was just making some general comments on the Net vs. "real life" conversation dilemma.
It's difficult sometimes to not only "get" what someone else has written, but also to get your own point across in the manner it's meant. The nuances of the spoken language are certainly missed at times in our forum conversations.
I am sorry Marcia, But it didn't feel that way to me:(
But again Oh well, I'll live:) LOL
LOL Have to admit, I didn't notice :)
I'm an anybody-but-Bush voter.
Don't worry. There's nothing much we can do right now but VOTE and hang on to the rope of Hope. (Nov.2)
If plus + minus - whoever wins, our hope for a better tomorrow never ends feeling insecure. The caravan must move on...
Lalalala don't worry...be happy...And don't worry about those attacking you. They're harmless soul with a touch of fear, insecurity, and of promiscuous misery." .
If you are right...
you should be able to produce evidence of what you say, rather than mindlessly repeating groundless charges.
A number of us have posted what we feel is convincing eviden
ce, only to be told "Didn't happen" (a reply to one of my posts regarding Florida 200O, even though the coverage by the BBC and CNN did indicate it happened) or something equally peculiar. Regrettably we each have our own telescope, periscope, what you will, which seems to show support for our side. I now begin to understand the enormous divergence of opinion preceding the Second World War. I mean, in hind sight what could be more obvious, Hitler=bad, but the controversy raged on and on with those who saw him as okay thinking the other side were all Communist/Socialist Pinko creeps and the Left growing more convinced that the Right was standing shoulder to shoulder with the Fascists because the Fascists were the real face of Capitalism.
Last Republican President I didn't think had his own anti-the-broad-spectrum-of-voters agenda, Gerry Ford. Before that Eisenhower. But that doesn't mean I haven't read about the extraordinary backlash against Roosevelt, and I clearly remember some of my relatives talking about J.F.Kennedy and implying that he was a Socialist. I will omit any refernce to Billy the C, we all lived through that.
We see what we want and what we fear. Oue opinions are not Sermons from the Mount however strongly we voice them.
I don't think many care what you 'feel'. I, for one, am
interested in what you think, but what you feel is probably not open to debate. I think that what you feel is convincing evidence is not.
Perhaps if you explained the thought process that leads you to accept the things that you do. BTW, something either happened or it didn't. That's not a case where feelings rule.
Re: If you are right...
I assume that the tone of your response and the use of "mindlessly repeating the groundless charges" is meant as an attack on me rather than just a disagreement with my theory. Normally I do not respond to rude, hateful replies. It usually is better to just ignore them but in this case I will respond and assume that you do not have the ability to respond in a respectful manner. There are facts (undisputed to this point in time) that have made me believe as I do. I won't argue with you as to the reliability or accuracy of these facts but using my theory of "if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and oinks like a pig then there's a good chance that it is a pig" I have arrived at my belief. The following facts, questions, hints and conceptions are the basis:
1. Why would HALLIBURTON hire VP Cheney as CEO? He had no experience as a manager of any sort and no experience or knowledge of the oil business. I know that HALLIBURTON is not exclusively in the oil business but it is the overwhelming backbone of their conglomerate. Brown/Root (one of it's subsideries) is exclusively an oil-related company. Could the reason be based on future favorable treatment as VP?
2. How did HALLIBURTON recieve such lucrative NO-BID CONTRACTS associated with the Iraq War? They have been found guilty on 2 occasions of falsely charging for goods not rendered and have paid millions in penalties for the infractions. Of the private contractors that have been operating in the Iraq area under contract to the US, HALLIBURTON's total amount is more than all of the others combined.
3. Of course I can't prove that HALLIBURTON shared their illegally-obtained wealth with Bush/Cheney. I hardly think that it would be in public records.
4. Based on statements by Gen. Tommy Franks made to Sen. Bob Graham about him receiving orders in January 2001 to realign his troops in preparation for an attack on Iraq, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neils' testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he saw documents in July of 2001 preparing for an invasion on Iraq, etc. I concluded that this attack on Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorists and certainly was not conceived as a result of the attack on the Twin Towers.
I could go on and on but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just wanted to show you why I believe as I do. I hope that I'm all wrong for all of our sakes. We are unable to base our beliefs on facts because we are not given access to many facts. We recieve our "facts" from biased news agencies that repeat the facts and information as they want us to hear and read it. If anybody has the idea of responding to my post in a rude,disrespectful manner please don't. I do not post his to offend anyone. It is just my opinion and belief and I am entitled to that. Thanks for your time.
As near as I can figure
without repeating many of the links that were already supplied in various threads by various members....
1. Cheney wasn't VP at the time he was approached by Haliburton. In fact he wasn't even approached. He was on a fishing trip, fell asleep, and executives from Haliburton made the decision while he was sleeping. When he awoke, they told him (didn't ask) that he was the new CEO. Since he wasn't working anymore for the government at that time, he accepted.
When he was approached by Bush to help Bush find a running mate, Cheney wasn't considering himself for the job and they talked extensively about who they should look at. Bush told Cheney he wanted him....and Cheney resigned from Haliburton before he accepted Bush's offer.
2. I understand that Haliburton was the only US company with the qualifications necessary to get that job done in Iraq. Bush, from what I vaguely remember reading somewhere so I can't prove it, asked Tony Blair if England had any companies that could qualify and was told there weren't.
3. If Bush or Cheney made money on Haliburton's position, surely there would be something in their income tax records showing said income. Assumptions mean squat....prove your allegations or shut up about it.
4. Those documents were written up because it was close to January 2001 that Saddam had AGAIN thrown the inspectors out of the country and Bush was preparing for a war against Iraq if Saddam didn't let them back in....which he did, much later, and then tossed them out again. The UN kept passing resolutions that Saddam ignored over and over during a ten year period of time and Bush had decided that it was getting close to shove time. Nothing got done about it until well after 9-11....as Bush was still attempting to use the UN and the sanctions to get Saddam to comply.
Re: As near as I can figure
I know that Cheney was not VP at the time that he was offered the job as CEO of HALLIBURTON but you didn't give any reason why they would want him, with his lack of qualifications, for the job. I have stated my reasons for believing as I do and I will not respond to any more posts on this subject.
But you said
>>>>1. Why would HALLIBURTON hire VP Cheney as CEO?>>>>
So I could only assume that you believed he was hired as CEO 'after' becoming VP.
As for why.........because he had a very distinguished reputation for being business savy and knowing how to get the job done.
How many jobs have you had in your lifetime that you had no education or knowledge of but got hired anyhow because OTHER qualifications made you the right person for the job? I've had quite a few of them over the years, was given the opportunity to get the job and the experience led me to other chances in the work world I wouldn't have considered before.
Re: If you are right...
1. Because he was qualified? Read his bio.
2. For the same reasons they got the same such contracts for Bosnia (incidentally while Cheney must have been in bed with the Clintons to secure these). They are simply the only American company that do this kind of work.
3. You can't prove their wealth is illegally obtained for starters. Are you aware that Halliburton is divesting itself of the type of work you and others keep slamming them for? Why? Because the profit margins are pi$$ poor for those supposedly lucrative no-bid contracts.
4. Of course the fact that regime change in Iraq was official US policy (as passed by an act of Congress) since 1998 is of no consequence to you.
(NT) I've considered it.....what if you're wrong?
Re: what if wrong? -- 4 years' experience says he's not!
Toni, Bush is the worst President we've had since James Buchanan. Far from being the uniter he claimed to be, he made the conscious decision in 2002 to squander the good will and unity he'd amassed because of his excellent performance after 9/11 (his approval rating was 80+%, including me) on pushing an ultra-right wing agenda. Far from being a "comassionate conservative," he's presided over major losses of jobs, benefits, and personal freedoms. And he's totally botched the war on terror -- here's a quote from a letter to the editor about the Chronicle's ill-considered endorsement of him that puts it very well:
>>THE Chronicle's endorsement of George W. Bush was very much in tune with many voters' sentiments: "I know he's bungled everything he's touched. He's clearly a megalomaniac. He has probably done more harm to the environment, world relations and the future of our economy than any president in recent memory. But, rather than face my fears and make a change, I'm going to vote for him anyway." (BOB SIMMONS, Houston) <<
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Rather than have a pissing contest
point by point to show you are mistaken about points you just made about Bush, I'll go back to the original thread question, which was: What if Bobby is right about Bush/Cheney being in this for the money.
Show me where either one of them has monetarily benefitted from Bush being President, please?
Re: Rather than have a pissing contest- Toni
If you will go to the post above entitled RE: If you are wrong you will see my basis for believing as I do. What I offer is certainly not proof but what I used to form my opinion of the Bush/Cheney pair. If I am correct in my assessment of them and Kerry wins the election, we will see much looting take place between November 3rd and January 2005. It is a real shame that our trust and respect in our leader's abilities has reached a new low. As of right now we are divided into about even segments of the US.
Don't include me in your 'our' description
and what looting, where???????????
Dave, President Bush will never "unite" the SDS crowd because he's a real American and that sort will *never* be united with real Americans. The fault doesn't lie with him though.
(NT) Re: So here you go again with the name calling DE !!!!!
Re: (NT) Re: So here you go again with the name calling DE !
So who made you overseer of good thoughts in SE??? LOL
Re: (NT) Re: So here you go again with the name calling DE !
Glenda, I didn't appoint myself anything but I sure recognize name calling when I see it. This is my final message on the subject .
....I think DE has illustrated DK's point quite well. When's the last time you can remember being repeatedly called "Anti-American" or not a "real American" just because you don't support someone's personal choice of candidate? It's exactly the type of thing DK is talking about and it's pretty sad, ain't it.
(NT) Re: AMEN
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)