Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Tex -USMC-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    6246

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Tex -USMC-

  2. Posted

    As for McCain, doesn't anybody else remember him denouncing calls for him to veep for Kerry as rediculous and preposterous? Why does't Zell Miller (D-GA) get as much attention for disagreeing with his party, as McCain (G-AZ) does for disagreeing with his? Again, the media isn't so much biased as they are ignorant.

    The media wouldn't cover the McCain Republican schism if the GOP leadership didn't do things like insult McCain because of his refusal to toe the party line 100%. You'll notice that the key ingredient in a good news story, conflict, is lacking in the Zell Miller case. Despite the fact that he has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party (after years of legitimately having a bipartisan record, which also leads me to bring up the fact that you're comparing a generally solid party-voter with a guy who, until recently, crossed the aisle on a daily basis), minority leader Daschle has neither done or said anything about Miller's antics. Contrast that with Senate Republicans joking to reporters about McCain being a closet Democrat for having the temerity to break party ranks. Another thing to keep in mind that Miller's on the way out, and he was never as high profile a Senator as McCain anyway.

  3. Posted

    From the retarded file...

    http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=89271&region=4

    Quote[/b] ]US KETCHUP DELIVERS MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE

    14.7.2004. 13:59:13

    W Ketchup (pic: AAP)

    US Republicans can now use conservative-friendly tomato sauce with their freedom fries.

    "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?" is the slogan for W Ketchup, which promises a totally US-made product.

    Manufacturers insist the W stands for Washington, as in George Washington, and not US President George W Bush's middle initial.

    W Ketchup has been set up by a group of Republican voters, who say they don't want to contribute to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry's coffers by buying Heinz brand tomato sauce, or ketchup as it is known in the US.

    "We are simply a group of friends who came up with the idea at a barbecue in upstate New York a few months ago. We are all investors," said W Ketchup chief operating officer Susie Oliver.

    John Kerry is married to Theresa Heinz Kerry, an heir to the Heinz fortune, and his opponents claim her wealth is bankrolling his campaign.

    "Choose Heinz and you're supporting Teresa and her husband’s Gulfstream Jet, and liberal causes such as Kerry for President," says website wketchup.com.

    However a spokesman for the Heinz corporation point out that Mrs Heinz Kerry holds less than four percent of the company's stock, and neither she nor her husband play an active role in its affairs.

    The company says Heinz's Political Action Committee has made equal donations to both parties' candidates.

    Thousands of bottles have already been sold in less than a month of business, and the condiment is available via the website.

    While W Ketchup is not likely to become a source of contention at the upcoming presidential election, if polls predict correctly, Republicans may find themselves pouring the ketchup over humble pie.

    A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released two weeks ago showed George W Bush's approval rating of only 45 percent. Historically, no incumbent president with an overall approval rating of less than 51 percent has bee re-elected in the past five decades.

    ketchup159.jpg

    Probably goes well with freedom fries.

  4. Posted

    Here's my take on Kerry voting for the authorization of force. He was in the wrong in that by voting for the authorization, he abdicated Congress' Constitutional control over the executive branch when it comes to wars. However, in light of what Congress knew at the time, and because the resolution entrusted the president with the responsibility of doing everything within his power to deal with the situation without resorting to war. It was a a serious lapse in judgement, but for more indirect reasons than what Denoir enumerated.

  5. Posted

    ,also taking into account its relavance to the war against terrorism.

    Relevance to the war on terrorism? Are you suggesting that the US government staged the 9/11 attacks to provoke a conflict? There isn't a big enough icon4.gif smiley on the internet to express how stupid that is.

  10. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Looks like Bush is getting a unanimous approval rating abroad.

    ignorance is global...so, only 25% of high schoolers really disliked Hitler and Stalin was a okay guy..... crazy_o.gif

    He has less redeeming features- for example, Stalin was a bit of a joker and Hitler used to paint tounge_o.gif

  11. Posted

    Euh? Why?  rock.gif

    You went from "People who hold extreme views critical to the government are shut out by the media" to "Well sure, people who hold extreme views critical to the government have alot of success in the media".

  13. Posted

    And why not.It's typical in modern day politics to have "hard issue presenters" ,guys that have a political oppinion but present it much directly ,agressivly and challenging to have a bigger inpact on the broader mass.Most political party's in my country use certain media gifted people to present certain oppinions in an agressive way to rally people behind their cause.It might not sound ethicly very refined but it's effective and hence used a lot in politics today.

    So when it presents a underlying oppinion that is good for democracy ,that is distrust in goverment (a cornerstone of democracy) ,then im all for it.

    That's 180 degrees opposite of what you were arguing just one post ago.

  15. Posted

    Quote[/b] ] I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions as to why it never made a big splash outside of the lucrative militia compound market.

    Asside from the actual message that this person wants to bring forward ,are you saying that U.S media is actually good as an grading factor? It's extremely commercial ,but it's also held by a select few media mogul's that hence draw certain power from it. ,and the medium itself is interresting from a propaganda point of view.

    I wouldn't say that this particular message is boycotted or something by the "new world order" ,but to say that the U.S media is unbiased and out of goverment control or never used to distorte the truth? I doubt it...

    Two words: Michael Moore.

  16. Posted

    I'd like to add that this isn't even new conspiracy-mongering; anyone familiar with Alex Jones knows that not a shred of this has been published for less than six months. I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions as to why it never made a big splash outside of the lucrative militia compound market.

  17. Posted

    I can't wait to see the Pres debate Kerry in a venue where he is not given the questions ahead of time and Uncle Dick isn't there to hold his hand.  I expect a lot of garbled doubletalk.

    This in conjunction with flying pigs should make for one hell of a week, especially with Hell freezing over and all.

  20. Posted

    @ July 06 2004,00:09)]It seems to me that a large portion of the current hostility towards our presence in Iraq stems solely from this administration and its follies; a new president singing a different tune would be a much more sympathetic figure towards garnering more international support.

    Oh, we would be a lot more friendly. We just wouldn't send any troops. Do you really think that we would suddenly want to risk our troops for a cause that we were against just because you got a nicer president?

    This is a far bigger issue than that personal dislike for the man currently in office.

    Replacing Bush will put you back on the Christmas card list, but it will harldy get you any military resources.

    But if the case can be made that Europe has a stake in a stable Iraq, and the pot is sweetened through reconstruction contracts and a stake in future oil revenues, would we perchance get a festive fruitcake to go along with said Christmas card?

  21. Posted

    Denoir, you have to frame the rhetoric within the political realities of the US. We're a country where a large minority (near-majority) think that Iraq was in on 9/11. We're a country who's still convinced that everyone in the Western world is our buddy despite what our president calls "some differences over policy". And, we're a country that's being subjected to a political campaign by an incumbent that in no small part is based on Bush being 'optimistic' and Kerry being 'pessimistic'. And do you think that maybe Kerry could reap an international windfall by pulling an executive mea culpa and bringing trans-Atlantic dialogue back to a more civil status-quo? It seems to me that a large portion of the current hostility towards our presence in Iraq stems solely from this administration and its follies; a new president singing a different tune would be a much more sympathetic figure towards garnering more international support.

  22. Posted

    I think there is one highly relevant point there and that's asking the question: So what happens if Bush gets kicked out? Will anything change?

    Domestically in the US it probably will, but as far as the world goes, it's questionable. Kerry has yet to present a coherent plan for Iraq or the "war on terror". He has been babbling about "the international community stepping in and taking part of the responsibility". And that should be fairly plain to anybody that it's delusional.

    With Bush, you know what you get, so perhaps it's better with the devil you know than with the devil you don't.

    (From a US domestic point of view I am of the opinion that any democrat president is always better than a republican one, but that's my political orientation)

    This is a fairly good stump speech version of his plan

    Quote[/b] ]Like most Americans, I want to believe that this past week's events -- the transfer of sovereignty and the appearance of Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi court -- will place us on the road to success. But there is still no sign of a strategy that will get us there. We have transferred sovereignty, but Iraq still lacks the capacity to provide security and essential services. To give democracy, pluralism and regional peace a chance, we need a policy that is effective -- a policy that finally includes a heavy dose of realism.

    Our foreign policy has achieved greatness only when it has combined realism and idealism, our sense of practicality and our deep commitment to values such as freedom and democracy. Look back at NATO and the Marshall Plan, the enduring creations of the Truman administration.

    Our military performed brilliantly in the war's first mission: ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all Americans share President Bush's desire for Iraqis to live with the blessings of democracy and security. But we are a practical people, and we know that all the rhetoric we've heard hasn't been accompanied by a realistic plan to win the peace and bring our troops home. We know that a chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was right when he argued that more troops would be needed to establish security and win the peace in the weeks and months after Saddam Hussein's fall. And we know, especially, that we should have brought more friends and allies to the cause.

    The point here is not to revisit history but to forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women's rights, and peace in the region, even at this late hour, if we construct and follow a realistic path. But if we are to reduce the overwhelming military and financial burden America is bearing and maximize the chances of success, we will need help from others. Getting that help will require not only convincing our friends and allies that we share an interest in preventing failure but also giving them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs. That is the only way to forge real cooperation, and it is long past time for this to be done.

    In recent months the Bush administration has taken some of the needed steps. It has worked through the United Nations to legitimize the transition to an interim Iraqi government and to call for troop contributions and financial assistance. But we need a more far-reaching plan if we are to win the substantial help that is required. We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future.

    On the economic front, that means giving them fair access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts. It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together. In return, they must forgive Hussein's multibillion-dollar debts to their countries and pay their fair share of the reconstruction bill.

    We should also give them a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region. As partners, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors. Such a conference would have two goals. First, it should secure a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect Iraq's borders and not to interfere in its internal affairs. And second, it should commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities, thus removing a major justification for possible outside intervention. Together, we should jump-start large-scale involvement with an international high commissioner to coordinate economic assistance and organize and implement these diplomatic initiatives.

    Then, having taken these dramatic steps, we could realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities. Our goal should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. Just as NATO came together to contain the Soviet Union and bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, with the right kind of leadership from us NATO can be mobilized to help stabilize Iraq and the region. And if NATO comes, others will too.

    Inside Iraq, the overriding need is for security, and the essential participants are the Iraqis themselves. The missing ingredient in this quest so far is a political accommodation among Iraqis. Each Iraqi group -- the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis -- has to feel it will have safety and a fair share in Iraq's future. Yes, let the Iraqis move forward with their schedule for elections and the writing of a constitution, but all must realize that the results of these elections and the constitution will hold only if the parties know they can protect their basic interests. Helping Iraq come together this way, by peaceful negotiations and not by civil warfare, is the realistic way to secure the loyalty of Iraqis to their new state, and the best way to give them a future to defend. And it will strengthen our efforts, and those of others in the international community, to overhaul the program to train and build Iraqi security forces that have the will and the capacity to fight against the insurgents and terrorists. In this context too, Iraqi reconstruction of Iraq with international assistance will have a chance.

    Success in Iraq must be separated from our politics. It is too important to our troops who are serving there and to the security of our nation. I hope President Bush will fashion policies that will succeed. But today we are not pursuing the most effective path. It is only by pursuing a realistic path to democracy in Iraq that we can connect our ideals with American common sense. Only then can we heal the wounds between our allies and ourselves and only then can we muster the might of our alliances to isolate our enemies and win the war on terrorism around the world.

    Letting other countries in on the reconstruction pie may provide the carrot needed to bring the international community back in. Also note the foresight involved in anticipating problems cropping up in Iraq's future. You're not going to get that from Bush. And the tone, man, the tone. There isn't much 'smoke 'em out' and 'evildoer' type jingoism here.

    edit: I gave it a 'B' on another forum.

  25. Posted

    Right,

    biggrin_o.gif  biggrin_o.gif  biggrin_o.gif<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>HAPPY CANADA DAY!!!</span></span> biggrin_o.gif  biggrin_o.gif  biggrin_o.gif  

    wink_o.gif

    Americans love to see Canadians celebrate Canada Day. It's cute, really just absolutely adorable. We like to encourage that kind of snuggly, non-threatening behavior in our <s>satellites</s> neighbors.

×