Summit of the Americas: Then and Now
Summit of the Americas: Then and Now
2005 Summit of the Americas in Argentina:
Thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of this seaside resort Friday chanting “Get out Bush” as the U.S. president sought to promote free trade at a divided Summit of the Americas. Protests turned violent with about 1,000 people shattering shopfronts with clubs and pelting riot police with stones. … Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting “Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!” [AP, 11/4/05]
1998 Summit of the Americas in Chile:
At one point, Clinton walked in hazy sunshine down Gran Avenida, a busy commercial street lined with thousands of people, including schoolchildren in blue and white uniforms, many of them chanting “Clinton, Clinton.” A few bystanders chanted “Kennedy,” apparently in reference to the popular former U.S. president. [CNN, 4/16/98]
To be fair, there were also protesters when Clinton arrived in Chile, but we have yet to witness any indication that there is any popular support for President Bush in Argentina. Wonder why that might be.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go go gadget Bush!
What a dumb ass. Even with all this unrest, he sat way back in his chair smirking. With his idiotic laugh. Good lord, I cringe thinking about him.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:11 pmIts (tragically) amazing that it only took Bush 5 years to completely destroy our reputation in the world. But then again, its a lot easier to destroy something than to build it. :(
November 4th, 2005 at 7:12 pmAnd that is why we have to truly unite and regain what we’ve lost.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:29 pmas a part-time buenos aires resident, i can tell you why… they think bush is a loose cannon… they think he’s a murdering cowboy… they think he has no idea what real people think and feel or what they have to go through to make ends meet… they think he wants to tell other countries what to do all the time but doesn’t want to listen to anyone… they think he’s insincere and arrogant… they think that everything he does is suspect… these people are extremely good at spotting phonies and they’ve got bush pegged… clinton radiated warmth… bush radiates a sneer…
as per anywhere, the best possible source of local information are the cabbies… i almost never fail to engage a taxi driver in conversation… once the ice has been broken and we’ve chatted about this and that, the question is invariably asked – “what do you think of booo-sh…?” i’ve had the same question asked throughout europe, greece and the balkans, mexico and south america… once they see that i’m not going to preach to them, the dam breaks and out pours all the feelings about george… not invective, mind you… surprisingly intelligent, well-informed views… anybody who discounts the intelligence and insights of our non-u.s. brethern is in for quite a surprise…
the zogby poll published the other day on latin american views of the u.s. is quite enlightening…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/summit-of-americas-what-bush-is-flying.html
November 4th, 2005 at 7:33 pmThank god these people are willing to stand up to the scumbag Bush. They will aid the effort in waking Americans out of their Bush-induced coma. Keep it coming.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:33 pmIn my travels it’s comforting to hear foreigners say that they don’t dislike the American people (although they do wonder what the hell is wrong with us), only our president.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:36 pmDavid Brooks has gone mad.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:38 pmprofmarcus, my brother visits Europe extensively. He feels he must tell people up front that he is not a Bushie supporter in order to protect himself from taunts.
Folks in Europe tell him repeatedly that they do not hate Americans but feel that Americans are stupid for allowing Bushie to live in the White House.
My brother says that Europeans see us as a joke and no longer consider us a super power.
Our reputation around the world is pathetic.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pmI think this comparison says it all – and as #2 put it, it doesn’t take much to destroy a reputation and America’s reputation abroad is horrible. But, when you have a “Bring ‘em on” “cowboy” like Bush, that’s what happens. The problem is, why did half of America vote this bozo back into office? Even my dad – a longtime Republican didn’t vote for him.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pmJust read about the “unrest” and the eerie calm that has since taken the streets down there….
God, he’s got the whole world angry at us…
November 4th, 2005 at 7:40 pm#9, “…why did half of America vote this bozo back into office?”
Simple, because they’re “wackos”
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/03/delayabramoff-partner-michael-scanlon/
November 4th, 2005 at 7:48 pmVery Perceptive, those Argentinians. Viva Eva!
November 4th, 2005 at 7:50 pm#9
Half of the American voters did not vote the Bozo in. All of the crooked voting machines and Repug Election Officials snuck him by.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:55 pmThe Argentinians have this sucker down pat but I hate to see them destroy a beautiful city. Looks like he’s as popular there as he is in my household.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pm2000 and counting and everyone was better than Bush.
Bush is an embarrassment to the human race. He’s an advertisement for why mothers should not drink excessively during pregnancy! If GH hadn’t been such a manwhore, maybe babs wouldn’t have been such a drunk, and the world would have been a better place.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:02 pmNice job on the comparison.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:26 pmBush has brought unprecedented levels of animus toward the US and himself in particular.
Although, I’m really not enamored of the destruction of property and other dangerous antics of these people.
As for their feelings toward Bush, I’m pretty much with them. But I take no joy in watching them riot.
New on EWM: Kevin Bacon to play Libby in upcoming “Six Degrees of Scooterâ€
It’s ‘Dumb and Dumber’ meets ‘All the President’s Men.’
November 4th, 2005 at 8:28 pmThe amazing thing is some right-wing wackos will think that this is a good thing. “Why should we listen to the rest of the world? We the best, and most holy…”
November 4th, 2005 at 8:39 pmI think the contrast of those two pictures pretty well says it all.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:53 pmFor sure Leatherneck, notice how Bushie can’t even enjoy America’s favorite past time, baseball? Let alone walk down a street doing some hand slapping.
I got real satisfaction while watching the World Series and not seeing Bushie. You know it killed him inside not to be able to be there.
Thats what he gets when he takes on a pattern of hand selected audiences.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:59 pmCheer up George. Even people like you serve a valuable purpose in life. In your case, You can always serve as a bad example.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:00 pmIt’s interesting how different Chile is from Argentina. What’s up with that? Or as Bill Maher mockingly says: “They hate us for our freedom”. By the way, how come we don’t fill our streets in protest? Used to be we’d all flock to DC and hang out on the Mall yelling “No war!” Now we just blog and send money to Moveon . . . .
November 4th, 2005 at 9:21 pmsnarky
November 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pmBill Clinton is no better than George Bush. He just put a smiley face on brutal imperialism.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:27 pmWhat does burning stores and destruction of property have to do with ‘hating Bush’….the President will be on a plane tomorrow and those shop owners will be without a living for weeks and months to come. Those were criminal acts not protesting.
richb
November 4th, 2005 at 9:28 pmBill Clinton was MUCH better, only an idiot or a republican (I know that was redundant) would actually believe otherwise.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:32 pmHey, the Debtonator aka fuzzynutz has folks writing parody’s about him.
Join the fun at http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1899702#post1899702
November 4th, 2005 at 9:32 pmRichb
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmYou seem to be an expert on criminal acts. Sometimes it takes a fire to get people’s attention. DOn’t you agree.
RichB,
I’ve noticed that rightwing fascists like you always use any taint of violence do ‘dismiss’ protests. Stop being such a delusional putz and realize that we’ve pissed of a LOT of the world, and that often erupts into violence out of frustration that those people feel. It doesn’t justify violence, but the presence of violence doesn’t justify your ignorance and stupid response. What a wanker!
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmOnly an idiot or a Republican would say what you said.
Che,
Funny how you sound like a republican while claiming to be a liberal. It’s called a ’sympathy troll’, and it usually reflects republican stupidity and stereotypes at its worse. You clearly reflect that stupidity, and therefore are a republican and stupid.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pmRyan Neat
Your full of it. Typical maneuver. YOu attack me. I rebut, so you call me a troll. I just expressed an opinion that you don’t like. Namely that Clinton sucks. He’s an imperialist just like BUsh. SO go get stuffed. YOu and the rest of the Democratic party that sold us out can get stuffed.
And if your only defense against the trust of your culpability is to label your critics from the left as being trolls and right-wingers, you have no future.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:43 pmChe,
You’re wrong. Prove your premise. You are posting an ‘opinion’, and not facts – that’s classic republicanism.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pm“truth of your culpability”
November 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmANd yours are not opinions? You are a joke.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmYou are the fascist. YOur brain is seeped in fascism you can’t even see it.
I criticize people for their actions, you confuse an adjective with a ‘label’. You are acting like a republican, stop acting like one, and I’ll stop accusing you of acting like one.
Explain why Clinton was worse. If it’s just your opinion, then you’re acting like a republican troll. Since I KNOW you can’t prove it, then I know you’re either a republican fool, or just a fool.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmYou’re a fool who doesn’t even know what fascism is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Ancap_chart.JPG/400px-Ancap_chart.JPG
November 4th, 2005 at 9:46 pmChe,
No, I judge based on FACTS, since you can’t present any, then you are posting opinions. You say he’s as bad, prove it. If you can’t prove it, then your present an ‘opinion’ that simply is rebutted by the fact you can’t prove it.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:47 pmProve that CLinton is an imperialis – ok let’s do that
On September 20, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We’ve been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what’s new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” — call it the Bush doctrine — is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:47 pmhttp://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/01/ma_205_01.html
`
Ryan, ” often erupts into violence out of frustration that those people feel”….
It’s only okay when they (chickenhawks) are frustrated and erupt into violence (war)(torture).
November 4th, 2005 at 9:48 pmYou claim to make a point about Clinton, yet your quote is something that’s done by Bush? You’re a retard.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:49 pmWho let the retards out?
November 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmUnder the Clinton model, the United States ruled the world — but it did so in a carefully masked way that produced high degrees of acquiescence among the dominated nations.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmhttp://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3856
Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting “Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!†[AP, 11/4/05]
They nailed the b*****trd didn’t they:) the reason he does that smirk he think he is going to Control The World much like other dicators did…..noticed how fat he was around the gut and upper body,the jerk off is scared shytless so he has to wear protection hee heee…….
November 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pmWhat do you mean ‘under the clinton model’?
You keep bringing up generalities and ‘opinions’ and treat them as facts. You aren’t presenting facts, you’re presenting anecdotal opinions and prejudices. You’re a hack and a fool.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:52 pmThe launching of US air and missile attacks on Iraq is a measure both of the desperation of the Clinton administration and of the criminal recklessness and bellicosity of American imperialism. Thousands of Iraqi lives are to be sacrificed, for the short-term goal of preserving Clinton’s presidency, and for the long-term goal of maintaining US dominance in the oil-rich Middle East.
The timing of the attack, on the eve of the impeachment debate and vote in the House of Representatives, is clearly bound up with the political crisis of the Clinton White House. As he has throughout this political crisis, at every point when his presidency has been threatened, Clinton has sought to appease his right-wing opponents with the threat or use of military force.
In February, after the eruption of the Lewinsky affair, amid a media barrage aimed at forcing his resignation, Clinton seized on a conflict with Iraq over the activity of United Nations weapons inspectors to go to the brink of military action. In August, only three days after his testimony before the grand jury convened by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Clinton launched cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan.
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d17.shtml
November 4th, 2005 at 9:52 pmSaying “there will be no sanctuary for terrorists,” President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of “a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism.”
November 4th, 2005 at 9:54 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
Che,
You post these UN APPROVED air attacks as proof of Clinton being ‘no better’. The fact he did this at the request and cooperation with the UN PROVES CLINTON IS BETTER, and completely undermines your childish and idiotic argument.
You’re a child and a moron.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:55 pmWhen asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.â€
November 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pmhttp://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp
#45 thot’s, Bushie does look fat and haggard doesn’t he….
His hair is completely gray and he has deep drunk lines in his face.
Not being able to cheer on the Houston Astro’s at the World Series really got to him. He can no longer enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy.
I love this country!
November 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pm… many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations…. the U.N. sanctions, for example … led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:57 pmAmy Goodman
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp
Che,
A hand full of measured responses proves Clinton is BETTER than Bush. You’re a FOOL.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:58 pmThe International Committee of the Red Cross warned in a report in December 1999 that the oil-for-food program “has not halted the collapse of the health system and the deterioration of water supplies, which together pose one of the gravest threats to the health and well-being of the civilian population.†Seventy members of Congress sent a letter to President Clinton in early 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “infanticide masquerading as policy.â€
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402c.asp
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmA group of United States congressmen – both Democrats and Republicans – are putting pressure on the Clinton administration over its support of the United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq.
The group’s spokesman, David Bonior, a Democrat for Michigan, has described the sanctions as “infanticide masquerading as policy”.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/646783.stm
The Iraq sanctions were done by Bush I, or had you forgotten that in your effort to be a republican propagandist?
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmMeanwhile, two top Clinton officials wrote an op-ed in the archconservative Wall Street Journal claiming Democrats “need to embrace certain Republican policies…One early test will be the vote…the Central American Free Trade Agreement – an agreement that Democrats should support.” This, despite overwhelming opposition to CAFTA from rural America, labor, and consumer groups. They then claim that doing so will help Democrats’ electoral prospects: “If the Democratic Party wants to regain the White House and control of Congress, it has to take pro-growth, pro-jobs positions on key issues, including trade agreements.”
November 4th, 2005 at 10:02 pmhttp://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/growing-revolt-on-trade.html
http://www.fpif.org
Free Trade Area of the Americas
Volume 6, Number 12
April 2001
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, The Development GAP
Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)
12ifftaa.pdf
Key Points
President Bush seeks to fulfill his father’s dream of creating a free trade zone of the Americas, and the timetable may be accelerated to complete negotiations by 2003.
The economic crisis in Mexico and sustained citizens’ protests have dampened enthusiasm among the general public, but not among major corporations in the United States, for the extension of free trade agreements throughout the hemisphere.
Nine negotiating groups have been working to complete a draft agreement to implement the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
As leaders of 34 Western Hemisphere countries gather in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001, President George W. Bush hopes that the third Summit of the Americas will mark a step toward fulfilling his father’s dream of creating a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. For a variety of reasons, this goal seems increasingly out of reach.
When, at the first Summit of the Americas in Miami in December 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) linking all of the hemisphere’s economies (except Cuba’s) by the year 2005, he held out Mexico as the model of economic reform and NAFTA as the model trade agreement. Just ten days later, however, the Mexican peso experienced a massive devaluation. Stunned observers watched as billions of foreign investment dollars flowed out of the country. That, coupled with the austerity and adjustment conditions attached to the bailout package financed by the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—particularly the requirement that interest rates be maintained at very high levels—led to further devaluation and sent the Mexican economy into a deep depression.
The effects of the crisis reverberated well beyond Mexico. Subsequent financial crises in East Asia, Russia, Brazil, and elsewhere rocked stock markets and shook confidence in the free trade model of globalization. The failure of the 1999 WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle and the emergence of intense citizen protests there and subsequently at other official meetings related to globalization have further increased uncertainties.
The economic crises and public discontent have dampened congressional enthusiasm for free trade agreements, as demonstrated by the defeat of the Clinton administration’s request for fast-track authority in 1998. Since then, further efforts to introduce fast track—or, as Bush’s Trade Representative Robert Zoellick calls it, “trade promotion authorityâ€â€”have stalemated, with a bloc of congressional Democrats insisting that any agreement must include labor and environmental standards and Republicans vowing to block any accord that includes a linkage.
http://www.developmentgap.org/focustr.html
November 4th, 2005 at 10:03 pmAh, here we go, more republican propaganda…
Che, you’re such a partisan hack. If you want to criticize Clinton for continuing the policy that BushI started, and that the pentagon and CIA believed was critical for mideast stability – then you can choose to believe that.
“In 1995, a high-level Iraqi defector revealed explosive details of covert weapons development in Iraq. That put renewed pressure on Hussein, and the Russians convinced the Iraqi government to enter into negotiations. But Hussein knew that the U.S. and U.K. leadership had domestic political and public relations problems, and held his own citizens hostage until he got a deal that was flexible enough for him to manipulate.”
November 4th, 2005 at 10:04 pmOnce again you post BUSH policies.
It’s so obvious that you’re a free republic freak posing as something other than what you are. You’re such a stupid partisan hack. You can’t even stick to clinton, and they ONLY complaint you seem to have is that he continued policies that a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT established.
YOU ARE A COMPLETE FOOL!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:06 pmThe fact is that globalization is an issue, both for potential good and potential bad. But the difference is that Clinton and progressives realize this ambiguity. Partisan hacks like you do not.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pm“Not being able to cheer on the Houston Astro’s at the World Series really got to him. He can no longer enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy”.
Another thing I delight in is the fact that Delay wants a change of venue for his trial.
Houston, the largest city in Texas is scary to him.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pmAnd CheHole,
The reason the republican congress didn’t want clinton to be able to negotiate the terms of the free trade agreement, is because they thought he would be TOO FAIR. Don’t be such a retard.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmChe’s obsessed Clinton, maybe an autographed photo of him would calm his nerves. Problem is, if we give in to his obsession it could escalate and he may start demanding alone time with Bill.
What do ya think? Should we pitch in for the autographed photo or should we call Bellveiw?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmNine years ago, President Clinton gathered thirty-three of his Western Hemisphere counterparts in Miami for a celebrity-studded gala, a ride aboard a billionaire’s yacht and a harmonious discussion of plans for a hemisphere-wide trade deal called the Free Trade Area of the Americas. There was nary a protester in sight.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20031201/anderson
While Bill Clinton imposed dollars520 million worth of sanctions when we disdained to buy all our bananas from a Democratic Party funder, he is threatening nearly a billion dollars’ worth as punishment for our perverse reluctance to let his beef producers poison us. Something has gone terribly wrong with the way the world is being run.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmhttp://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/05/13/free-trade-fundamentalists/
Ryan Neat asked for facts. I’m providing the facts
November 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmHowever, it would take a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to deliver the Bush-corporate vision.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pmhttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_America/CAFTA_LegacyFreeTrade,html
Euphoria peaked as Clinton savored his NAFTA triumph at the Asia-Pacific summit in Seattle, where he expounded his “grand vision for Asia,” bringing leaders together “to preach the gospel of open markets and to secure America’s foothold in the world’s fastest growing economic community.” This “may be the biggest rethinking of American policy toward Asia” since World War II, David Sanger observed. Clinton outlined the “new vision” before a “cheering throng… inside a giant airplane hangar at the Boeing Company,” “a model for companies across America” with its “booming Asian business” — and its plans for “multimillion-dollar job-creating investments outside the United States on a scale that would terrify NAFTA’s opponents.”1
November 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pmhttp://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9401-free-market.html
If you need further proof that Clinton is just as much an imperialist as Bush, I will continue.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:17 pmNeither of those items is either ‘bad’, nor is the second item what you say it is.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:18 pmNAFTA was negotiated by BushI, not Clinton.
You’re just full of disinformation and misinformation, you really should go work for the pentagon in the Iraq group.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pmTake a pill Che, if you consider your obsession with Clinton as stating the facts then you are worse off than I thought.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pmPlease, what you posted proves nothing. Have the stuff you posted was bush policies that were inherited. The rest was related to standard trade disputes. You’ve not shown any degree of similarities or proven anything other than you have a hysterical and irrational hatred of Clinton. Which pretty much says you’re a republican or a green party moron.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:20 pmPresident Bill Clinton’s talks on oil development and the expansion of free-trade during his present trip to South America will lead to the continued destruction of the Amazon rain forest, U.S. and Latin American environmentalists charged.
“Expanding free-trade and developing the oil projects within the Amazon — this will only bring environmentally and socially destructive multinational corporations into rain forest areas,” Shannon Wright of the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network (RAN) told IPS.
Clinton’s policies will allow oil and logging corporations to turn the Amazon into an environmental wasteland, she said.
The U.S. President is using his week-long South American trip to win support for establishing a hemispheric free-trade zone by 2005. He had hoped to be taking with him renewed fast-track negotiating authority to allow him to begin formal negotiations with Chile on a free-trade pact intended to get the ball rolling on expanded U.S. trade throughout Latin America. Congress, however, is still working on the details of that legislation.
http://members.aol.com/cmwwrc/marmamnews/97101603.html
November 4th, 2005 at 10:21 pmCHE(pronounced she),
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmClinton GOOD Bush BAD NEXT
When he was first (s)elected in 2000, I knew he was ignorant, but he was president and I crossed my fingers that he wouldn’t be as bad as I feared. Well, crossing fingers sure as hell didn’t do a damn bit of good. This incredibly uncurious, ignorant fool has, in 5 years, destroyed America in countless ways domestically and internationally. He has traveled beyond ignorant to dangerous. People around the world hate him, and blame us for being so stupid as to elect him. He must be impeached in order to begin to restore honor and integrity.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmThe Clinton regime is concentrating on what it calls “conflict containment†in Africa. The aim is to do this through the main regional powers, Nigeria and South Africa, and this was the theme of Clinton’s visit. In the last weeks the US announced that it was training a new Nigerian armed force, increasing the number of US trainers in Nigeria from 40 to 200. This week, the first of these American military personnel arrived to train and equip five Nigerian battalions that Clinton said would be ready to enter Sierra Leone at the beginning of next year.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/nig-s01.shtml
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmSupporting free trade is not imperialistic despite your rhetoric and hysterical claim to the contrary. How those free trade policies are implement or negotiated alone can determine the possiblities.
And guess what, Clinton never secured that agreement, so you’re once again holding him responsible for something he did not do. You’re an idiot.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:24 pmI see “leftist commie pinkos” who resemble Muslim Terrorists. How long before these south american disgruntles are smugglin’ anthrax between the pages of Che’s Weekly Standard?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmRyan NEat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmYou ask for proof, you give none. I give you countless articles, you deny all of them. You are a fraud. You are a typical “liberal” and it is the likes of you that have done us in, along with Bush and the neocons.
You think you know it all. But you know nothing. You are deaf, dumb and blind, and you worship the Clintons. And they are no better, I REPEAT, NO BETTER THAN THE BUSHIES. THEY ARE THE SAME DISEASE.
Wow, so helping africa (ITSELF) to contain conflicts from getting out of hand is now imperialistic? You’re even a bigger fool than one would have believed. This is both admirable and clearly not something Bush could or would have done. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again.
All you’ve demostrated is that you don’t know squat about what you’re talking.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:26 pmFree Trade IS Imperialism
You DopE
YOu are the idiot
You didn’t give proof. That was a collection of hate mail and op-ed pieces. Half the articles weren’t even about Clinton, the rest were issues that Clinton inherited and tried to find better solution for.
You just proved you didn’t know what you’re talking about, you didn’t prove your point though.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmAND he sure plays a mean pinball.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmFree trade is not imperialism, you’re an idiot.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmWhat time is “lights out” for the retards?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmRyan Neat
You are lower than the Bushies, cause you sell people out with your nice sounding rhetoric about “helping” people. LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE WORLD. YOU THINK IT GOT THIS WAY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ALONE. YOU THINK CLINTON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?
AND YOU THINK IF HILARY IS ELECTED SHE WON’T CONTINUE THE IRAQ WAR? OR MAYBE YOU DON’T CARE. MAYBE YOU LIKE THE IRAQ WAR. IF so I WON’t even bother to respond to you.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:28 pmI’m thinking maybe Clinton isn’t
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmPresident anymore.
I am also thinking that the article
shows a historical difference in public
opinion which seems to be quite stark.
All this imperial drivel is just a distraction.
Free trade is ECONOMIC TRADE. Imperialism is ECONOMIC CONTROL. These can overlap, but to say they’re the same is intellectually dishonest, ignorant and propagandist. Not to mention hysterically foolish.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmFREE TRADE IS IMPERIALISM
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmChe,
I have a degree in economics, let me say this as respectfully as I can. You don’t know what the hell you’re even talking about.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmChe’s in a manic state. How long does it take for the pills to kick in?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmYou can stick your degree up your arse. You are so typical of the elite liberals. You are the scum sucking imperialist pig in sheeps clothing. You know nothing.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmChe,
I travel all of the time, i know the state of the world, do you? The fact is there are lots of world problems, but your sort of intellectual dishonesty won’t help it. Revolutionaries often know how to destroy, but without understanding what it takes to create you’re just a common thug.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:31 pmI remember that NAFTA was warned against by Ross Perot — remember “the giant sucking sound” in the debates? That was a GHWBush project.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:31 pmClinton operated with a Republican Congress (remember Newt and the boys). Bush has no one to blame for anything except himself and his cronies and appointed friends. Comparisons can’t be made between him and other presidents because, like absolute zero, it can’t get any lower.
What would Che say?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pmHide Che! The imperialists are coming to get you.
Quick! Under the bed!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pmRyan Neat
The fact that you have a degree in economics says it all – forget you, you are a waste.
You travel all over the world. Are you CIA?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmChe,
And you’re typical of the illiterate fools who don’t do their homework or take the time to understand the problems they appoint themselves critique experts on. You’re so typical of the ‘wanna be’ elites who won’t dedicate themselves to the task of TRULY learning their subject matter. You’re lazy, foolish and a hypocrite. Why? Because it is you who feels ‘elite’ and ‘righteous’, yet you’re too lazy to even learn about the actual subject and issues at hand.
Economics and economic systems are complex. And frankly there’s a lot wrong with globalization, but there’s a lot right with it. Fools like you can’t see that ambiguity.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmI had a friend with a Chrysler Imperial,
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmdoes that count?
I don’t much care for the margarine, though.
Clinton is more peaceful. Everyone knows that.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:34 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:34 pmYou need to read
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
It will open your mind, if you still have one
It’s the yeah but he did it too defense.
With that one you could group Bush and Santa Clause together because they both dropped presents down peoples chimneys.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pmThe old Chrysler Imperials could take the “head on” at the demolition derby.
Margarine is too soft.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pmFREE TRADE IS IMPERIALISM
They led off the 10:00 news with that tonight.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:36 pmCheck out RawStory.com. A new poll says 51% think impeachment is the answer.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:36 pmI don’t get the point of this academic argument as to who is worse, Clinton or Bush. Reminds me of a similar fight yesterday over whether Bush’s (dis)approval numbers were exaggerated, “the lowest in history” vs. “No, the lowest was Nixon . . .” Such bickering misses the point. Bush may not be at the absolute historical low in presidential disapproval, but he’s close and that’s indisputable. So what if Bush isn’t the worst; he’s bad, very bad. Same thing here with Clinton vs. Bush. Even if Che is right (and he is obviously dead wrong), it wouldn’t change the fact that Bush is still extremely dishonest, incompetent and at the bottom in the rankings of this country’s presidents. If we still had the independent prosecutor statute, Bush may well be behind bars by now. Or if the Democrates had a majority in the Senate, he might be impeached. Well, okay that last bit was a stretch. The Dems wouldn’t be able to get it together to do anything . . . .
November 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pmYeah, they had a lot of room between
November 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pmthe bumper and the radiator, which is
what usually got killed in demo derby.
I recall old Eldos did very well backwards.
I understand your position, Che. But in the real world, sadly, developers build subdivisions packed with huge homes with 2 cars a piece. THEN they build the roads to get back and forth from these subdivisions. Is that a Reaganomics microcosm?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:40 pmI’m with Marie, Impeachment is the answer. I demand it everyday. I’m positive I will have my demands answered.
votetoimpeach.org
write or call each and every representative and senator in your state and demand impeachment hearings. Let them know that if they do not support impeachment they will lose their jobs.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:40 pmIf anyone is damned by “Confessions Of an Economic Hitman ” it is Bush who’s father headed the CIA for years. Clinton is an outsider in regards to old money and power.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:41 pmFree trade could only be imperial if it was singlularly exploitative. For instance, if the US signed a free trade agreement with africa, then africa would almost exclusively benefit from this arrangement. This means not only would it not be ‘imperialistic’, it would actually be beneficial to africa.
However, this would hurt american farmers who consist of many heavily subsidized corporate interests. In the free trade world, the poor countries of africa would benefit with their trade with the states.
So once again, it shows your understanding of free trade is simplistic and deficient, and the fact that free trade in and of itself is not inherently imperialistic.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:44 pmSusan and Marie are the beginning of the THINK PROGRESS impeach Bush movement. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about having sex with that woman then why shouldn’t Bush be impeached for lying about Sadam having weapons of mass destruction and buying yellow cake in Niger? I join the movement, IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmChe,
You need to read period, and not just your anti-free trade rags. This issue is more difficult and more complex than your current irrational hysteria will permit you to see.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmWhat is this WSWS.COM?
Dedicated to trotskyism they are?
I suppose that Bill Clinton is an imperialist because he thinks that his ideas will improve the system, not overthrow it.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:46 pm“I tried to comfort myself by recalling lessons learned in my macroeconomics courses at business school. After all, I told myself, I am here to help Indonesia rise out of a medieval economy and take its place in the modern industrial world. …We were promoting US foreign policy and corporate interests. We were driven by greed rather than by any desire to make life better for the vast majority of Indonesians.”
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
pages 25-26
Ryan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:49 pm“I also realized that my college professors had not understood the true nature of macroeconomics: that in many cases helping an economy grow only makes those few people who sit atop the pyramid even richer, while it does nothing for those at the bottom except to push them even lower.”
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
page 26
Che, you’ve got to type faster. . . what’s on page 27?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:51 pmOnce again, not free trade. What you’re discussing is the exportation of corporate interests, of which Perkins and many other ‘corporate types’ do. These are corporate interests, and I have no problem with your concern about them or their power.
However, that is NOT the same thing as free trade.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:51 pmI have always been a strong supporter of George W. Bush.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmI agree with his program of tax cuts for the well to do because they are justified.
I supported him because those damn Iraqis had something to do with 9-11, I just know it.
I even liked his nomination o f Harriet Miers to the supreme court and I like this Alito pick even more.
This will probably be my last post because I’ll no longer have a computer.
They are releasing me from the asylum tomorrow.
John Perkins was secretly CIA ,recruited out of college into the Peace Corps in order to get inside views of other countries, later becoming a “hit man”. The intelligence community and international banking system control the economic hitman. Clinton was a local politician from humble beginings risen all the way to President, with little contol over and connection to this sort of economic terrorism.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmmama,
Che’s just copying and pasting. He’s convinced he’s right, so he has his list of quick copy/paste info items.
Actually John is right about the wealth gap, but this is more of a function of countries not implementing sound taxation policies than it is anything.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:55 pm“Taken cumulatively, the integration of the world as a whole, particularly in terms of economic globalization and the mythig qualities of “free market” capitalism represents a veritable “empire” in its own right…”
American Leader or Global Empire by Jim Garrison, as quoted in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, page 170
Nix,
John Perkins was part of the group they call “CapitalismsInvisibleArmy”, which is both a secret and frankly uncontrolled entity with corporate ties. They’re slime, and they’re part of the same republican rightwing aholes that overthrew basically every democracy in latin america. Che, if you think this group is under the control of a democratic president, you’re sniffing glue.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:55 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:56 pmSo you sit there first condemning me because I offered no supporting documents. Then you condemn me when I do. But you offer nothing. I guess this case is closed. YOu are a fraud. And you are a waste of my time.
Ryan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:58 pmYou are slime. and your name should be mud on this blog after what you’ve revealed here. you’re complete ignorance of anythign other than your own opinions. YOur inability to support your opinions except with attacks. and your reduction of anyone who disagrees with you to slime. You definitely are slime.
“and they’re part of the same republican rightwing aholes that overthrew basically every democracy in latin america…”
Oh, like United Fruit, whose attorney was the brother of the director of the CIA under Eisenhower and who’se bankers had ties to Prescott Bush?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:00 pmYou’re mixing your metaphors again. Free market capitalism doesn’t mean zero taxation, and this is completely separate from free trade. You have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but sadly not enough to be useful.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:01 pmHey guys since I’m leaving the asylum we’ve got room now. Che, looks like you need a break.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmPeople do seem to like Clinton, don’t they?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmHe gives good speeches too.
People don’t seem to like FUBAR Bush.
He really doesn’t seem very nice.
Kind of a elitist sneer, if you ask me,
but I never really liked people like
him. I must be too low class or something.
That’s because the documents you presented did not support your hypothesis.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 11:04 pmMy guess is you are probably CIA, or you are tangentially CIA, like William F. Buckley. He admitted in an op ed piece in his National Review this week that when he was CIA in the 50s he worked to undermine the Mexican government. He admitted it as an aside in his confused and tortured ramble about the Plame outing. It meant nothing to him. It was just a job, undermining another country’s government.
Che,
Much of what you presented was BushI or BushII and UN policies, including the situation in Iraq. You put the whole free trade fiasco on Clinton, yet he didn’t sign the agreements you criticized him over.
The only thing clinton actually ‘did’ that was remotely imperialistic was attack afghanistan and the sudan after WE WERE ATTACKED.
Much of what you posted actually showed Clinton had more restraint and judgement than bush, undermining your argument.
In otherwords you think you proved something, but you didn’t even supply evidence to do so, in fact much of your evidence DISPROVED your premise.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pm#127,
Actually I like Ryan. I have read a good number of
November 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pmposts and he seems to treat people appropriately
depending on how they act and what they say.
I am not sure where you came from, Che, but
you have not left me with a very good impression
so far.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:07 pmI did nothing of what you said. And I know you did not read any of the supporting documents I offered. So just stop your bs.
Maybe it is just Clinton’s humanistic approach,
November 4th, 2005 at 11:10 pmbut he seemed to deal with different people
in a positive way.
Chimpy just locks out people who aren’t
“the base”. Wait, doesn’t some other group
use that term?
Oh but you did. I already reviewed them. They do not support your premise, and in most cases they fully undermine it.
Not only was clinton MUCH more popular around the world, but so was the US. Your premise of them being identical is childlike and irrational. It’s not supported by international ‘approval’ ratings, nor is it supported by the even handed and measured method of governing that Clinton exhibited and bush is devoid of. You’re clearly a hack.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:12 pmHey Joe Sixpack,
I think this thread needs some of your
November 4th, 2005 at 11:12 pmwisdom.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:13 pmYou are childlike and irrational in your love and devotion for Clinton.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:15 pmwhere is your proof? “even-handed and measured method” – what does that mean – support it.
I’m pretty sure Chimpy is the one
November 4th, 2005 at 11:16 pmin South America, no?
I bet he wishes he was “cutting brush”
in Crawford. What a dork.
Old money and power:
Bush born an insider, a spoiled rich kid.
Clinton a relative outsider and pretty regular guy.
It is pretty clear who has the interest, power and backing to be a dangerous imperialist.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:21 pmWhy is a defense of Bush usually an attack on Clinton?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:21 pmRyan
Your silence speaks volumes. YOu have nothing to support your opinions. Yet you attack me for supporting my opinions. And you don’t have the guts to admit you can’t defend your beliefs.
You truly are a lowly slimeball for being so gutless. You think it’s enough to talk large about Clinton and what a great guy he is. You are an ass-clown.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm#145,
It is really too bad that your guy Chimpy
November 4th, 2005 at 11:30 pmis such a zero, but that is really NOT
Clinton’s fault. You will just have to
come to grips with that someday.
#145 (’Che’): Piss off you troll.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:35 pm#148
November 4th, 2005 at 11:35 pmUp yours you moron
#148,
Smartest thing you said all night.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:37 pmWackos of both ends of the spectrum unite!
November 4th, 2005 at 11:40 pmwanker
November 4th, 2005 at 11:41 pmTrolls trying recycle themselves as leftwing wackos. Human garbage then, human garbage now.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:41 pmwanker troll
November 4th, 2005 at 11:42 pmI have carefully been following this discussion and reading everyone’s posts. Why is it that people feel the need to resort to name-calling simply because their views differ from the views of another poster. This is certainly not what I expected from a group of self-proffessed liberals.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:45 pm#154,
Yes, well it is more of a right-wing trait,
November 4th, 2005 at 11:47 pmbut sometimes you have to fight fire with
fire, ya know?
noob
November 4th, 2005 at 11:47 pmAsk Ryan Neat. He’s a master of name-calling. But he’s taken his ball and gone home because he was losing.
Ryan losing to you? Certainly not up to you to decide. Actually, he won after the first exchange. Don’t know why he went on after that, but that’s his business.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:55 pmBy the way, you sound exactly like a certain reichwing troll. Ashamed to say you are pro-bush now?
You’re an ass-clown too
November 4th, 2005 at 11:58 pmAll progressives are winning.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:00 amI just discovered David Ensor. Most excellent reporting.
‘Night everyone. Get some sleep, Che. Have a drink.
Let’s see,
November 5th, 2005 at 12:00 am#156, meet #158 and we see typical
right-wing hypocrisy.
Not once, not once, did Ryan Neat support his opinions. Yet he attacked me for not supporting mine. SO I did. But he has not once supported anything he has said. Just burbling about how great Clinton is -measured and even-handed nonsense. The mutterings of who is in his own words is “childlike and irrational”
November 5th, 2005 at 12:01 am#156
“Ryan Neat is a master of name calling”
#158
“You’re an ass clown too”
November 5th, 2005 at 12:01 amBoys, boys! Is this really necessary?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:04 amAfterthought,
November 5th, 2005 at 12:05 amIt actually thinks we are falling for its pathetic masquerade. Amazing.
William Jefferson Clinton is a GOD among men.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:05 amAll hail to the real and rightful chief.
All rise.
Not once did Ryan Neat support anything he said. Not once. When asked to support his opinions, he bolted. But not before calling me a whole host of names to silence me. But I would not be silenced by him or by any one else just because I think and know that Clinton is no better than Bush. They are both imperialists. Just Clinton wears the smiley face, as I said in my original post. After which i was attacked by Ryan Neat. But he had nothing to support his assault.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:06 amChe,
You’re a retard. Not only did I show you that your whacko theory was nonsense, but I pointed out that most of your attacks supposedly on Clinton had BUSH IN THE TITLE. You’re a fool. Why should I have to prove a negative, when you didn’t prove the premise you say existed.
You’re a childish freak.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:06 amAnd on the seventh day there was …yes ..Bill Clinton
November 5th, 2005 at 12:07 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:07 amYou just proved my point. YOu have nothing except verbal insults. Nothing else.
Please, you don’t even know what imperialism is. Grow up little boy.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:08 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amClinton is an imperialist just like BUsh
Why should I need anything else. I already POINTED OUT YOU POSTED BUSH CRAP AND PRETENDED IT WAS CLINTON ISSUES. You’re just a fool. Grow up.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amI think Ryan over-reacted. Labeling someone a “republican” is no way to initiate discourse.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:10 amClinton is an imperialist and so is BUsh
When people resort to ‘opinions’ when they can’t present convincing facts, that’s being ‘republican’. It’s what they do.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:10 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:11 amPresent convincing evidence of your opinions Ryan, go ahead, DO IT FOR ONCE. QUit talking about it and DO IT.
Che,
You’re full of crap. You didn’t prove Clinton was imperialistic.
How about this retarded partisan Clinton signs child labor ban
Not only is this something bush would NEVER do, it’s the OPPOSITE of imperialism. You’re a fool. In 5 seconds I disproved your entire mythology.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:12 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:13 amFinally something. One link. That’s it. I gave you at least 10. Come on. You’re just lazy.
If there is one thing no one needs, is proof that Clinton was a more effective chief executive.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:14 amYou gave completely irrelevant and unrelated links. You’re unfocused and irrational both in your argument and content.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:15 amtptif,
Unfortunately partisan hacks can rarely distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant, it’s why they’re hacks.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amPutting down my links is not the same as providing supporting links to your opinions.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amI remember this che troll from before. He knows he can’t win a debate from the right so he has chosen to attack from a different angle, the extreme left.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amRyan, you are correct. Che made the first claim, it is his burden to prove that his claim is true.
Shifting the burden from his claim to requiring proof of your refutation of his claim is the classic “burden of proof fallacy”.
Since his claim that Clinton is a worse imperalist than Bush cannot be supported, any equally unsupportable rebuttal is logically sufficient.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:18 amOk Ryan, I’ll let off the hook. This is too easy. You’re a bloated bag of wind who loves Clinton but can’t support why. But you can’t tolerate anyone having a different opinion. You go absolutely crazy when they do, calling them names. There’s something wrong with you but I can’t be bothered.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:18 amGood luck.
But from now on when I see your bloated pronouncements I will call you on them, and I will continue to ask for supporting documents, just like you did. You started this Ryan.
The administration of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) added another dimension to U.S. trade policy. It contended that countries should adhere to minimum labor and environmental standards.
Once again, protecting foreign workers from being exploited is the OPPOSITE of what you claim Clinton stood for.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:19 amIn all fairness, Che did provide a number links to support his position. Yet no one has debated those issues.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:19 amChe,
Well you’re like a bloated bag of shit. Not only are you full of crap, but you spew it like diarrhea.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:19 am#184 (Andrew G.): Your post sums it up for me.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:20 amAnd to all the other Clinton lovers on here who think Ryan’s approach of name calling and demanding supporting documents, without doing the same in return, you are ass-clowns :) Nighty night.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:20 amn00b,
That’s because they were nonsense and unrelated. They’re just more stupid republican slime and nonsense.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:20 amChe,
I already posted one link, and content from a second link here.
http://economics.about.com/od/foreigntrade/a/clinton_trade.htm
Not only are you lying about Clinton, you’re lying about my response.
You’re just another stupid partisan republican hack that can’t back up their claims, and run like a stupid chickenhawk when challenged on your failures.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:21 amRyan
One more thing
Clinton is an imperialist just like Bush
Sweet dreams :)
November 5th, 2005 at 12:22 amnOOb = che
November 5th, 2005 at 12:22 amChe,
On Free republic freaks call progressives ‘assclowns’, that’s a classic mark that you’re just a partisan hack who’s once again demostrated why your entire movement is marked by the insane and the inept.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:22 amFor example, does everyone here agree that the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions (which Clinton supported) is indeed a price worth paying?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:23 amChe,
And I proved you’re wrong, so by posting that last childish rant you just show everyone what a fool you are. But then again the irrelevant and insane rants you previously posted had already proven you’re a fool.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:23 amn00b,
Is the 100,000 current dead iraqi civilians worth it?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:24 amMe, I am not Che.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:25 amn00b,
Is the 100,000 current dead iraqi civilians worth it?
Comment by Ryan Neat — November 5, 2005 @ 12:24 am
If you are referring to the current war in Iraq–absolutely not. However, you did not answer my question.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:27 amLast time I checked Clinton was president of the United States, not of Argentina. He did hs job exceedingly well. the people of the world respected him for respecting an engaging them even as he took care of business for the US. That is the point.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:27 amn00b,
The Oil-for-Food Program, established by the United Nations in 1996. It was argued ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War to affect demilitarization of Saddam Hussein.
In otherwords, Clinton was so worried about the children that were starving because of the BushI policies, they setup a program specifically to get food to iraqi children.
Not only was Che’s MISREPRESENTATION IRRESPONSIBLE, but it was just trashy and disgusting like all points and lies of republicans.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:29 amHere’s another link that dispells some of the lies and myths of Che. It specifically talks about how good free trade actually can undermine the normal 3rd world corruption. Much of the problem with 3rd world countries is that they are so corrupt that they’re more harmful to their citizens than globalism is.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=38041
November 5th, 2005 at 12:33 amRyan,
Well, was the Oil-for-food program successful? And if so, does it mean that no civilian lives were lost as a result of the sanctions?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:34 amAnd lets compare the ‘big war’ of Clinton to the ‘big war’ of Bush. Not only did Clinton go in WITH the UN and NATO, but he did not try to retain control of the country or its assets. Compare that to Bush and his tight fist on the Iraqi Oil industry.
Not only does Bush’s war represent imperialism, but Clinton’s shows restraint and the opposite outcome.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:37 amSo, the ill effects of the Iraq war are justified because the oil for food program also had ill effects?
It seems to me that the Iraq war was no more efficacious at solving the problem than were the sanctions, and that, in so doing, was far more disruptive and destructive.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:41 amn00b,
Your mixing your issues. Sanctions were already in place, the food for oil was a loosening of sanctions. They ’saved’ lives, although certainly not as many as an rational person would like.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:42 amRyan,
I am not in disagreement with you on that issue. Bush is without question a warmonger and an imperialst. However, I just don’t think criticisms of Clinton’s administration should be dismissed so readliy. Scrutiny should be applied to all administrations–regardless of their political affilliation.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:43 amn00b,
Che didn’t criticize, he said there was no difference. Clinton was not perfect, neither was his administration, neither has ANY administration been. But to say they are the same is irrational and insane.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:44 amChe’ are you a muslim fanatic? I would like to know where all of this hate is coming from…
November 5th, 2005 at 12:45 amLCM,
Che’s a sympathy troll. He’s one of those free republic propagandist that pretends to be a liberal while posting radical bullcrap.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:46 amSupposedly he is a trotskyite, so I would imagine that he is an athiest.
HeHeHeHeHe!
November 5th, 2005 at 12:47 amIf Che is Che and Ryan Neat is CIA, then Ryan killed Che in the Bolivian jungle and discussion is not taking place! I should get away from my computer now!
November 5th, 2005 at 12:50 amRyan
I really like the fact that you have the patience to debate these fools. I’d get too pissed of and would have to go kick the dog or something…..not really, I love my dog. I wish I had a Che’
November 5th, 2005 at 12:53 amn00b,
Your mixing your issues. Sanctions were already in place, the food for oil was a loosening of sanctions. They ’saved’ lives, although certainly not as many as an rational person would like.
Comment by Ryan Neat — November 5, 2005 @ 12:42 am
So does the implementation of the Oil-for-food program justify the sanctions and the deaths of innocent civilians as a result? In other words, was it right for Clinton to support those sanctions with full knowledge of their consequences?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:56 amn00b/che = bad troll/worse troll
November 5th, 2005 at 12:57 amNext he’ll say that Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq too.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:58 amClinton was a baby killer, therefore the Bush instigated Iraq war was justified.
Of course, Clinton did not instigate the sanctions, the were first put in place by Bush I.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:05 amn00b,
That’s a strawman argument. But you already knew that didn’t you. Only a republican fool would attempt to say an effort to feed children was wrong. What a whacko.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:08 amThere is no need for hostility here.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:11 amRepublicans are such fools and partisan hacks. They bitch because clinton didn’t invade iraq, and they bitch because he used sanctions, then they bitch because he didn’t do enough to stop, and when he used force they bitched about that.
What’s the lesson? Republicans would rather have the country fail, than a democrat succeed. This is how you know they’re traitors and unamerican. See, I personally would like for democracy to have succeeded in Afghanistan, and frankly I’d like for it to succeed in Iraq. The difference is that I know despite this wish that republican ineptitude will be guaranteed to screw it up. It’s the ‘enron’ way.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:11 amn00b,
Sure there is. Your question was hostile in its construction – but a passive aggressive like you must get that a lot.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:12 amThis is my first post here. I read them occasionally, but usually just the main story, bc there is often this sort of che vs ryan vs che thing. This one though was especially entertaining :) Obviously Ryan is a much more mature and knowledgeable person. Che does have passion though, which unfortunately is a quality missing among many “liberals.” While I completely disagree with most of what he said, it’s clear that he is acting out of a sort-of misguided idealism (one that many of us might have felt when we were younger). To call him a republican is equally misguided, not to mention downright mean :) Anyway, my point is that his passion leads him to disagree with the more thoughtful democrats in a way that is ultimately injurious to our great country. If only we liberals among the left side of the spectrum could split the difference the way those on the right have, we could actually take the government back over the next few election cycles. Nothing is black and white Che – you must see the lesser of two evils. Clinton, even with his faults, is far better than Bush, and any other republican I’ve seen in the last few decades.
ps – sorry for the long-windedness
November 5th, 2005 at 1:19 amOf course, Clinton did not instigate the sanctions, the were first put in place by Bush I.
Comment by Andrew G. — November 5, 2005 @ 1:05 am
You are correct. However, while Clinton was not the one who implemented the sanctions, he did support them. I am merely asking if this was the right thing to do.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:19 amn00b,
Sure there is. Your question was hostile in its construction – but a passive aggressive like you must get that a lot.
Post #196: “For example, does everyone here agree that the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions (which Clinton supported) is indeed a price worth paying?”
Explain to me why you find this question hostile?
November 5th, 2005 at 1:22 amI can see that no one here is interested in a genuine discussion–only calling other people trolls and republicans…
November 5th, 2005 at 1:27 amn00b,
The question is a difficult one to answer.
1) Because the dead children were not the goal, and in fact Clinton made an effort to prevent it.
2) Because the alternative was MORE dead children if the bush sanctions were continued.
3) Because the result of removed sanctions was unclear until international officials could be sure that Saddam wouldn’t just immediately re-arm.
4) Because removing a foreign government just because you don’t agree with them is not accepted in international law.
I’d be happy to have a serious discussion, but the very strawman argument you post indicates you are not. Stop being a hypocrite and acting like a twit, and you’ll get a REAL discussion. Republicans tend to have limited capacities to be anything but twits however as you and Che demonstrate.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:31 amAnd n00b,
One more CRITICAL point. The amount of money that was allocated in the food for oil was used effectively by the kurds to feed their people. Meaning that Saddam intentionally starved his own people over the decade of sanctions. While I find that to be a humanitarian disaster, we’ve killed iraqis at as high or a higher rate since our invasion. So in otherwords, was Clinton’s choice, better or worse than the alternatives. As bush’s crazy war indicates, it very well may have been the least deadly of all available alternatives, and this is what Albright was trying to explain.
See that’s what a REAL political discussion is, and it’s something republicans and hacks are generally incapable of having or understanding.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:34 amI’d be happy to have a serious discussion, but the very strawman argument you post indicates you are not. Stop being a hypocrite and acting like a twit, and you’ll get a REAL discussion. Republicans tend to have limited capacities to be anything but twits however as you and Che demonstrate.
Comment by Ryan Neat — November 5, 2005 @ 1:31 am
How am I being a hypocrite? If you were indeed interested in a serious discussion, you would certainly not be calling me a twit. I see how it works now. First, call people names. Then claim that you want to carry on a legitimate discussion. Right.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:36 am#226 (n00b) – you are right. At this point in time, on this site, no one is interested in a discussion of the imperfections of Clinton’s foreign policy – except you and the troll, of course.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:37 am#223 (huse) – That che may have been a trotzkyite, an anarchist or a neo-con. It is irrelevant – he behaved like a troll, and he was treated like one.
Ryan,
Once again, I never have and never will support the current war in Iraq. That issue is irrelevent here. I am NOT trying to legitimize Bush’s invasion. What I AM trying to understand is why we (as a country) seem to have such a longstanding obsession with Saddam Hussein. Why were the sanctions placed on Iraq necessary?
November 5th, 2005 at 1:42 amThe freaks who blame Clinton are the freaks that want to get in his pants. (At least thats my assessment)
Everybody on the planet understands that Papa Bushie, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove initiated the middle east conflict. Way before Clinton held the Presidency.
The oil for food program was initiated to stop the suffering of the Iraqi people and we all know that the program was abused. By an American oil company no less.
Iraqs hellish nightmare began with a Bush and continues with a Bush.
Get a clue already you stupid republicans. Its about the profit for the oil companies and the Cheney companies.
The bird flu profits go to Rumsfeld, thats his reward for being a shmuck criminal.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:46 amtwoplustwoisfour,
You talk like a hypocrite. Why should the policies of Clinton be exempted from criticism? Should liberals or democrats never scrutinize one of their own? Explain to me how this is any different from how republicans operate.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:47 amn00b, you’re a boob. Finish your Clinton fantasy and get on with it already. Wash your hands when your done.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:54 amCould it be that Clinton too was fed neo-con-doctored intelligence on Iraq? Possible. But this is not the time or the place for a critique of Clinton’s policies. n00b, as for my taking your bait, you may as well forget it.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:59 am#230 (twoplustwoisfour) – I agree: he did behave like a troll and he most certainly was treated like one. All I’m saying is that this very thing happened on a national scale in 2000 and 2004 (Nader, Dean, etc), and now we’re stuck with bush. I understand that the primary system has a purpose, but a few people have mentioned the need to fight fire with fire. If liberals could come together like conservatives do, we would have a more competent and conscientious president and the world would be a better place. No point really, just an observation…..
November 5th, 2005 at 2:05 amYou talk like a hypocrite. Why should the policies of Clinton be exempted from criticism? Should liberals or democrats never scrutinize one of their own? Explain to me how this is any different from how republicans operate. – comment by n00b @ 1:47 am
Those who still think n00b is a good-faith naive progressive would do well to check this post for similarities to those of the other trolls.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:05 am“If liberals could come together like conservatives do,”
Conservatives are divided. Bush has lost at least 50% of his base.
Add his discontented base with liberals, democrats and independents = majority that oppose.
This country is more united than ever, United in Impeaching Bush and Cheney.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:09 amn00b is a b00b.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:11 am#236 (huse): Forget about the Nader types, they will NEVER play as part of a team. The good news is, they had nothing to do with the outcome of the last election, and they won’t the next time around, either.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:12 amSusan,
Such comments are uncalled for. If you wish to reply to my posts, then address the issues.
twoplustwoisfour,
“But this is not the time or the place for a critique of Clinton’s policies.”
Oh ok. So this place is just good for Bush bashing. Nothing substantive. Alright then.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:12 amWant something substantive? What if the neo-cons fed Clinton the same BS they fed Congress?
November 5th, 2005 at 2:17 amIf I am to be called a troll, then what is a troll exactly? Anyone who voices any sort of disagreement?
It is not my purpose here to demonize Clinton. My point is (following up on what Che said) that there are problems with the policies of both democratic and republican administrations. Go ahead and call me a republican. You are not better yourself if you fail to assess the issues objectively.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:19 amYour a b00b n00b. Your posts are irrelevent and full of nonsense. You dont deserve my attention. You are what we call a waste of skin.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:20 amSusan,
I’m not sure what kind of “liberal” you are. Your comments are offensive to say the least.
If don’t agree with me–fine. Just don’t try to insult me.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:22 amAre you going to cry now n00b?
November 5th, 2005 at 2:28 amChe-
In the 90’s when I was doing business in Europe and SE Asia, most people I met loved Clinton,, and by extension, the US. The imprtession I get today is that the people I meet pretty much think we are a bunch of assholes. Worse, they understood the Bush was installed pResident, but this time they think he was elected…now they wonder about us as a people. Really sad.
You got a lot of negative things to say about Clinton, but you are oddly silent on Bush….for an such an outspoken anti-imperialist, I’d think you’d be a little more concerned with the present and the real blueprint for American imperialism – The Project for the New American Century.
Che…you’re not really fooling anybody here.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:07 amBomb Argentina! Traitorous muslim bastards!
November 5th, 2005 at 3:52 amSusan,
In reference to how ChimpBush looked all fat and haggard. There’s only one reason: He needs a drink!
Him and the Stepford wife.
Rove, Libby, Cheney, Miers, delay of the Alito confirmation, DeLay’s attempted delay of his
long awaited tar and feathering, the Astros lost to
the superior White Sox, Argentina hates him, the U.N.
hates him, the majority of the world hating him,etc.
That’s enough to give him a drinkee poo.
But don’t give any to Laura. She kills people when she’s DUI.
To Che,
November 5th, 2005 at 3:55 amRyan Neat took you to school, kid! :)
n00b,
I not only discredited your strawman argument, I gave you a detailed and bullet point list of the situation, to which you replied childishly and without point. I call you names, because you reflect the juvenile, sophomoric and childish nature that deserves that response. Learn to ask adult questions, and have adult conversations and I will treat you as one. Continue to act as a child, and I will continue to respond to you as one.
So to re-iterate since your as stupid as you are blind and seem to need it.
1) The clinton plan in iraq with the food for oil was to reduce suffering. It helped, it didn’t completely remove all suffering.
2) You dismiss the current war, but that’s foolish and retarded. The consequences current war is an example of why sanctions are generally used. The invasion of Kuwait is why those sanctions weren’t lifted lightly.
3) You talk about the dying children in iraq, but at least clinton was working to reduce that suffering, where was Bush during Darfur? Drunk or asleep?
4) Where is bush now when 100k+ civilians have been killed in iraq, and the iraqis themselves say they are WORSE NOW THAN UNDER SANCTIONS.
In light of the harsh reality of this prince of ineptitude, Clinton is a dream – and THAT’S reality. You and che live in a stupid childish and petty fantasy!
November 5th, 2005 at 4:26 amThe Trollish Question
It is often difficult to distinguish between an actual GOPstapo troll and a dumbass, fence-sitting, middle of the road, centrist wimp,(you can’t call them independents because they don’t think or act independently, they just are too chickenshit to commit), who has been brainwashed by the last 35 years of conservative, right wing bullshit. It doesn’t really matter because both are dead wrong, and it’s our way or the wrong way, fool, and we are taking a hard left! You don’t like it? Vote Republican! Bwahahahahaha!
November 5th, 2005 at 6:12 amCould it be that Clinton too was fed neo-con-doctored intelligence on Iraq? Possible. But this is not the time or the place for a critique of Clinton’s policies. n00b, as for my taking your bait, you may as well forget it.
Comment by twoplustwoisfour
Yes he was. Google that fat cow Laurie Mylroie, who just happened to write a book with… Judith Miller! Mylroie was an advisor to the Big Dog in 1992. Look, Clinton was the best Republican preznit this country has had since Eisenhower. My criticisms of Clinton are that he was a centrist wimp who tried to build a consensus government with the right. He was a uniter. Fvck that! Kill the right! Make conservatism history. They don’t deserve to live. They are not interested in government by consensus. If we are going to have one party rule in this country, it’s going to be liberal Democrats. Got a problem with that? Head to Mexico and don’t come back. Except they don’t want your lame ass, lily white fascist ass, either.
Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
Friedrich Hayek
November 5th, 2005 at 6:22 amn00b, as I asked in #144,why is a defense of Bush usually an attack on Clinton? There’s nothing wrong with an appropriate discussion of Bush vs Clinton. However, in so many of these posts (or letters to the editor in your daily paper, on talk shows, or over dinner with friends, etc) the issue will be about Bush and his administration’s failed policy. And, in no time, a Bush defender will drag in Clinton and his wife. At that point the discussion never gets back to Bush and the deeply felt hurt that, thank god, more and more Americans are finally waking up and feeling about the long term damage he is doing to this country. My response is usually, what is it/can’t we forget about Clinton and talk about Bush? Clinton’s been gone for about five years.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:45 amSTOP GROUPING!!!!
ACT AS ONE!!!
American Citizens FIRst!
Stop MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER!!
STOP MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER!!
The Iron is HOT.
Do not BURN THYselfs.
Carefully WE GO.
You Have BEEN ‘ECHOED’ AGAIN!!
STOP YOur BIAS!!!
BREAK THAT CYCLE!!
Debate Kindly. –AJ
November 5th, 2005 at 7:46 amWhen people watch violence every day on their TV, and become indifferent to the number of dead, they tend to become violent too. Violence brings violence… All over the world, Latin America included, people tried to peacefully stop the war. We lived at peace and in peace during Clinton years… with a few rapid and necessary exceptions, not this futile and never-ending war in Iraq. If the Supreme Court of the US had not elected Bush, we would still be at peace. That’s the general feeling… Bush said: “you’re either with us or against us” – no middle term. Being a pacifist doesn’t mean your “against us”. And the daily frustration just grows and grows, bringing more violence…
November 5th, 2005 at 8:28 amOpie, I agree. What’s the point dragging the past (Clinton) into a discussion of the present (Bush). If the logic is that Clinton “did it too” or was just as bad as Bush, so what? Two wrongs don’t make Bush right. The whole point of Bush’s campaign was to break with the past, restore honor to the White House, cut back on big government, reduce spending, give people a stake in the economy, control over their social security, etc. So if the argument is that Bush merely did what Clinton did, then by definition Bush has failed. Of course Bush’s failings are far more profound than that. Before he took office there were budget surpluses piled as high as the foreseeable future, we were at peace, FEMA was a well respected, competent federal agency headed by a professional disaster relief expert, the US was respected by its European allies and most elsewhere around the world, gas was about $1.30 a gallon, etc. The only reason to mention Clinton in the context of Bush is to show where we started with this Bozo and how far we have fallen. Thank god polls now show 58% question Bush’s integrity and 60% view him more negatively than positively. It’s time for a change . . .
November 5th, 2005 at 9:09 amClinton also helped bring peace to Northern Ireland that year… he was a true uniter; Bush has cut us off from the rest of the world…
November 5th, 2005 at 9:39 amMama, I agree. I simply can’t understand the “defend Bush (or any republican, for that matter)at any cost” attitude. How is it possibly good that this country is at each other’s throat, but hey, why should I care, I’m in the 51% majority that won the 2004 election. You don’t have to be brilliant to realize that before long the poor, dumb souls in many of the red states are going to re-arrange their priorities. A couple of women who want to marry in Massachusetts won’t matter when their financial and health affairs will stick them for a lifetime of misery with no way out.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:48 amBill Maher says after Roe v. Wade is overturned and the Red States ban abortion, those who need or want to terminate pregnacies will have only one alternative: Travel to a Blue State for an abortion. He suggests it will give a whole new meaning to What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:05 amSo, if abortion is overturned, we’re left with individual states deciding a woman’s choice, when in actuality, a woman’s choice is a human/civil rights issue. Pretty sad, isn’t it?
November 5th, 2005 at 10:07 amThe trouble with this bit of Clintonostalgia is that you never will know where his hands were just before this picture was taken.
November 5th, 2005 at 11:36 amWow, the trolls came out in number last night. I wish I would have been on to debunk some of their lies.
Oh yeah and did you hear the music yeseterday?
“Down with Bush, Down with Bush, Down with Bush.”
I’m gonna buy that new CD. It is from some new group in Argentine. I’ve never really been into Latin music before, but everybodies tastes change.
November 5th, 2005 at 11:40 am#261, I’d prefer having a guy who was good at foreign relations and had affairs than one who alienates the rest of the world and sniffs coke…maybe thats just me?
How much cocaine do you do BSR? Drink a lot too?
November 5th, 2005 at 11:41 amBlue State Red, where Clinton’s hands were is none of our business. Where Bush’s hands are is a matter of national security . . . everything this guy touches turns to shit. Keep your eye on the ball and stop playing last week’s game. It’s over.
November 5th, 2005 at 11:53 am#261
Who gives a fvck where Clinton’s hands were. The world laughed at the US when we impeached Clinton for a blow job. That is the minute you republican terds started looking bad in front of the world. That is why there was international outrage when Bush was elected in 2000 and even more shock at the fact that he was reelected.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:05 pmHey Spudgeboy, is it terd or turd? And Bush wasn’t really elected in 2000, unless the only votes that court are the five on the US Supreme Court . . . .
November 5th, 2005 at 12:24 pmHmmmmmmm.
Terd, turd, terd, turd.
I don’t know.
Which one you like better?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:28 pmHey Spudgeboy, I meant COUNT not court as in Bush wasn’t really elected in 2000, unless the only votes that count are the five on the US Supreme Court . . . .
November 5th, 2005 at 12:32 pmMama,
I agree with that 100%. Bush hasn’t won an election yet. He stole the election with the help of his brother Jeb and Kathleen Harris and he won Ohio in 2004 thanks to Diebold electronic voting machines.
I am in the technology industry and there was a big stink that was made long before the 2004 election. Diebold post the machines operating system to an unsecured FTP site and it was downloaded by numerous people. None of this was ever mentioned during the 2004 election. I wonder why.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:47 pmClinton is in the past now, we have to let go and move forward. The argument between Ryan and Che was pointless, it does not address our current state of affairs. The fact is that world wide opinion for the U.S is lower due to the foreign (and in small part, domestic) policies of President Bush. Anyone in the U.S who would argue this point is obviously not paying attention. Conservatives have always argued for more isolationist policies but unfortunately the neo-conservative movement has hijacked this gov’t and is using the mainstream media to communicate their ideas. Real conservatives (which are a minority these days) are appalled by our current state. They would never approve of the expansion of gov’t, the deficit, and invasion of Iraq. These are not true conservative policies. Strong defense, yes, but not sticking your nose into other countries bussiness.
What we have now is a dangerous form of conservatism that is bordering on the edge of destruction. It is driven by the fuel for power, money and national idealism. You only have to look through the clutter of mainstream media to realize this. In the U.S we are bombarded by different ideas and visions of the future but in other countries– where our media is absent– you have people who are equipped with a fresh and untainted view. And as we can see from a world consensus, we are in deep doo doo as a country. And this is exactly why the neo-conservative movement wants us to ignore the rest of the world. They don’t want us to get ideas.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:54 pmInteresting, very interesting this diabolical diebold system . . . What’s going to happen in 2008? What sort of shenanagins will we see with the vote then?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:57 pm#270
“Strong defense, yes, but not sticking your nose into other countries bussiness.”
Considering that we have had massive base closings and the response to Katrina, I would argue that we do not have good defense. Quite the opposite.
#271
November 5th, 2005 at 1:08 pmDemocrats are moving to get new machines that at least have a paper trail, but that won’t happen until like 2010. That is not soon enough. I can tell you as somebody that is in the technology industry, computers are not secure. Period. It was a bad idea to even use electronic voting machines in the first place.
#243
“It is not my purpose here to demonize Clinton…”
Yaaaawn…
November 5th, 2005 at 1:17 pm[...] The right is, as usual, gnashing its teeth over Hugo Chavez and the protests against Bush in Argentina. But let’s step back for a moment: how far have we fallen when a leftist Latin American strongman is more persuasive in the international arena than the freaking President of the United States? [...]
November 5th, 2005 at 1:56 pmI agree with that 100%. Bush hasn’t won an election yet. He stole the election with the help of his brother Jeb and Kathleen Harris and he won Ohio in 2004 thanks to Diebold electronic voting machines.
He might have won the Governor’s race in Texas, which is why I’d call him Mr. Bush or Governor Bush, like George Carlin, but I usually just call him shithead. People are just now realizing how blessed we were to have had Clinton for 8 years, and why the right went to the greatest lengths in their history to demonize and destroy him. This is why the right in this country must be destroyed. They are the true evil in this world and the enemy of us all.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:25 pmAnd no, Clinton wasn’t perfect. You don’t get perfection in presidents or many other things, but he was 100% better than what we have now, with the possible exception of trusting, and trying to work with the right as much as he did, but that was then and this is now and we have all seen what the right does when they are in total control and we can never let that happen again, and anyone who says different is a fvcking moron.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:29 pmI agree Jake. Anybody who thinks we are better off without Clinton is really stuck in the sand. And I think people are really starting to wake up to the disaster that we are in because of the republican dominace in gov’t. I mean, seriously folks, are we really better off now???? NO way, we are not better off, that is a dream! It’s like people are under this hypnosis in their lives.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:46 pm#269 SB, The GAO released a report on all of the failures and concerns about electronic voting machines. That have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:07 pmThe report came out about two weeks ago — did anyone see it in the corporate-owned media?
#269
And remember, the first newschannel to claim that Bush won Florida in 2000 was Fox News and one of the people who called it in was Bush’s cousin.
For more on this, watch Fahrenheit 9/11.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:16 pmWhen Bill Clinton traveled overseas as President, or travels overseas now,he’s treated like a rock star on tour.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:24 pmWHen George W. travels overseas, he’s treated like an alledged serial killer on trial.
I wish we could see that contrast on the news in our coutnry.
I diodn’t vote for Clinton either time he ran and most of the people around me hated his guts, but oh how I mis that draft-doding moral reprobate who smoked but didn’t inhale. He was suhc a good leader and we were so looked up to then.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:27 pmAnyone here,
Would you rather get a blowjob, or piss of the entire muslim world, half of your own country, and millions of other miscellanious people in other countries? A tough choice.
And Che,
November 5th, 2005 at 3:33 pmYou lost your mojo after complaining about the name-calling and then calling people assclowns, but hypocracy is probably your style.
Our former President Clinton is a good man. Clinton is still popular in the USA and in other countries. How we every got stuck with Old Bushie I will never know.
We need to move on and get this nut out of office. Soon I hope!!!!
November 5th, 2005 at 5:02 pm#279 Anyone who actually references Michael Moore as a credible source needs some smelling salts. As for the Bush trip, who the hell cares about a bunch of ignorant, food-throwing psychos in Argentina, who are no doubt being spurred on by professional anti-Bush protesters?
November 5th, 2005 at 5:42 pmThat’s the spirit Real American. If someone is different from you…
November 5th, 2005 at 5:46 pmReal American, you ever consider that the Argentineans look at us as a bunch of ignorant, food-throwing psychos who are no doubt being spurred on by the Bush organized crime administration. Of course, one of us has to be wrong and we know it’s not us. Right?
November 5th, 2005 at 5:51 pmIt’s more than a hatred of liberals and Moore. It’s hostility toward diversity and other cultures. That’s why right wingers are the ones who need to move, preferably to their own island where there is no diversity and only one culture.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:13 pm#279 Anyone who actually references Michael Moore as a credible source needs some smelling salts. As for the Bush trip, who the hell cares about a bunch of ignorant, food-throwing psychos in Argentina, who are no doubt being spurred on by professional anti-Bush protesters?
Comment by A real American
This entire country is comprised of Professional anti-Bush supporters. Most of us work pro bono. Get out. We don’t want you here. Leave while you can.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:38 pmI say “supporters” because you, the minority, are the “protestors”, the radical wingnut fringe. Bush is history. He won’t see the end of his term. Get out of our country, dirt bag. We don’t want you here, and take that whole pile of shit that is the Bush family with you.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:42 pmHey, when did cowboys get such a bad rep? Bush would not make much of a cowboy in the old west…
November 5th, 2005 at 8:15 pm#291 Anonymous or who ever you are, please lighten up. will ya.? Enough already, posting these long same old posts on every thread several times is making us all weary. It’s taking up huge blocks of space and now makes me think you diserve to be chastized like the fool trolls.We have all read them, now get off and go away..
November 5th, 2005 at 8:17 pm#292 Do you remember the term drug store cowboy.? Well now we have a pres. who is a druged phony cowboy. Probably never worked with cow’s and horses and only took on the accent of texas to get over being from kennybunkpork, mainly. Ha Ha! True mainers are probably just as happy his lieing ass isn’t there also. Wish he would stay in Argentina.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:24 pmReal American,
After reading some of the rebuttals to your stupid
assuption on Argentina as well as my needing smelling salts, you might as well use mine, cuz’ YOU JUST GOT SCHOOLED, BITCH!
Have a nice day! :)
November 6th, 2005 at 3:10 amI not only cringe when I think of Bush, I get sick to my stomach. I certainly hope that this outpouring of disenchantment with our current president and his cronies follows through to a “house cleaning” in 2006 and 2008, and I hope that all of thedamage that has been done can be reversed so that we all can once again say that we are proud to be Americans.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:08 ami like clinton. i enjoy his presidency as i never worry about being cheated by government, never worry about the direction of the country, never worry about expressing opinions. i think he’s the best president we’ve ever had. bush, otherwise, has shown me worst presidency you can ever have. A lot of crooks working under him, and so is he. as i said it, i’m worried about getting arrested because of my comment. i’m worried about my business. i’m even worried about US will not be the best interest of my investments (low interest, high risk). i can’t sleep thinking what’s going to happen tomorrow. a lot of uncertainity. i just want to have my good ol’ time back, even half of it, i would be satisfied. darn, i set the standard low enough already.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:10 amFaiz,
November 6th, 2005 at 4:50 pmIn all due respect what drives progressives/liberals to think they must always be fair? Are the flat-earthers ever fair? Heaven’s NO! When will those on the left learn that to give a right winger an inch they will take a mile.
Your report on how much the illegal brat is hated in the Americas and how much Clinton was loved was all you needed to say.
Mimi
Hey guys, A real american may have a point . . . we should all know by now that food isn’t meant to be thrown in childish protest; it’s meant to be used as a weapon to hold over poorer nations to gain compliance with first world economic policies. By the way, when did Bush hating become a profession, and how come there aren’t more bush hating pros in the US? Maybe it’s time we threw some food . . . .
November 6th, 2005 at 5:58 pmHey, when did cowboys get such a bad rep? Bush would not make much of a cowboy in the old west…
Comment by Charlie
Real cowboys are working people. They may not have a union but they would prolly be Democrats.
Mimi and Mama are right. Screw being fair. Fight as down and dirty as it takes. Throw food at them, too. Just lace it with rat poison first.
November 6th, 2005 at 7:18 pmThe bottom line is…again, Bushie failed…he couldn’t get any support for his free trade agreement..
BUSHIE IS A FAILURE AT EVERYTHING HE DOES!
November 6th, 2005 at 7:32 pmFor every Bushie failure lets declare a food fight.
(If you cant afford to waste good food, dumpster dive at Wendy’s for all of your food fighting needs)
November 6th, 2005 at 7:36 pmHo boy. I sure do like reading TP stories about how awful Republicans are. And I sure do hate reading TP stories about how great Democrats are. Yes, Clinton was much better than Bush. No, Clinton was NOT a good president. He bombed, he oppressed, he lied. Just like Bush. TP should stick to criticizing Republicans–it’s safe territory. When you start saying good things about bad people like Clinton, you’re opening yourself up to all kinds of scrutiny.
November 6th, 2005 at 11:32 pmThe bottom line is…again, Bushie failed…he couldn’t get any support for his free trade agreement..
BUSHIE IS A FAILURE AT EVERYTHING HE DOES!
Comment by Susan
He didn’t get much support from the mob but he got what he wanted from all the nations except Venezuela.
In any case, why would any American be concerned what a bunch of residents of third world shit-holes think about anything? What is it exactly they have to offer other than illegal immigrants? If Bush and America is so bad why don’t they stay home?
November 7th, 2005 at 9:04 amYou all remember Che dont you? The communist right hand man of the dictator of Cuba.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:06 amYou all remember Che dont you? The communist right hand man of the dictator of Cuba.
Comment by Pablo in Mexico
Yep, total loser but he did get his picture on a lot of t-shirts didn’t he?
November 7th, 2005 at 10:33 amThey will be the ones to face God for using him for their own agenda . Such a waste of lives in both sides.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:29 amThey will be the ones to face God for using him for their own agenda . Such a waste of lives in both sides.
Comment by Romelee
Huh?
November 7th, 2005 at 1:46 pmI always knew Maoists and other assorted and various communists would agree with TP.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:17 pmAnd MizzIIsWrongY, you’re the most immoral and unspiritual person who posts.
Comment by Ryan “vapors” Neat
Feeling better? That’s nice. I’m real happy that your AIDS cocktails are working out for you and allowing you to spread the disease. Nothing immoral about that I guess as long as you don’t screw any straight people.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:47 amUnbelievable!
November 8th, 2005 at 12:03 pmUnBelievable!
“WE DON’T TORTUREâ€
Bush said it in South America and Panama.
International audiences from Ecomomic Summit and they heard his words all over the world
USA TODAY headline 11-8-05 Bush “We do not tortureâ€.
Page 6A “Five soldiers charged with abuse of Iraq prisonersâ€
Pictures shown all over the world of abuse. Colonel to prison for torture.
Two soldiers in prison awaiting trial for killing an Iraq General by Beating and Suffocation.
Several soldiers are in prison awaiting trial for Torture of Iraqis.
37 prisoners died in our military prisons. Some brutally beaten.
What is wrong? How can the President of The United States make such a statement that is well known to be Wrong .
On International TV where millions heard him and know he is LYING!
Did he lie? Or, is it just he did not know better? He was out of the loop?
He does not watch TV. He only reads headlines of newspapers. Did his staff keep POW pictures from him?
He is kept out of the White House on vacation or speaking to his choir.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:04 pmThe Iraq Group—Cheney and Rumsfeld spread the lies to War without his knowledge.
His answer was not scripted so it could have been he did not know the truth.
This is a horrible mistake for all Americans.
The President of the United States goes on International TV and says something millions of viewers know to be false.
This statement will rank alongside –-Tonkin Bay attack—I did not swap arms for hostages—I did not have sex with that woman Miss Lewinsky—We have excellent proof they have WMD
AMERICA HAS BEEN SHAMED BEFORE THE WORLD.
Clarence Swinney–Political Historian–Burlington NC–cwswinney@netzero.net
AMERICA HAS BEEN SHAMED BEFORE THE WORLD.
Clarence Swinney–Political Historian–Burlington NC–cwswinney@netzero.net
Comment by clarence swinney
Get over it loser. It’s not as bad, it’s never as bad as you wish it were and as you portray it.
By the way Swiney, I still haven’t seen any proof of torture, and I mean real torture at Club Gitmo or Al Garabirabbi.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:05 pmHow many times have I said it? BUSH DOES SNIFF COCAINE!!! It is the truth… well, it has to be, how eles to explain his moronic behavior? His lies? His misleading paths he has set for America? His horibble, horrible grammar? If I ever met him, I’d spit in his smug face and yell, “WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!! DO YOU KNOW THAT THE OTHER COUNTRIES HATE US, ALL BECAUSE OF YOU!!! YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” And much, much more.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:58 pm