| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
 Posted - 11/02/2006 : 20:54:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Wanna read a book that 'tells it like it is?' I recommend this book, 'Fiasco'. I consider it to be a pro-troops book, because the author, a professional military reporter, interviewed soldiers and officers, and one of the points he makes is how the bureaucrats and politicians disregard the advice and experience of their military experts (and also the advice of Middle East experts).
You'll like this EM; there's a video on this FIASCO page of Maher interviewing writer Thomas E. Ricks.
Yes - Iraq gets more like Viet Nam by the second. |
 |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 21:29:11
|
FIASCO is the best book I've yet read on the Iraq war, for these reasons:
1) The author is a longtime military reporter and knows the Pentagon inside and out -- he's not a saber-rattling dilettante;
2) He gives credit where credit is due, and there is quite a bit due to certain commanders [anything completely one-sided automatically makes me suspect];
3) He dissects the war and subsequent occupation inch by inch.
Once you're finished, after absorbing all the details, and you go back to the insert photo of George W. Bush hanging the Presidential Medal of Freedom around the neck of frickin Tommy Franks [that same day, Bush similarly rewarded George Tenet and Paul Bremer, making this nominally solemn ceremony a laughable circlejerk -- only Rumsfeld can approach these four particular individuals in achieving dumbass, easily-preventable damage to Iraq], you really wish you could turn the clock back, and not just to 2003.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 21:54:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
Bill Maher was fired from ABC largely because he said the 9/11 hijackers were heroic. His point was that the people on the planes and in the towers weren't heroic - well that may be true save for the fire fighters and police officers, but it's in ridiculously poor taste.
No, Turrell, that is not what Bill Maher said. He never called them heroes. That is conservative talk-show bullshit spin, though I don't blame you if you actually believe it's true, since such tripe has been force-fed down all of our gullets for five years now.
The talk was going round that this was a cowardly attack. Good sound bite, and see below*: it's true! Maher's offending statement was essentially, "Say what you will, but the hijackers were not cowards." He was pointing out that when you give up your very life to a cause, fucked though the cause may be, that is not cowardice! He said something else about our guys dropping bombs from computer screens far away which I found overreaching, but I had to agree: the individual hijackers aboard the 9/11 planes were not cowards. You have to agree that this is a long way away from calling them heroes. Haven't you? [*Want a coward? Osama himself. Sending young guys to do his deadly work for him. Hmmm...just thinking...]
[Shortly after this was broadcast, the White House press secretary told us, "Watch what you say." I love freedom!]
This one should go into the bullshit file alongside Al Gore's "I invented the Internet." He never said any such thing. What he did say was that he was an early supporter in Congress of, and one of the first to imagine the potential in, properly funding ARPA, which did invent the substructure of the Internet, and goddammit, he deserves credit for his pioneering Congressional support. |
Edited by - randall on 11/02/2006 22:34:48 |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 22:34:05
|
That may be true but Al Gore should be ashamed for inventing global warming - if those ice caps all melt who will buy the Patagonia fleece coats?
And though I don't listen to conservative talk radio I still think it was in poor taste given the climate of the times and perhaps we over-reacted and made it worse because it seemed so shocking at the time. I disagree with what Ann Coulter had to say about the 9/11 widows, but it could be argued there was some truth in what she said that SOME of them are taking advantage of the publicity. In both cases, two very pointed people made comments about a hyper-sensitive toopic that they had to know would upset a lot of people. I think they have the right to say that, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a way to win favour (for you Salopian).
As for Gore he has been known to employ hyperbole and I have flaunted this misquote in a review for An Inconvenient Truth: http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=14718&start=10 |
Edited by - turrell on 11/02/2006 22:47:11 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 23:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
I disagree with what Ann Coulter had to say about the 9/11 widows, but it could be argued there was some truth in what she said that SOME of them are taking advantage of the publicity.
As David Letterman asked Bill O'Reilly, how could you possibly understand what they are feeling? |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 00:00:18
|
| I put Bill Maher slightly higher on the list of respectable humans than Ann Coulter - but similarly how could you knwo how the terrorists felt. Suicide is cowardly - especially when you take out innocent people in the process. I think Bill and Ann should date they might kill each other and we could be rid of them. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 18:42:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7urrell
I put Bill Maher slightly higher on the list of respectable humans than Ann Coulter - but similarly how could you knwo how the terrorists felt. Suicide is cowardly - especially when you take out innocent people in the process. I think Bill and Ann should date they might kill each other and we could be rid of them.
She's been on his show before [I think they actually are friends], and he's a well-known horndog. That might be a match made in heaven indeed, and might get rid of a big problem for each of us. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 22:40:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
She's been on his show before [I think they actually are friends], and he's a well-known horndog. That might be a match made in heaven indeed, and might get rid of a big problem for each of us.
They would be the socially irresponsible equivalent to James Carville and Mary Matalin - always thought this was an interesting relationship.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery 
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 15:59:54
|
Along similar discussion points, has anyone seen "Hacking Democracy"?
It makes my heart ache.
We're supposed to vote tomorrow. Will it even matter? If you watch "Hacking Democracy", you get a feeling that the outcome is already decided by the private companies who have designed the software and are heavily tied to the Republican party.
EM :)
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 16:26:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Along similar discussion points, has anyone seen "Hacking Democracy"?
It makes my heart ache.
We're supposed to vote tomorrow. Will it even matter? If you watch "Hacking Democracy", you get a feeling that the outcome is already decided by the private companies who have designed the software and are heavily tied to the Republican party.
EM :)
So, EM - do you know who you're going to vote for? Are you even going to bother voting? Do you think that voter turnout will be large (over 60%) or small (in the low 50% range)?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 18:46:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
So, EM - do you know who you're going to vote for? Are you even going to bother voting? Do you think that voter turnout will be large (over 60%) or small (in the low 50% range)?
Just curious.
I will vote. But, not sure what to expect, especially after seeing that the vote tabulating has been handed to private business, three corporations in particular and one in particular is very pro- Republican in nature. Not sure what to think. Like I said, it bothers me greatly. If we aren't a nation that is free and run by the people, then what are we? We already have a press that is owned (a ridiculous percentage) by Rupert Murdoch and his Right Wing agenda. So, no free press and now - no one vote, one person.
America, where have you gone?
EM :)
|
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 19:48:00
|
| We use the very technologically advanced system of paper and pencil. No stuffed up chads for us. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 22:43:58
|
I will vote tomorrow too, but then I live in a very blue state where the major races, even Presidential ones, are pre-ordained. My state's junior senator will handily win her second term [with my vote], so will the a.g. who is running for governor [my vote there too -- relieved to finally hand the statehouse back to the Democrats after a puzzling too-many years in the custody of a collossally impotent Republican empty suit who couldn't even persuade his own party's president to let loose with the promised national security money for the place that ACTUALLY WAS FUCKING ATTACKED, but don't get me started on that: Orleanians know damn well what I'm talkin bout], and, with reservations, Andrew Cuomo for a.g., because this Pirro woman is beyond belief: she's our own Katherine Harris.
I am a registered Democrat and my wife is a registered Republican. Normally I wouldn't be caught dead as a registered anything, but we both went to the trouble because in New York, you can only vote in the party's primary if you're a registered party member. We don't really argue about politics, though; we both feel pretty much the same way on social issues. We're both what you would call "moderates". We both try to vote for the person, not the party [I voted to re-elect both Giuliani and Bloomberg, both nominal GOPers, and she thinks Bush et al. are just as big a bunch of bullying idiots as I do, and I presume she votes that way too...we don't debrief each other on election day].
I am old enough to remember a time when, if you were a candidate in school elections, etc., it was considered bad form to vote for yourself. The honorable thing to do was to cast your vote for your opponent. Isn't that quaint?
I'm not quite as paranoid about the elections as Monty is, except for one little thing: the smug pronouncements coming from both Bush and Rove, each saying they don't see the Dem firestorm coming. It was the same smirk we saw on election night 2004, when it looked like Kerry would carry Ohio but Bush was shown leaning back in his chair in happy relaxation. That time, both of them secretly knew better. Could it happen again? Could the Pubs hold on? Tune in in about 36 hours. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 23:01:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Along similar discussion points, has anyone seen "Hacking Democracy"?
It makes my heart ache.
We're supposed to vote tomorrow. Will it even matter? If you watch "Hacking Democracy", you get a feeling that the outcome is already decided by the private companies who have designed the software and are heavily tied to the Republican party.
EM :)
So, EM - do you know who you're going to vote for? Are you even going to bother voting? Do you think that voter turnout will be large (over 60%) or small (in the low 50% range)?
Just curious.
Chocky, I take your irony, believe me, but how did the 2000 US election do anything but bleat: "Thanks for going to all the trouble of voting, but your effort didn't really count. B'bye now." Hmmm? |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 07:44:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
We use the very technologically advanced system of paper and pencil. No stuffed up chads for us.
I'm a bit shocked about what EM said about the private business tabulation, and its possible partisan influence on the outcome of the election. That's a democracy?
Conan - your paper and pencil system is better, if you ask me.
As for our system, we have printed up papers with letters representing the party's name on the papers. We give the voters an envelope and they go into the booth and put the paper into the envelope and then they come out and put the envelope into the box. There's also a blank piece of paper for those who want to write a party in or vote for no one.
The people in the polling stations must each represent different parties, and hopefully are from different sides of the political field. We have to have four people manning the stations - usually one rep from each of the two major parties and then two more from two smaller parties. There are also any number of observers allowed, none of which can be from any of the parties that are manning the stations. There are also floating observers who are only allowed to be in the station for a minute or two, just to pick up statistics that their party rep is recording, or to check the protocol. But they can't enter the station if a voter is anywhere within the polling station room.
When the votes are counted, again, no more than one rep from a party is allowed in the room, the door is locked, and two people record the count while the other two read out the ballots. There are a whole lot more checks and balances to our system than I could describe here (I've worked for my party at polling stations many times).
It is a very fair system, despite it being a bit primative. There are plans to try an electronic system, but the idea of no more than one rep from any party being in the polling stations and all the checks and balances will most probably stay.
And Randall - I couldn't agree with you more. That Electoral College should be abolished. The American people (who actually go out and vote) know their minds by now and I don't think they need the EC anymore.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 11/07/2006 07:45:58 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why I Love Bill Maher!
