No person in any government position is a decent guy, who are we they fooling here?
Printable View
No person in any government position is a decent guy, who are we they fooling here?
Thats exactly right. Just exposing a very flawed arguement is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
You're right, he was probably thinking there wouldn't be a single casualty :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle....OK so you think Ronald Reagan ordered people to be killed first hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Either way it doesn't change what happened at Chappaquiddick
You're right it doesn't change what happened there, but it kind of shoots down your theory that Reagan was a decent guy if we apply the same standards that you do to Ted Kennedy.
LMFAO, Missy!!! Perfect!Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad MissyWhen did TJ Hooker get elected? I know it's a bit mental of you to let a really bad actor get the top job but Shatner did some good work before this?:oQuote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanThat "Royal Family" stuff kills me. The whole idea of royalty goes against everything for which this country stands. Call "American's more influential/well recognized/something else family", but we have no royalty here and it's actually an insult to them to call them royalty. Sam, George, TJ and the rest would not be happy about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
It's just so easy to use that vilify the man and dismiss any positive contributions that he has made. Chappaquiddick was an accident and cover up. It's not like Teddy wanted to kill Mary Jo. I promise you, that event haunted Kennedy for the rest of his life. And it should have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle....OK so you think Ronald Reagan ordered people to be killed first hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Either way it doesn't change what happened at Chappaquiddick
Not to be cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right. And nothing will change the fact that Reagan (and other US presidents) supported violent, repressive, right wing regimes in Central America (amongst other places) When you fund (illegally) the Republican Guard (Contras) of the Somoza family and call them "Freedom Fighters", you might as well be giving the direct order to exterminate. You don't think Reagan personally knew what was happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua? When you apply the domino theory to indigenous revolutions, even though they are left leaning and include some Communist factors, you have blood on your hands. We worked against democracy and the will of the people in those cases. Many regimes we supported where as evil as Saddam Hussein. Oh, yeah, we supported him during the Reagan Adminstration. Our Central America policies from the Reagan administration are still causing problems to this day.
None the less, I give Reagan credit for what he did right, and I understand he thought he was doing was good for America, even though I think some of his policies were immoral and go against the principles for which we stand.
Yes the Contra's were soooo much more evil than the Sandinista's :rolleyes:
How about the time Teddy Kennedy tried to work with the Soviets keep American missle defense systems out of Europe in 1983 at the height of the Cold War? Wasn't that patriotic of him :mad:
Actually, they were. Did you know that the only things the Sandinistas nationalisted was the personal holding of the Somoza family and his cronies? Fact. Your average personal in Nicaragua was much better off under the Sandinistas. They only reason they lost the election was that they wanted the US funded Civil War to stop, and they knew they old regime was gone for good. Oh, and Ortega was democratically re-elected in 2006. Sit down. You don't know crap about Central American politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Turn off Rush and Laura.
Ouch!!!...Where the hell have you been hiding Rozzy? Haven't seen you in these talks till recently.
I know enough about Central American politics to tell you they are all trying to be Che Guavera. And I know enough about American politics to admit we usually support people who help us out and usually those people are ok in the begining and then become corrupted.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Continue to bitch about anyone you want to, alll you can take from this little thread is that Ted Kennedy is dead and Lyle's happy about it. I know Reagan wasn't perfect, but he didn't kill anyone (personally) and he didn't sell out his country.
What does that even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleI know enough about Central American politics to tell you they are all trying to be Che Guavera. And I know enough about American politics to admit we usually support people who help us out and usually those people are ok in the begining and then become corrupted.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Continue to bitch about anyone you want to, alll you can take from this little thread is that Ted Kennedy is dead and Lyle's happy about it. I know Reagan wasn't perfect, but he didn't kill anyone (personally) and he didn't sell out his country.
That just shows his complete and utter ignorance about the history of Latin American, Sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhat does that even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleI know enough about Central American politics to tell you they are all trying to be Che Guavera. And I know enough about American politics to admit we usually support people who help us out and usually those people are ok in the begining and then become corrupted.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
Continue to bitch about anyone you want to, alll you can take from this little thread is that Ted Kennedy is dead and Lyle's happy about it. I know Reagan wasn't perfect, but he didn't kill anyone (personally) and he didn't sell out his country.
It was a slow summer for boxing, and I was busy as hell, first with my summer job, then getting reading to launch the new student program that I helped develop this spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
I like the gist of this, Andre. People debating a politician and how worthy he was? He was a politician so the debate ends there. Lyle is right in some sad respects, just look at Obama....dillying and dallying and coming across as the complete politician that he is....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
Clever people never run for office nor congress and that is a fact.
It means they are all Socialists which is why the populations they govern will always be poor or dumb or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanThat just shows his complete and utter ignorance about the history of Latin American, Sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Let's put my accusation to the test shall we?
What national leader of a Central American country was not or is not a Socialist in the style of Che Guavera? Hugo Chavez, I know that's South America rather than Central America, but still, my point still holds water. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua is a Sandinista. Roberto Michaletti who is trying to retain power in Honduras is no different than any of the other assholes I have mentioned. Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize Winner Oscar Arias is as liberal/socialist as they come. Manuel Esquivel of Belize....liberal. Mauricio Fuenes of El Salvador? He's no different than the rest. And finally Ricardo Martinelli of Panama???? He's another lefty....so where exactly am I wrong in my assertion that basically the entirety of Central America is run by Che Guavera wannabes???? The leaders are no different, and the outcomes they acheive are rarely any different, they rule over poor ignorant people and the leaders see no need to change that because it keeps them in check. What has socialism done for these people? It's driven the rich away and now they are left with farmers and sweat shops....bravo socialism, man where can I get some of that action :rolleyes:.
If you want to run a Central American country you only need a couple things:
1. Bravado...you have to rattle your saber like no other and thumb your nose in America's collective face.
2. Out dated Aviator glasses (I've actually got a pair so when you notice that their National Anthem is officially changed to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NshzYK9y0 then you will know I've succeeded in my coup) ;D
3. A snazzy Military cover (a hat for you civilians out there) to protect your bald head OR curly semi-fro'ed out hair.
4. Various speeches (made in soaring yet bellicose tone) about land reform and agriculture and how you are "of the people" and that you empathize with their "struggle vs the capitalist pigs"
5. The ability to manipulate large groups of people, but of course every politician needs that.
But back on topic, I don't like the nepotism of the Kennedy family, I think America is better than that and there are idiot people out there now, who get swept up in the celebrity of a person instead of what electing them means for the people...for example Sarah Palin(or Obama, but to be fair and balanced PALIN), I am not a fan of hers, her daughter might be hot as hell but I wouldn't vote for her just on account of that. I did vote for McCain, but hell I would have voted for him in 2000 as well but didn't get the chance and there is no way on Earth that I would ever vote for Al Gore. I would have rather McCain had chosen a different VP candidate, maybe Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty or Richard Burr or JC Watt, but oh well hindsight is 20/20.
I think the problem with the good guys is they get overshaddowed by the egomaniacal, glad handing, you scratch my back I'll scratch your back bastards. And that goes for both sides. Sorry I have to vent like this but NEVER does the left get called out unless they really fuck up and even then it's a crap shoot and maybe in a couple years everyone forgets, like when Sandy Berger tried to sneak classified material out of the National Archives in his pants. And then people just laugh about it instead of sending him to jail or something.
:vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleIt means they are all Socialists which is why the populations they govern will always be poor or dumb or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanThat just shows his complete and utter ignorance about the history of Latin American, Sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Let's put my accusation to the test shall we?
What national leader of a Central American country was not or is not a Socialist in the style of Che Guavera? Hugo Chavez, I know that's South America rather than Central America, but still, my point still holds water. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua is a Sandinista. Roberto Michaletti who is trying to retain power in Honduras is no different than any of the other assholes I have mentioned. Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize Winner Oscar Arias is as liberal/socialist as they come. Manuel Esquivel of Belize....liberal. Mauricio Fuenes of El Salvador? He's no different than the rest. And finally Ricardo Martinelli of Panama???? He's another lefty....so where exactly am I wrong in my assertion that basically the entirety of Central America is run by Che Guavera wannabes???? The leaders are no different, and the outcomes they acheive are rarely any different, they rule over poor ignorant people and the leaders see no need to change that because it keeps them in check. What has socialism done for these people? It's driven the rich away and now they are left with farmers and sweat shops....bravo socialism, man where can I get some of that action :rolleyes:.
If you want to run a Central American country you only need a couple things:
1. Bravado...you have to rattle your saber like no other and thumb your nose in America's collective face.
2. Out dated Aviator glasses (I've actually got a pair so when you notice that their National Anthem is officially changed to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NshzYK9y0 then you will know I've succeeded in my coup) ;D
3. A snazzy Military cover (a hat for you civilians out there) to protect your bald head OR curly semi-fro'ed out hair.
4. Various speeches (made in soaring yet bellicose tone) about land reform and agriculture and how you are "of the people" and that you empathize with their "struggle vs the capitalist pigs"
5. The ability to manipulate large groups of people, but of course every politician needs that.
But back on topic, I don't like the nepotism of the Kennedy family, I think America is better than that and there are idiot people out there now, who get swept up in the celebrity of a person instead of what electing them means for the people...for example Sarah Palin(or Obama, but to be fair and balanced PALIN), I am not a fan of hers, her daughter might be hot as hell but I wouldn't vote for her just on account of that. I did vote for McCain, but hell I would have voted for him in 2000 as well but didn't get the chance and there is no way on Earth that I would ever vote for Al Gore. I would have rather McCain had chosen a different VP candidate, maybe Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty or Richard Burr or JC Watt, but oh well hindsight is 20/20.
I think the problem with the good guys is they get overshaddowed by the egomaniacal, glad handing, you scratch my back I'll scratch your back bastards. And that goes for both sides. Sorry I have to vent like this but NEVER does the left get called out unless they really fuck up and even then it's a crap shoot and maybe in a couple years everyone forgets, like when Sandy Berger tried to sneak classified material out of the National Archives in his pants. And then people just laugh about it instead of sending him to jail or something.
You know, I almost went against my policy of not replying to threads like this anymore. I had a fairly long-winded response almost completely typed out, but what's the point of trying discussing things with someone who possesses such profound ignorance of the matters they love to shout about?
....hey man, when I started this post all I said was I didn't like Ted Kennedy and I'm happy he's dead. Can't I just bask in the one moment where Ted Kennedy made me happy??? There are people out there who didn't think he would ever be able to do that, but he did.
If people want to change the subject and get me talking about Central American politics, fine, but don't expect me to treat each harrassing post against my point of view with reverence.