Oh, good. You know, I really should just stick to being the clown rather than getting all serious on people.

With that, I will take leave of this thread. It's giving me a headache.

:thumbsup:

I knew you were going to throw that comment back at me. :p
Again, I say that these "pretty speeches" are required to show the voter where you stand, and what you hope to accomplish.
To think that a poltician is EVER going to deliver everything he promises, is to be woefully naive.

Well, no matter how great a speech Clinton (or anyone) might give, and no matter how much hope he might be able to instill, it's a fact of life that not everyone will be convinced or interested in "buying what he's selling."

But it's a fact of the matter, that Clinton did obviously reach enough people to get elected... twice. Not to mention leaving office with a very impressive approval rating, despite the Lewinsky and Jones scandals.

Well, don't forget that we're considered Commies for disagreeing with the War In Iraq! :laugh:


And yet, others might still see what he's doing as "good." It's all in the angle from which you look at it. :shrug:


My interpretation of your feelings towards Stevie, is quite the opposite... but I just chalk that one up to some people never being able to see the light! ;) :p :laugh:

I assert he thinks he is trying to do good deeds and I think some of these were good deeds. From what you have said, you do not. Thus, our disagreement.

In post 67 - you said "Stop trafficking weapons. Start trafficking food, Jason. Stop exploiting, start helping to educate. Stop backing repressive dictators, start backing democratic political processes. Yes, after some years of doing this, the violence would stop. " - that is where I go that from.

From that you got this?

:confused: You don't see the difference?

I thought you were saying we should stop trying to control them for their oil and instead provide relief like food and education instead. That is what it sounded like to me. But, I see the diff. now. However, I stand by my argument that nothing we do will please the zealots in the Middle East. We could all die right here and now and they would still plot ways to disrespect our memory. They hate us that much. Note: when I say "they" - I am talking about the crazy zealots and NOT all Muslims.

Jason, you may be right about the zealots. But "they" wouldn't have the power they do, and would ultimately lose it, if we did some of the things I prescribed. Believe me, that kind of hate cannot be sustained if the zealots cannot find followers among people who are well fed and are given prospects in life. Just look at us Americans, for crying out loud. Do you think a third-party solution would be so outlandish if we weren't so well fed? (Overfed even, according to National Geographic.)

The Vietnamese and Japanese have every right in the world to hate us and want to destroy us. Yet, we've been able to get friendly with them.

We're all just people, after all.

The Japanese hate us?

Jason, you really need to start reading more carefully. Take a breath, then read it again:

you know what, you're right. The Japenese have much better reaasons for hating us then the middle eastern people yet they don't. We dropped freaking 2 nuclear bombs incinerating thousands of inocent people. But heh I guess the Japenese are forgiving :lol:

and back to the ORIGINAL topic I jumped out of my seat when Clinton came out to Don't Stop.

Could be. Or, as I suspect, they found a better way to fight back.

I cannot believe you are actually arguing the Japanese have just cause to hate us based on WWII - which THEY started. I am not buying that at all. THEY attacked us first, it was unprovoked, they aligned with Hitler, and they showed no signs of surrendering. So, they got what they awoke IMO. It is a little hard to feel sorry for them in that light. So, despite the horrible loss of life (it was a war after all and they certainly killed their share of our innocent civilians in Pearl Harbor), that was a war they not we started. They, not us, are to blame. Then, we helped them rebuild despite all of that and we have been on friendly status with them for well over 20 years. If they are mad still at us for ending what they started, they just need to get over it. We did not make that scene - they did.

Interestingly, I do find it strange that at least we knew the Japanese were a concrete identified enemy state. The current terrorists are not as identified. Other than Afganistan, which was harboring OBL, and SH, who certainly was a terrorist even if you do not agree with the war there. But, other than that, the rest is murky. Is Saudi Arabia a terrorist state? is Iran a terrorist state. North Korea is, but here is to hoping the Chinese will squash them if they get out of line. So, the war now is seemingly endless and without a face. That is very scary!!!!

True, Jason, and they are probably not the best example. I'm sure I could have come up with better ones. Oh well. But they've gotten us back, anyway, haven't they. ;)

By the way, the worst attrocities the Japanese committed in WWII were in China. They went on a horrible rampage of rape, violence and death in the city of Nanjing that had few precedents and probably has not been matched since.

Yes. And both Democrats and Republicans sure know how to play to those fears.

Nancy has declined to speak at their convention. :)