Thursday Open Thread
In Iraq War news: the Marines wish to be reassigned out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Also, an attack on Camp Victory
left two dead, and Blackwater may be blacklisted in Iraq.
Economics: foreclosures may have leveled off as September showed a 2% dip compared to August, and the U.S. trade deficit
was the lowest in 7 months.
In the arts, Doris Lessing , an English author, won the Literature Nobel Prize.
If you can't laugh at torture , what can you laugh at? Thursday is here.
Submitted by Specter on Thu, 2007-10-11 09:11
Tags:

Comments :
Things to Love
Own the Day
Design Like You Give a Damn
Real world creative solutions to global problems offered up by Architects for Humanity
The open source competitive challenge
is put out to creative and talented architectural designers around the world to complete in practical designs of living for the future, especially in thrid world nations.
An exciting new frontier, seeking solutions to housing that respect the culture and the localitiy of the region. By allowing folks to have a home, sustain themselves, and work with their own hands to improve their own lives this will help stabilize impoverished regions of the world facing omnious challanges.
Much better than starting wars, and having US tax payer dollars go to mercenaries like Black Water to provide security ( and get priveleged contracts) after a crises.
Click on the link and look at this awesome photo.
This is a picture
of one of my favorites called WatAir, a simple system for extracting water from the air, The design was inspired by seeing dew drops that had collected on spiderwebs.
Seeking answers from the creative commons. All designs are rated on sustainability, innovative materials, and cost effectives.
I love this! Hurry! Only 96 more days to submit your competitive design and win a contract that could help save the world.
It is the economy, stupid.
President Jimmy Carter said on BBC yesterday that
Vice President Dick Cheney has been a disaster for our country
. He went on to say:
"He’s a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world."
"I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed. It was one of his main commitments to go into Iraq under false pretenses, and he still maintains those false pretenses are accurate."
Go over to this ThinkProgress post and watch the video.
Amen brother Jimmy. Tell the truth!
This from a man who allowed the Iranians to keep
American hostages for 444 days:
whose rescue attempt resulted in a crashed helicopter in the middle of the desert surrounding by dead service men/women:
and who was reportedly attacked by a killer rabbit while fishing:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Filed under:
The subheading of The Hillary as an assasin dairies.
I have a ton of respect for Jimmy Carter. He excercises free speech and provokes debate around important issues of the day.
ie: Is Dick Cheney a militant zealot itching to bomb Iran.
It is the economy, stupid.
and Carter is
an incompetent boob who had done nothing for this country as President except for lower both the American morale and our prestige in the world. Exercising free speech on its own is meaningless as anyone can do so. The question is whether his voice matters, and clearly he is not qualified to pass judgement on things beyond his feeble comprehension.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Slandering Presidents
is not the exclusive terroritory of the left, now is it.
It is the economy, stupid.
The liberal dictionary:
Slander: noun
1. Accurately describing a Liberal President's Record.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The conservative dictionary:
Traitor: noun
1. Accurately describing a conservative president's record.
Of course you have to resort to untruths.
We have already demonstrated that the liberals (and specifically you and missliberties) are constantly accusing Bush of lying when, in fact, he has not. This, among other things, is clearly inconsistent with claim "accurately describing".
In my case above I have merely referenced 3 very well known aspects of the Carter Presidency. Do you deny the Iranian Hostage crisis, Operation Eagle Claw, or the Killer Rabbit incidents actually occured? Do you contend that I have somehow altered the photos I have provided in each instance?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Can you point
out one of my lies?
How did the above post 'resort to untruths'? And who said I was just talking about this site. I'm talking about Hannity, Rush, and the whole 'You're with us or you're with the enemy
' idea.
I think you are getting sloppy in throwing around your accusations here.
I already did.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
*rolls eyes*n/t
And who said I was just talking about this site.
And to use the Media Matters approach to this point, well you never specifically mentioned those people you only responded to my comment which was based on this thread. Therefore, as the reader I get to determine what you actually meant (like Media Matters did) and I say you were only talking bout my description of Carter's record.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wow,
you are in rare form today. The Republican debates have you down or something?
Nah, I just thought this was apres po.
Not a big deal, actually.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I did not read your title first
so I thought you were talking about Bush.
I have absolutely no doubt that you do ...
As for the assassin diaries reference, you think that these well documented events from Jimmy's career are nothing more than conspiracy theories? You do realize, don't you, that these things actually DID happen.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Nobody's perfect
I have a ton of respect for Jimmy Carter and what he is doing today. He is awesome.
If we had kept up with his tax incentivized solar iniatives, the US might have been leading the world in solar technology today, instead of leading the world in
these petroleum wars.
It is the economy, stupid.
Actually, if we had continued to follow his petroleum policies
global warming may not be a problem today:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your Atwater/Rove/Malkin tactics are showing.
Instead of commenting on the merits of the statement - DIck Cheney is an abomination to our land and a lying totalitarian, you attack the messenger.
What, you didn't get the message? You're supposed to be attacking 12 year olds this week.
I voted for Carter, twice. He is a man of great honor and impeccable honesty. He pretty much sucked as a President. Let's not forget that Ronnie Reagan's minion had a meeting with the Iranians early on in the 1980 presidential campaign. It's been reported that they offered the Iranians unspecified favors if they continued to hold the embassy hostages till after the election. Guess what? The hostages were released when Ronnie was sworn in. Coincidence? Hardly. This is the same President that sold the Iranians spare parts & missles for the American Jets they used in the Iranian Air Force so that they could illegally fund the Contra's in Nicaragua with the loot. Coincidence? Hardly.
Cheney is an awful man that will go down in history as being a Dr. Strangelove character. But you defend him and slander the messenger all you want. btw - I'm glad you aren't going after 12 year olds.
Actually, that is a lie too.
People are not attacking 12 year olds, they are attacking a program which is supporting people who obviously don't need it. People are exposing a liberal program that is out of control and being abused.
The left is lying about the whole flap, using the completely thread-bare "but think of the children meme" as faux cover.
As we see with the MSM on an alarmingly frequent basis, "reported on" does not equate with "is true".
Not at all, The iranians clearly knew that they couldn't lead Ronnie around by the nose like they had been Carter. After he crashed the helicopter in the desert the Iranians pretty much knew they could do anything that they wanted and Jimmy would roll over for them.
Reagan was unaware of the program. Even so, fighting communism isn't a bad thing.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Now where did I put those hip waders?
OK, now I'll resort to what I HATE doing....a point by point rebuttal of your bs.
1) You haven't read a thing. They ARE attacking the kid and the kid's family. When they do try to actually critisize the program, they resort to lies to do so. ie - a house easily worth in the mid $400K.....utter bs. The family made less than $50K a year. The program ONLY COVERS THE KIDS, not the parents. The parents PAY an insurance premium to cover their kids.
2)The Iranians released the hostages because they shook at the greatness of St. Ronnie. What a pack of lies. While I can't document the deal Ronnie's people made with the Iranians, the meetings have been documented and the sales of missles, aircraft spare parts and military supples to the Iranians is documented as was the fact that Ronnie ILLEGALLY used the profits (they sold 'em the stuff for more than they paid for it) to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Let's remember, the Contra's were killing Nuns, Preists and villagers who supported Daniel Ortega, a democratically elected leader in Nicaragua.
3) It's all OK because Ronnie didn't know about it. Oh my god, my head just exploded. That was a better rush than when I used to do drugs. Uhhhh, while I might beleive that Ronnie did have Alzenheimers while he was a sitting President, you'll never convince any of us that he had no idea of the deal his Adminstration made. And even if you could be correct, and you aren't, he was still responsible for arming Iranians as head of his Adminstration. isn't that the case? Or was some poor SOB 12 year old really the evil brains behind the whole scheme and it was all his fault.
I'm sorry Ronnie died of Alzenheimers. I can't say what I would have about a man who up until the presidency of bush43, was the most dishonest and Constitution/Bill of Rights trampling president in history. Sadly, Ronnie was a piker compared to dubya.
4) The Sandinista's weren't Communists. They were Socialists. Get your classifications right. And even then, they were Democratically elected by the people of Nicaragua. So you say that supporting a private army trying to unseat a democratically elected government is OK because you don't like the party that won. Can I use that same argument when I start suggesting we all take up arms and revolt against the bush43 Adminstration?
Alternate theory
Or, maybe they were just a little low on armaments, so they held the hostages to embarass Carter, so that Reagan would win. Maybe they correctly figured Reagan would hook them up with some firepower
.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
But you are right, I should comment on Cheney as well ...
Dick Cheney has done an excellent job as the Vice President. I know this because the liberals hate him so much.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The same could be said about Bush's policies
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Really?
Then why are the alarmists still carping about them?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Because Bush has no coherent energy policy?
Just a wild guess that the alarmists don't see much in the energy policy that Ken Lay and Dick Cheney cooked up deep within the corridors of power in the White House.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
So does he have a policy that people can claim would
halt global warming, or does he have no coherent policy? You sound confused.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There's no conflict between my two claims
Despite the fact that demand for gasoline is still relatively inelastic at current prices, if you raise the price enough, people are going to use less gas, and that would likely mean slighhtly less CO2 would get released into the atmosphere, and slightly less CO2-related global warming would occur. In that way, people "can claim" that Bush's policies have helped the global warming situation.
But I don't think that Bush's failed policies, particularly his destabilization of the Middle East, which have caused gasoline prices to skyrocket by accident, represent a coherent energy plan.
Hope that this clears up your perception of confusion on my part.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I wasn't confused about what you said at all ...
but judging from this response I suspect that you might have been! :)
And don't forget, as the listener "I" get to detemine what you meant, just ask Media Matters.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ok, I think I see what you must be saying here.
You're saying you see a conflict between
and
Is that it?
If so, I see no conflict there either. Cheney and Lay may have cooked up a policy, but it evidently was either never implemented, or it wasn't coherent, because I see no evidence of the implementation of any coherent energy policy under Bush.
If that's not the conflict, then I've gone 0 for 2 in guessing, and you'll have to elucidate me about the condradiction in what I have posted thus far in this thread, according to your interpretation (which you are perfectly entitled to, in a Media Matters sort of way-- you get to interpret, and I can dispute that interpretation).
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
This is close enough.
On the one hand you were claiming, by virtue of the fact that others could claim it, that Bush's energy policies were causing people to drive less, thus reducing global warming/CO2 emissions (i.e. your first case).
Then later you were claiming no coherent policy which I see as a contradiction.
You found an acceptable reconciliation between the two, which I interpret as you squirming! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
About the hostages
I guess he could have capitulated by giving them weapons and then purging it from his memory. Who was that again?
Well, we didn't even have any hostages in Iraq
...and how many crashed helicopters have we had there? How many dead servicepeople?
Whose military blunder is more significant and damaging?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I couldn't have illustrated the Democrat view of self-defense
any better than this. Thanks.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yeah Iraq,
with all its WMDs that are now in Syria somehow, was an imminent threat
' after all.
A couple of points ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not sure what you mean
But yeah, Iraq didn't square with my concept of American self-defense. Not by a far sight.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I know.
That's the point. You don't see the difference.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I do see the difference
In the hostage situation, Americans were in harm's way, so use of force could be justified as self-defense. There weren't Americans in harms way in Iraq, and Iraq had no means of attacking America. Hence, it was not a self-defense situation.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I understand that's how you, as a liberal, see it.
That's the point.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So now
seeing a country which is no threat as not a threat, and thus action against it not as an act of self defense is a LIBERAL thing?
Sic semper tyrannis
See
Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, throw in the aspirin factory. Remember, we had to fight them there so we didn't have to fight them here.
The anti-liberals on this, you might say, were the "better red than dead" functional pacifists of the 60s and 70s who took control of the Democrat party, and who now confuse 'liberalism' with 'pacifism.'
Note that the neocons are reconstructed liberals, and this part of their liberalism they have maintained.
A big amen to your amen
The right loves to slander Carter. They conveniently forget that there has not been a war between Egypt and Israel for the last 34 years because of Jimmy Carter.
Fortunately, the Nobel committee eventually remembered to honor him.
qui tacet consentire
Well, to be fair ...
I actually think that the Egyptions and the Israelis deserve a little credit on this point. At least as much as Jimmy Carter, don't you think?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Of course
I should also point out that Republican predictions that Western civilization would collapse if we turned the Panama Canal over to Panama did not pan out.
qui tacet consentire
Meh.
Sure, you can tag us with that if it makes you feel better. Sorry, our bad.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
They deserve
the credit for agreeing to be bought and staying bought for quite a long while.
Sic semper tyrannis
kindness
And then he lied.
Chris Matthews played the clip. Jimmy (don't call me James or I'll take you to court) Carter said that Cheney still maintains that Iraq was behind 9/11, and that Iraq had WMD.
I remember thinking as i watched this that the MSM is so powerful that they can fool even Carter, who is no dummy. I don't think that Carter would purposefully lie, so he must be an unwitting dupe.
Is there anyone who has any respect for truth that is still maintaining that Cheney said that Iraq was behind 9/11? Anyone? (Note: repeating the Intelligence Community consensus of December, 2001, that Atta met with an IIS agent in Prague does not say that Iraq was behind 9/11. It at best raises it as a possibility.)
I am sorry to see old Jimmy seem so foolish. He also violated the long-time rule of American politics, that this kind of criticism be done on our own soil. Seems like Jimmy has begun to take his press clippings too seriously.
Minor quibble
Is that the intelligence community consensus of December, 2001?
If I may take a calculated risk and quote wikipedia:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I trcked this down once or twice
And it is really an interesting history.
It changed as time went on, so chiefly from my memory, by the time of Cheney's December speech, the Czechs were still backing the story, and while sceptical as always, the CIA accepted the report. Almost at the saame time of the speech, the first chinks in tha armour came up. By spring of 2002, the CIA doubted the report, based on reports from the FBI about fdriver's license and phone calls. Later, that too was shown to be wrong. (Atta didn' have a driver's license when he was supposed to have used it--I think that was it). Then later, the info got better. The CIA never excluded the possibility of the meeting, the Czech Intelligence still, so far as I know, stand by the report, although the Czech government does not.
Thing is, the Czech intelligence also indicated that they thought the meeting was about blowing up a local Radio Free Europe installation which was broadcasting into Iraq.
The point is that even if we were to grant the meeting took place, it does not prove that Iraq was behind 9/11. So saying that Cheney said that Iraq was behind 9/11 "even today" is wrong, and either Carter is lying or a dupe.
The source for the Tenet quote in Wiki is Ron Suskind. I went to the SSCI Report (Phase II), which, unfortaunately has nothing that early. (This report, called "phaseIIaccuracy" is available on the net, but appears to me to be an image, and i can't cut and paste from it. It's in pdf format. maybe you'd have better luck.) They note that a request was made after 9/11 to study any iraqi involvement, and then quote a CIA report:
(One of the two referred to is Atta in Prague.)
The citation is to a CIA product from January, 2003. Either the report is recapitulating something from shortly after 9/11 (which seems to be so from the language) or it represents the CIA view in 2003. Most likely, both are true.
The PhaseII report goes on to document the Intelligence assessments about the Czech reports through 2002 and into 2003. All are in terms of "we cannot confirm," or "some reporting casts doubt" on the report. They report, for instace:
While the "pretty much confirmed" of Cheney is certainly more policy speak than the careful words of intelligence, it is obvious that the CIA was not ready to dismiss these reports until they became, in their words, "increasingly skeptical" that the meeting took place, as they also said in January 2003. The conclusion to both the September 2002 and January 2003 reports was this:
Cheney's message tended to be congruent with the Intelligence assessments. He seemed to be hanging on to any last shred, and the intelligence assessments allowed him to do that.
What is true is that the notion that the CIA or any of the IC "debunked" the claim of the meeting is false. IUf one puts oneself in a policymaker's shoes, one can see how difficult it is to make policy statements on the basis of these intelligence assessments. It is a wonder that the claim wasn't made more.
Ther PhaseII report has a large redacted area which is reportedly about the CIA objection to the inclusion of a reference to the supposed meeting in a Bush speech in March, 2003. The CIA person involved is reported to have said that it was within the routine province of the CIA in reviewing public speeches, and that they objected to referring to something that was not confirmed in an official speech.
btw, After the clp of Carter on his show, Matthews went of into the stratosphere, saying that Cheney somehow said that Saddam had a nuclear weapon, a rocket to put it on, and would deliver it into the US.
The L word
Lied?
No, what he said was that Cheney still maintains that Saddam "somehow was involved in the 9/11 attacks" (emphasis mine). Not quite the same as saying Iraq was behind 9/11. In fact, Cheney, while being careful not to actually make the claim, has stated, basically, that the jury is still out on that. And Cheney does maintain that there was a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So while Cheney may not exactly maintain that it is a fact that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, he absolutely does maintain that it is a possibility.
So yes, Carter is being somewhat... er... liberal in his interpretation of Cheney's position, but not as unreasonably so as your misquote would lead one to believe.
Just trying to set the record straight!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You need to try harder, then ... :)
Splitting hairs, IMHO. Those two are basically saying the same thing. I guess you may be able to make a nuanced case, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as you are making it out to be.
Well, strictly speaking, he is correct on that point. The fact that we have not uncovered any evidence of a link to date does NOT mean that such evidence could not exist. Ergo, it still IS a possibility.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You are contradicting yourself
You say that it is a possibility that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, correct? Do you also believe that it is just as possible that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks? Since that is "basically saying the same thing"? I am arguing that the possibilities involved in these two statements are in fact vastly different. Not "splitting hairs" at all.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
OK, let's parse
ready, set, go....
Let's accept "somehow was involved." Same comment. it's a lie, or Carter is a dupe. Cheney never publically stated that position.
In fact, Cheney, while being careful not to actually make the claim, has stated, basically, that the jury is still out on that.
I don't think so. He has said (for instance, the September, 2003 MtP interview) that the jury is still out, in a sense, on the Atta Prague meeting. Hardly the same thing. His message in that interview is exactly what the IC was saying, that we don't have enough information to confirm a meeting or to rule it out. He said, "we just don't know." Twice.
In September, 2006, on another MtP, we had this exchange:
Again, the CIA doubts it occurred. But Cheney is not saying here that iraq was involved in 9/11. Yet it is these quotes about Atta that always come up to support the lie that Cheney said that, to be exactly parsed here, Iraq was involved in 9/11.
And Cheney does maintain that there was a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
As reported in the intelligence. the question was never that there were contacts, but in exactly what those contacts entailed. So far as I know, no member of the administration, including Cheney, ever publically maintained that there was an operational relationship between Iraq and a;-Qaida, for 9/11 or anything else.
So while Cheney may not exactly maintain that it is a fact that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, he absolutely does maintain that it is a possibility.
Actually, I can only find quotes where he maintains that the Atta Prague meeting was a possibility.
So yes, Carter is being somewhat... er... liberal in his interpretation of Cheney's position, but not as unreasonably so as your misquote would lead one to believe.
Uh, he lied or is a dupe. His "liberal interpretation" is simply incorrect, false, contrary to fact, an untruth.
If he meant to say that Cheney still holds out the possibility of the meeting having occurred, he is smart enough to find the words to say that.
Beg to differ
Direct quote from MtP, Sept 2003
:
Still don't think Cheney has publicly stated that the jury is still out on a connection between Saddam and Sept.11? Still don't think Cheney publicly maintained an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Of course, I remember
this interview. First thing to note is that the WaPo pollis mischaracterized here. But that is off topic.
To parse again, what I have in mind when I say public statements" is prepared remarks, not off the cuff answers, which may or may not be exactly what theperson wants to state.
But you have a point here. Cheney is saying that he is not surprised that people still think that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The next question is NOT whether he is involved, but whether there is a connection. He says we don't know.
Now, I've seen this parsed by those wanting to trap Cheney here as saying that by "connection," we should mean that something from iraq is used in the 9/11 attacks, with or without Iraq's knowledge. For instance, if they got their exacto knives from iraq, then we would say there is a conmnection, so these people argued.
But i expected you to make the point another way, which i left open. Why else would Cheney want to stress the unsettled knowledge on the meeting if it weren't to suggest that the notion of Iraq "connection" or "involvement" or "being behind" is still a possibility?
Yes, the whoile Atta thing by Cheney is to suggest that our knowledge is still incomplete, and that it is still slightly possible (read that section of the same interview) that Iraq had something to do with it.
Of course, what he is saying is just true. Does that matter?
Still don't think Cheney publicly maintained an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
No. As the term is used, it would require that there was evidence of mutual involvement in planning and/or carrying out an operation of which both had full knowledge. I don't think Cheney or anyone else in government every publicly made that claim.
Bottom line, Carter lied or was a dupe. He didn't say, "Cheney is still leaving open the possibility that...."
It has been pretty much confirmed that Cheney lied
About Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attacks.
How's that? I'm not making an accusation now. Just stating the current opinions of the community. Thanks! Now I have a formula for accusations without responsibility!
"on our own soil"
I've never understood that one. Why in the world would someone saying their opinion be more honorable saying so on US soil vs foreign soil.
By those standards, the Dixie Chicks where wrong saying they though George W Bush was an embarassment for Texans & Americans when they were in concert in London. They weren't wrong. They were completely right.
kindness on our soil
as I understand this unwritten rule, it applies to political criticism. We fight like lions here, but present a unified face abroad. I always thought it applied to politicians in government, or, like Carter, those who have been in government. It's not a law.
It's sort of like your wife. You know, you might gently note that she is putting on a little weight at home, but if you are out at a party, she may think you a cad if you announce to a room full of people that she is getting fat.
As for the Dixie chicks, i thought the dustup was overdone, they were stewed in their own stupidity. They weren't "right" or wrong, but stated a partisan political gotcha opinion. One's opinion of what they said has nothing to do with anything other than one's political religion, whether one is a religious proBushite, or a religious antiBushite. For those of us without a political religion, it was much ado about nothing of any consequence. Who cares what the Dixie Chicks think about anything?
NIce try
Try a pervert in-law...
Sic semper tyrannis
OK, nice pick
Carter as perverted in-law. Yep. I like it!
Point is the same: it's an unwritten law, not a binding law. No one is saying that y ou or Jimmy as perverted uncle can't announce to the room that your wife is getting fat, just that "it's just not done."
No one is saying that Jimmy can't make a fool of himself, just that in the past there has been an unwritten rule that we argue such things here, not abroad.
I will grant that nowadays, anything goes.
You quite obviously
misunderstood my point. As far as it might be a common understanding that one might have special considerations when it comes to one's wife - these considerations don't apply to in-laws.
As far as this administration is concerned - after all they've done to the US image in the world - they get no consideration at all here or abroad - I'd even say - when it comes to shooting one's mouth off - they're in season.
Sic semper tyrannis
I disagree
As far as it might be a common understanding that one might have special considerations when it comes to one's wife - these considerations don't apply to in-laws.
They always applied to my in-laws. But then, I think they apply to humans.
And especially
the children
Sic semper tyrannis
MS you have every right to hold and honor your
values and opinions. I don't feel that stating an opinion that isn't positive about certain aspects (politics, cultural, economic) of your home country is verboten. I don't share your opinion on this matter.
Now I think you can take pride in and still be a good American but at the same time be honest about your feelings, whether you are here in the US or on some other countries turf. That's where we differ.
kindness
I'm glad you've granted me the right to my opinion.
Just ot be clear, i am describing an old unwritten rule. The point of it was to show a unified face to the outside world.
And it is also true that it is less relevant with today's instant communication, where the difference between here and there is less distinct. Globalization, you know.
By the way, while I have always been an advocate for honesty about our feelings, I must insist that the expression of those feelings is often merely self-indulgence.
btw, does this dress make me look fat?
a unified face???
as in totalitarian group think. You mean like North Korea?
I imagine that is what Achmedinajac tells his subjects. No disagreement allowed unified faces only. Dissent will not be tolerated.
It is the economy, stupid.
No, missliberties
And i take it you know better and just want to be an ass.
Unified face toward others on foreign policy. That's why we don't want you or me going to another country and making pronouncements on our policy toward another country.
No one said anything about dissent not being tolerated, and i think you damn well know that. I think you can read. The principle has NOTHING to do with dissent within the country.
But you know that.
Go playin the street with the rest of the slow kids.
Ignoring reality
and pretending like the subjects support the actions of leaders who have proven inept is the anti-thesis of what we fought for in the American revolution.
The country is NOT unified behind our foreign policy. Such is life. Deal with it.
It is the economy, stupid.