It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Condi stands up in hearing and lets a senator have it

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Seekerof,

You're correct in that this is just another example of the standard liberal/democratic response when you pin them down on some issue. It's because all they really know about issues are the sound bites. The proof is the when you ask them anything that goes deeper and requires more thought than that and all they can come up with are personal attacks.

Sad.


And this is the standard conservative/republican response when an issue is raised about the integrity of those who represent them. Are there any conservatives here who are able to admit ANY mistakes or crooked dealings made by this administration? I wonder what you'd all say if the scenario was the same, only with a Democratic administration in office. I suppose you would all support everything they did, and aggresively defend them on every issue, even though anybody with eyes and a brain could see how wrong they were. Again, what kind of proof do you guys need? It took law enforcement a long time to get Al Capone, on tax evasion. Would you say he was not involved in any other crimes? It could not be proved. You conservatives these days remind me of gangsters, "you have to prove it coppers, see".


Sometimes I think alot of conservatives here are not even real people, just embeds for the neo-cons working to make it appear there are people ignorant enough to stand behind EVERYTHING this president does. It's always liberal this liberal that. How about just everyday people who are not liberal but see that a great, murderous wrong has taken hold of our country?




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Centurion makes a good point that I alluded to in an earlier page.

A President, regardless of his party affiliation (sorry to take the wind out of some of you) will appoint "friendly faces" to his cabinet. A President will only appoint someone who is loyal, someone who agrees with his policies, and someone who will support his decisions. That is the nature of the job.

Many of you don't like Bush. It should therefore be VERY simple logic that you will not like his cabinet members, first due to their loyalty to him, and second because it follows that they will be of similar beliefs to him.

STOP ACTING SHOCKED OVER THIS. Do you have any idea how irritating it is to see this pitiful feigned shock that some of you are exhibiting. This is Bush's cabinet, these are going to be Bush people. What the hell are you missing here?

Of course Barbara Boxer isn't going to make it a cakewalk for Rice. She doesn't like Bush, she wouldn't confirm Mother Theresa for a post in the Bush administration. Let's call a spade a spade here. Enough about these saintly politicians who are crusading for the good of America. This is politics. These are politicians. The Republicans will run by the very same script when the next Democratic President makes his appointments.

Some of you need to learn the difference between politics and real life. It's a pity that the newspapers have actually fooled you into believing that these overpaid criminals are doing things for the good of the citizens rather than for the good of themselves. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they're on. They're all pretty much the same. Just ask the nice Republicans in congress who draw districts to make sure they stay in office. Yeah these guys care lots for you


[edit on 1-19-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
What if she believes as do I that there was no "torture" at Abu Graib?


Come on, you really can't believe that...can you? While it was no where near what those cowards did when they beheaded their hostages it still was a form of torture and I for one, believe we are better than that. While I'm not against "intense interrogation" of prime suspects, this was just an example of sadistic fun. I'm sure they got a lot of info out of that naked guy on the bottom of the human pyramid. Hell, it looked like they were drinking and having a good ol time. That scenaario, I believe, more than anything set back our quest in winning over the Iraqi populace. Who ever let digital cameras into that prison should be made to lie underneath several naked men or be blind folded and have a vicious dog held next to their head...oh wait.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by centurion1211
Seekerof,

You're correct in that this is just another example of the standard liberal/democratic response when you pin them down on some issue. It's because all they really know about issues are the sound bites. The proof is the when you ask them anything that goes deeper and requires more thought than that and all they can come up with are personal attacks.

Sad.



Sometimes I think alot of conservatives here are not even real people, just embeds for the neo-cons working to make it appear there are people ignorant enough to stand behind EVERYTHING this president does. It's always liberal this liberal that. How about just everyday people who are not liberal but see that a great, murderous wrong has taken hold of our country?


First, it's very difficult to find a conservative that blindly agrees with Bush's total agenda. Personally, I have major problem with his immigration stance and do not agree with the way the iraq war is being fought.

Contrast that with you dems, who will practically commit suicide before admitting that anything a fellow dem does or says is wrong.

And see, you just can't stop yourselves from making the personal attacks when you have no substance to your argument, can you. I rest my case.


[edit on 1/19/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Centurion makes a good point that I alluded to in an earlier page.

A President, regardless of his party affiliation (sorry to take the wind out of some of you) will appoint "friendly faces" to his cabinet. A President will only appoint someone who is loyal, someone who agrees with his policies, and someone who will support his decisions. That is the nature of the job.

Many of you don't like Bush. It should therefore be VERY simple logic that you will not like his cabinet members, first due to their loyalty to him, and second because it follows that they will be of similar beliefs to him.

STOP ACTING SHOCKED OVER THIS. Do you have any idea how irritating it is to see this pitiful feigned shock that some of you are exhibiting. This is Bush's cabinet, these are going to be Bush people. What the hell are you missing here?

Of course Barbara Boxer isn't going to make it a cakewalk for Rice. She doesn't like Bush, she wouldn't confirm Mother Theresa for a post in the Bush administration. Let's call a spade a spade here. Enough about these saintly politicians who are crusading for the good of America. This is politics. These are politicians. The Republicans will run by the very same script when the next Democratic President makes his appointments.

Some of you need to learn the difference between politics and real life. It's a pity that the newspapers have actually fooled you into believing that these overpaid criminals are doing things for the good of the citizens rather than for the good of themselves. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they're on. They're all pretty much the same. Just ask the nice Republicans in congress who draw districts to make sure they stay in office. Yeah these guys care lots for you


[edit on 1-19-2005 by Djarums]


I fully agree, personally I don't fault the president for choosing Rice, as you say it's politics. I wouldn't expect him to choose Michael Moore. However I take issue with the demand made by an un-named moderator for a member to PROVE Rice lied in the run-up to war. Anybody who could prove that would either be on high in the administration or dead. And I agree ALL politicians are crooked one way or the other. But this administration is particularly murderous, and yet at the same time, claim to be on the side of god, this is very disturbing and frightening. And the fact that many are either blind, or just so intent on towing the party line, that they do not recognize the obvious.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
See, you just can't stop yourselves from making the personal attacks when you have no substance to your argument, can you. I rest my case.


What kind of substance are you looking for? Court admissable evidence? Help me out here. What exactly do you need as proof? Also, I'm not a liberal or a democrat, so by you and yourselves do you mean all other Americans who are not conservative?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Too many people equivocate about the truth and prattle about its subjectivity.

Condoleezza Rice like other members of the Bush administration lied to Congress. To twist words after the event, to post-hoc rationalize and to engage in semantics, are further evidence of the prevarication. Along with Ms Rice there are hordes of automatons programmed to do just that for Ms Rice and the Bush administration to seed history with untruths.

In any quest for truth, people who knowingly side with liars are ultimately losers.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Wow, there are some exaggerations on both sides of the political bar.

First of all, all Boxer did was raise some legitimate issues. As a side note, she is a hardcore liberal; she's one of the people that is anti-Bush.

Second, Rice didn't "stand up", from the footage I've seen. All she did was respond to the allegations and accusations of Sen. Boxer.

Nothing to get real excited about. This stuff happens everyday - it just isn't shown on television because it isn't important...

-wD



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Myself being an independent,she is undeniably intelligent,and learned much from the master of disaster- Richard Clarke.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Contrast that with you dems, who will practically commit suicide before admitting that anything a fellow dem does or says is wrong.


Again, not a dem, an can readily admit many dems have made many mistakes. But at this point in time, we have a self-proclaimed man of god who IMO (because I could not prove it in court), has intentionally ignored any detractors, and falsified and exaggerated a threat so he could start a war in which many innocent people have been killed, women, children, the whole nine yards. I'm sure god would understand though. Gotta break the first and most important commandment sometimes, right?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Too many people equivocate about the truth and prattle about its subjectivity.

Condoleezza Rice like other members of the Bush administration lied to Congress. To twist words after the event, to post-hoc rationalize and to engage in semantics, are further evidence of the prevarication. Along with Ms Rice there are hordes of automatons programmed to do just that for Ms Rice and the Bush administration to seed history with untruths.

In any quest for truth, people who knowingly side with liars are ultimately losers.


Hey MA,

Your "exit poll results proves voter fraud" theory has now been debunked (read today's news on CNN and MSNBC). And Senator Biden (Dem - DE) has told Europe "to get over the election" and move on. What's next for you?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Oh!

I was just responding to that. Thanks for ascribing the exit polls to me, I didn't design them

Sorry bud, you're off topic, and the other thread you mention contains the worst attempt at "debunking" I have seen at ATS. Try harder.

What's next?

Persistence in finding and revealing the truth, fixing the odd thing here and there where I can, and denying ignorance. Get over it, indeed.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Occurs it was debunked Centurion we can not have our "god send" president and crown kind start the second term with another smudge on his record. Right.

It's nice to have miss Condi as our secretary of State, she will sell very well with her "intelligent Rant" another war in the next 4 years.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Hey marg,

Questioning the validity of exit polls is hardly debunking the extensive fraud and corruption that took place in the 2004 election, and it doesn't do much to make the liar Condoleeza Rice appear any more suitable for positions of international diplomacy.

BTW, I notice that you are saying "Occurs" when you want to say "Of course".

"Debunking" can be a relatively sophisticated presentation of rebuttals and superior "facts" that becomes agreed by the audience. It's a term used loosely by some members at ATS.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
My point being the only thing in economics that IMHO you can reasonably forecast with any degree of certainty is that if your economy is in the expansion phase it will peak and then recede, and if your economy is in recession it will bottom out and then expand.
[edit on 19-1-2005 by mwm1331]


With certainty, yes, that's all that a true academic economist can predict. But, who listen exclusively to those folks, in either real money management circles or government? It is the practically experienced & seasoned individuals who grab an ear.
I think the natural elasticity of our market will have an artificially ascribed bounce from the tax cuts as pushed from team Bush. Meaning, much of what is self correction gets glorified as cause & effect.
From what I see having a business directly tied to the capital expenditure spend......it's been slow in coming. The IT Services spend is still lagging.
But like many, I can look through different colored glasses of what benefits me in my tax bracket versus what I see to be good policy and beneficial to the country as a whole.....they are seldom the same thing in their application.

On thread, I do strongly feel that Rice is the best person for this job for Bush. And by virtue of that statement, she's the worst person possible for the country.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
MA, is just like the 2000 elections we can not have more dirt into the mountain of irregularities to this elections to mar the inauguration.

When the kind be crown he has to look clean even if the stench is sipping out of his body.

Well and for Ms. Condi she will be the model of all Mr. Bush want it, after all she has been groomed by the Klan for 20 years.

Her cold appearance and unfriendly approach is nothing like the welcoming friendliness of Mr. Power, she will make many friends in the next 4 years if she can handle that long.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by SeekerofSo if I say one thing today, and then say the opposite tomorrow, I am not lying? Now I see why you support Bush
Hey Seekerof, you have given the absolute best arguments I have ever heard. Am I lying or not? I have previously stated that your arguments in these situations are mostly just opinion and you continually "spin" the truth till it suits you, as you claim we Liberals do. This would mean that my first statement about your arguments was a lie. Its a good thing noone is being held accountable in the administration now isnt it.



Well either your lying is what you are doing when you say something one day and changing it the next or you are a person close to John Kerry who does so just as a matter of in decisiveness, LOL



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Centurion makes a good point that I alluded to in an earlier page.

A President, regardless of his party affiliation (sorry to take the wind out of some of you) will appoint "friendly faces" to his cabinet. A President will only appoint someone who is loyal, someone who agrees with his policies, and someone who will support his decisions. That is the nature of the job.



I agree if you appoint someone willing to cover your butt and not fight with you at every turn you end up the terms of office riddeled with arguements much like some of those Rumsfeild and Bush had there where they couldnt agree on foreign policy , and I believe that ultimately that led to his parting from the cabinet despite what was put forth to the public.




Many of you don't like Bush. It should therefore be VERY simple logic that you will not like his cabinet members, first due to their loyalty to him, and second because it follows that they will be of similar beliefs to him.


Not true I can respect someone and like them and still think and call them down when they are lying, Bush however is a different point all together my issues with him are directed at him, and Powell had the same standing with me, for a combat hardened person I felt at times he didnt stand up on hard issues enough he lost respect because I felt he was betraying his nature.



STOP ACTING SHOCKED OVER THIS. Do you have any idea how irritating it is to see this pitiful feigned shock that some of you are exhibiting. This is Bush's cabinet, these are going to be Bush people. What the hell are you missing here?


Im amazed she didnt get the job back when Rumsfeild and Bush had that falling out, I surprised that Bush even considered trying to keep Rumsfeild and Powell for that matter because they were both at odds with policy often towards the end, I would have thought she would have replaced one of them sooner.




Of course Barbara Boxer isn't going to make it a cakewalk for Rice. She doesn't like Bush, she wouldn't confirm Mother Theresa for a post in the Bush administration. Let's call a spade a spade here. Enough about these saintly politicians who are crusading for the good of America. This is politics. These are politicians. The Republicans will run by the very same script when the next Democratic President makes his appointments.


Barb Boxer would probably even try to destroy herself if she was in Condis place I agree see is grandstanding , but could it be she is power hungry and lacking the skills but she wants the job and thats really why she is out there on the edge like she is. I never have seen such ruthless behavior as I have seen in the last 2 days from Boxer even more so it supprises me when a nomanie is garunteed to be confirmed like Condi , usually to save face with the administration when they know the nominee is going to be confirmened no matter what a modicum of descretion is used to facilitate furture interaction are not always negative, Boxer wont be there long I see her leaving her post at the next election or resigning cause everyone is going to remember what she did the last two days to some of the most powerful people in the administration and when she wants help they are going to tell her to get lost.





As for the difference between politics and life it is just this , life brings about lies as a side effect of human imperfection , However lying and politics are the same course of action without seperation, politics can not exist with out lies and real life can.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by skychief

Originally posted by DrHoracid
What if she believes as do I that there was no "torture" at Abu Graib?


Come on, you really can't believe that...can you? While it was no where near what those cowards did when they beheaded their hostages it still was a form of torture and I for one, believe we are better than that. While I'm not against "intense interrogation" of prime suspects, this was just an example of sadistic fun. I'm sure they got a lot of info out of that naked guy on the bottom of the human pyramid. Hell, it looked like they were drinking and having a good ol time. That scenaario, I believe, more than anything set back our quest in winning over the Iraqi populace. Who ever let digital cameras into that prison should be made to lie underneath several naked men or be blind folded and have a vicious dog held next to their head...oh wait.




Im sorry I cant say that I dont believe ABUGARIB didnt happen ecspecially when not the UK have 30 men on trial for the same actions. Dr H these things are happened and they are not having the effect of Physc warfare on the enemy, its hitting our morale and the UK morale it just says I told you so in the enemys view that we are evil sob;s out to kill all we can and break the rest, they get to say I told you so every time a case like this comes up which makes our boys and girls dought their job as just even more so then the lies that got them there in the first place.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Too many people equivocate about the truth and prattle about its subjectivity.

Condoleezza Rice like other members of the Bush administration lied to Congress. To twist words after the event, to post-hoc rationalize and to engage in semantics, are further evidence of the prevarication. Along with Ms Rice there are hordes of automatons programmed to do just that for Ms Rice and the Bush administration to seed history with untruths.

In any quest for truth, people who knowingly side with liars are ultimately losers.




Honestly I think you are almost 100% right on and those automitons who stopped being yes men are now being replaced for what ever resons the opposing sides wish to give the truth is Bush is replacing the defective cogs in the wheels of his goverment to make it easier to go about his agenda quietly, expeadiantely and with out someone running to the press with dislikes of the polices, descend is demoralizing to a leaders position.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join