shape
carat
color
clarity

Let''s talk "change".

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Ellen: Since I have become involved in political activism at the Federal level, lobbying for a cabinet level Department, I have come to learn a LOT about the State Department, their budget, and the "symbolic" position. There is always a counter argument to our proposed department by stating that it is already the responsibility of the State Department. Therefore, we have had to reiterate the limited duties and even more limited budget of the State Department before offering the comprehensive nature of our proposed department, both internationally and domestically. Once I started to do that, I began really watching how Condelezza Rice performed her duties and how influential she was in creating or debating policy. Don''t get me wrong, Ms. Rice is a smart woman, but she was also a political pawn. There was more picture taking and highly promoted "visits" than there was actual power in crafting or influencing our international affairs. Maybe it will be different under the Obama administration.

For example, although ideally Ms. Rice was in a capacity to act as a national security advisor, she said "I read the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE REPORT) cover to cover a couple of time." As documented in a thorough investigation, it was the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Hussein was not an imminent threat to this country unless he feared we were about to attack him. Ms. Rice knew this information, knew it was removed from the NIE report that was provided to Congress and the American people. So if she really had any institutional heft herself or behind her position, why didn''t she say "You know, guys, these other distortions are bad enough. But this is going too far."

Wait, now that I think about it....I just don''t see Hillary as the type of person who is capable of the level of deception beyond which she would be willing to go in helping her boss take America to war under false pretenses, as did Rice. But she was capable of being misled. I guess I shouldn''t hold that against her because she was as duped as most everyone else in Congress as to the manipulation of intelligence. I suppose I can be grateful that she is in that position now so that it could never happen again. I hope...at least during this administration.

beebrisk: Seriously, I am still confused. I can''t wait until the appointments are official so I can read the reason why Obama selected the individuals that he did.
 
Thanks for elaborating miracles! Well, it will be interesting to see what Hillary does, or doesn''t do. If it''s a lot of photo ops, I hope she changes her wardrobe up a bit...
41.gif
9.gif
 
Date: 11/22/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: Ellen
Date: 11/22/2008 11:34:31 AM

Author: beebrisk



I give as much credence to Rice''s Freudian slip regarding Bush as I do Obama''s when he was discussing his ''Muslim faith''.
Not the same thing at all bee. That quote was taken out of context (surprise!). Listen carefully.
28.gif



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I&feature=related

Are you ACTUALLY making the argument that Condi''s "husb..." comment is relevant...to anything??
 
Date: 11/22/2008 11:59:56 AM
Author: miraclesrule

I just don''t see Hillary as the type of person who is capable of the level of deception beyond which she would be willing to go in helping her boss take America to war under false pretenses, as did Rice. But she was capable of being misled. I guess I shouldn''t hold that against her because she was as duped as most everyone else in Congress as to the manipulation of intelligence. I suppose I can be grateful that she is in that position now so that it could never happen again. I hope...at least during this administration.

I definitely see her as the type of person capable of that level of deception. I even see her as capable of delusion--as was evidenced by her "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia.

I''m disheartened by this appointment, to say the least.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 12:10:35 PM
Author: beebrisk


Are you ACTUALLY making the argument that Condi''s ''husb...'' comment is relevant...to anything??
I''m not arguing about anything! I''m just saying what she said was a possible Fruedian slip. I only made the remark about her possible "slip", in regards to you saying what a close relationship she and Bush had. Yes, they ARE, maybe A LOT.

Geez, I''m done.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM
Author: tulip928

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.
14.gif


Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.

The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.

The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?

The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.
shhh1.gif
why did you have to tell the truth?
27.gif
 
Date: 11/22/2008 12:40:38 PM
Author: Ellen
Date: 11/22/2008 12:10:35 PM

Author: beebrisk



Are you ACTUALLY making the argument that Condi''s ''husb...'' comment is relevant...to anything??
I''m not arguing about anything! I''m just saying what she said was a possible Fruedian slip. I only made the remark about her possible ''slip'', in regards to you saying what a close relationship she and Bush had. Yes, they ARE, maybe A LOT.


Geez, I''m done.

I wasn''t being snarky..really. And I wasn''t trying to get you angry or imply you were arguing with ME. I was just not understanding why you thought her "slip" actually had any meaning behind it. A slip is a slip and people do it all the time...I''m no Obama fan, but I never believed there was anything behind his slip either.

Sorry, my intention was just to question...
 
Date: 11/22/2008 11:22:22 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM
Author: HollyS

You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????
23.gif


You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.
I don''t believe that, and I doubt anyone else does either, but I''m sure you feel better saying it. I actually agree Clinton is part of our problem now. No president is perfect.

bee, yes, Bush and Rice are close, maybe a little too? Do a search on her with ''freudian slip''. As for Hillary, I think a lot of what went on during the primaries sounded a lot worse than it was. That''s the nature of the beast. I wouldn''t be surprised if they actually like, and respect each other. Of course, that remains to be seen.

Did the word ''some'' become -- overnight perhaps -- the word ''all''?

You''re starting to sound like Deco; always trying to psychoanalyze and find hidden meanings. Surprise! ''Some'' just means ''some''. And, no. I don''t particularly feel better by saying it. It frustrates the hell out of me that even ''some'' people don''t seem to look past the last eight years.

However, what I don''t ''feel better'' about is your increasingly snide asides about what I think. Unkindness does not become you.
 
The people who I have seen complaining about how experienced people in cabinet positions don''t represent "change" have shown up on several different unrelated boards on the same day making the same issue a topic for discussion. I suspect the people concerned that Obama doesn''t seem to be making changes in the way they would prefer (a team of green, inexperienced, Washington newcomers) are the people who would like to see Obama fail.

The change I voted for wasn''t to get rid of Washington "insiders". I voted for the type of government run by people who feel there is an actual role for government. Not the sort of people who think putting the president of the Arabian Horse association in charge of FEMA is a step in the right direction because a problem like a gigantic hurricane should be handled on the state and local level instead of the Federal government.

The true measure of intelligence is the ability to learn from another person''s mistakes so that you don''t repeat them.
I see Obama doing that which increases my confidence in him. He is surrounding himself with experienced people.

If you want a bunch of inexperienced newcomers picked by a "maverick" that was McCain''s campaign theme.
The case in point was Sarah Palin. Some people love this approach but they weren''t in the majority on November 4th.
They can have their shot at getting Palin elected next time around.

Appointing inexperienced people who had been with him thru the campaign was one of Clinton''s biggest early mistakes. Putting Hillary in charge of healthcare was the prime example of how that approach doesn''t work. Vince Foster couldn''t handle the pressure when promoted to the big leagues.

Giving Hillary SOS has a couple of advantages. She can''t make trouble for him in the Senate. If she does well she will be set up to run for president in 8 years with all the experience she needs in foreign policy. She answers to Obama. And he has the option to fire her at will and send her back to upstate New York which would effectively put an end to her political career.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 12:45:23 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM
Author: tulip928


Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.
14.gif


Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.

The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.

The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?

The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.
shhh1.gif
why did you have to tell the truth?
27.gif

It does seem to PO those who want to ''experience their own history''.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 1:22:05 PM
Author: tanuki


If you want a bunch of inexperienced newcomers picked by a ''maverick'' that was McCain''s campaign theme.

The case in point was Sarah Palin. Some people love this approach but they weren''t in the majority on November 4th.

They can have their shot at getting Palin elected next time around.


Appointing inexperienced people who had been with him thru the campaign was one of Clinton''s biggest early mistakes. Putting Hillary in charge of healthcare was the prime example of how that approach doesn''t work.

And putting the most inexperienced newcomer of them all into the presidency seems like an even bigger mistake...At least to some of us!
 
"Change" does not mean hiring a bunch of people who have not been around the block. I did not vote for him, but, I see that he is hopefully appointing people with experience to get the job done. It does not matter to me that they were with "so and so" before. I franky liked Hillary and would be glad to have her as Sec of State.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/22/2008 9:37:26 AM
Author: beebrisk


Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM
Author: tulip928


Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM

Author: Irishgrrrl

Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.
14.gif



Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.


The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.


The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?


The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.

You got that right.

The bombing of the USS Cole should have been a wake up call for us and yet Clinton remained asleep.

The repeal of the Glass Steigel Act in 1999 set us up perfectly for the current banking crisis.

His policies (or lack thereof) have indeed left a lasting and tragic legacy...
You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????
23.gif


You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.
The "older" posters on this board are very well aware that this "problem" if you will, did not originate with Bush and have said so more than a few times, for those that read closely. The repeal of Glass-Steagall for example. Repealed on Clinton''s watch, true enough. Pretty much a formality for the gutting of it''s innards that had been going on for decades as banks sought loopholes through what they thought of as untenable "restrictions". But if it was so obviously bad, then why didn''t Bush immediately set about fixing it with the 6 years of completely unfettered power he enjoyed, instead of pouring on the gasoline? Plenty of blame to go around, as I''ve said more than once.

As for "revsionism", you are apparently blind to the fact that you have a bias and a viewpoint like every other person. Apparently "revisionism" to you means anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint or the viewpoint and emphasis of the historians you read. The discussion of history and what it actually is, was NOT estoteric at all - it was explained quite clearly by a published historian and a teacher of history - neither of whom said that history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. What they DID say was this:

"... all historians are prisoners of their own experience. We bring to history the preconceptions of our personalities and of our age. We cannot
seize on ultimate and absolute truths. So the historian is committed to a doomed enterprise - the quest for an unattainable objectivity."

...and....

"...those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4''s, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materials are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - "So what?". "Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I''m going?" All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being deceitful in writing from a point of view (he''s being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author''s positions. This is the reader''s responsiblilty toward understanding history. As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view."

Now, if you insist on believing that your viewpoint is THE One and Only True and Objective View of History, or worse, refuse to accept that you even have any bias, that''s your right. However, still don''t make it so...
 
Thanks Ksinger for that refreshingly balanced and informative post. Too bad that it is going to get misconstrued as partisanship anyway. I am still confused though: I thought Obama was to blame for the banking crisis and not the Glass Steigel act??!! The complexity is killing me already.
35.gif
 
The quoting of ivory-tower, left-leaning nitwits does not, and never has, impressed me. And don''t bother listing their credentials. That won''t do it either.

Even smart people can be incredibly stupid. Even reasoned people can be unreasonable. Even people with causes (Ayers) can be terrorists. Even people with religion (Wright or Bakker) can be sinners. Even educated people can be dead wrong; and have been often. A historian''s -- yes, esoteric -- take on what constitutes history does not make it fact. It''s his opinion. Period.

And forgive me, Karen, for not remembering, but when exactly were you open and tolerant of a viewpoint that differs from your own? And, no, not just giving ''tolerance'' some lip-service. Really tolerant. Think about it.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 3:09:32 PM
Author: ksinger



Now, if you insist on believing that your viewpoint is THE One and Only True and Objective View of History, or worse, refuse to accept that you even have any bias, that''s your right. However, still don''t make it so...

Nope. But truth does. And believing in absolute truths, and seeking them out shouldn''t be so threatening to your ''viewpoint''.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 3:56:10 PM
Author: HollyS
Even smart people can be incredibly stupid. Even reasoned people can be unreasonable. Even people with causes (Ayers) can be terrorists. Even people with religion (Wright or Bakker) can be sinners. Even educated people can be dead wrong; and have been often. A historian''s -- yes, esoteric -- take on what constitutes history does not make it fact. It''s his opinion. Period.

Funny - that is exactly what Ksinger is arguing ... realizing that would be agreeing with a bloody liberal though.
Darn. Now what.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 3:56:10 PM
Author: HollyS
The quoting of ivory-tower, left-leaning nitwits does not, and never has, impressed me. And don''t bother listing their credentials. That won''t do it either.


Even smart people can be incredibly stupid. Even reasoned people can be unreasonable. Even people with causes (Ayers) can be terrorists. Even people with religion (Wright or Bakker) can be sinners. Even educated people can be dead wrong; and have been often. A historian''s -- yes, esoteric -- take on what constitutes history does not make it fact. It''s his opinion. Period.


And forgive me, Karen, for not remembering, but when exactly were you open and tolerant of a viewpoint that differs from your own? And, no, not just giving ''tolerance'' some lip-service. Really tolerant. Think about it.

Agreed. I believe we are living in an age when opinion demands no factual back up and truth is not a matter of reality, but of mere perception.
The "intellegencia" on the left fully understands this post modern phenomenon. It''s how they''ve managed censor the thirst for absolutes and mangle the minds of college students and American culture for the last 30+ years---Guaranteeing future generations of intellectually lazy, self-righteous and self-deluded citizens of the state. Yup, it''s a brave new world!
 
Date: 11/22/2008 4:08:16 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 11/22/2008 3:09:32 PM

Author: ksinger
Nope. But truth does. And believing in absolute truths, and seeking them out shouldn''t be so threatening to your ''viewpoint''.

Yup - believing in absolute truths. Either for us or against us. No wonder we have been in quite a mess for the past 8 years. Sorry Ksinger - your relativist crap does not stand a chance. Don''t bother.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 3:56:10 PM
Author: HollyS
The quoting of ivory-tower, left-leaning nitwits does not, and never has, impressed me. And don''t bother listing their credentials. That won''t do it either.

Even smart people can be incredibly stupid. Even reasoned people can be unreasonable. Even people with causes (Ayers) can be terrorists. Even people with religion (Wright or Bakker) can be sinners. Even educated people can be dead wrong; and have been often. A historian''s -- yes, esoteric -- take on what constitutes history does not make it fact. It''s his opinion. Period.

And forgive me, Karen, for not remembering, but when exactly were you open and tolerant of a viewpoint that differs from your own? And, no, not just giving ''tolerance'' some lip-service. Really tolerant. Think about it.
I''m tolerant enough to not get as pissed as I should and shoot back like I should for your calling my husband an ivory-tower left-leaning nitwit... Lucky he is quite a bit more tolerant and laid-back than I am.

However, (snorts he after reading your response) after working the farm, the oilfield, selling guns, managing a gun range including manufacturing, being an auto mechanic, selling gun safes, and owning a sail making business for several years, and getting the history degree, the husband figures that the ivory tower of teaching inner-city children has been earned.
20.gif
 
Date: 11/22/2008 12:53:48 PM
Author: beebrisk


I wasn''t being snarky..really. And I wasn''t trying to get you angry or imply you were arguing with ME. I was just not understanding why you thought her ''slip'' actually had any meaning behind it. A slip is a slip and people do it all the time...I''m no Obama fan, but I never believed there was anything behind his slip either.

Sorry, my intention was just to question...
Thanks for clarifying, and apologizing bee. Sorry if I sounded exasperated!

And while yes, people do slip sometimes, I''ve never started to call anyone my husband, except my husband.
9.gif
The point I was trying to make with the Obama link, is that what he said wasn''t a "slip", at all. It was something taken out of context, so we aren''t comparing apples with apples.
1.gif
 
Date: 11/22/2008 1:20:17 PM
Author: HollyS


Date: 11/22/2008 11:22:22 AM
Author: Ellen



Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM
Author: HollyS

You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it's not ALL Bush's fault????
23.gif


You'll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn't begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that's as far back as their memory goes, it's their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can't explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is 'what our memories and experiences tell us it was'. Never mind the facts.
I don't believe that, and I doubt anyone else does either, but I'm sure you feel better saying it. I actually agree Clinton is part of our problem now. No president is perfect.

bee, yes, Bush and Rice are close, maybe a little too? Do a search on her with 'freudian slip'. As for Hillary, I think a lot of what went on during the primaries sounded a lot worse than it was. That's the nature of the beast. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually like, and respect each other. Of course, that remains to be seen.

Did the word 'some' become -- overnight perhaps -- the word 'all'?

You're starting to sound like Deco; always trying to psychoanalyze and find hidden meanings. Surprise! 'Some' just means 'some'. And, no. I don't particularly feel better by saying it. It frustrates the hell out of me that even 'some' people don't seem to look past the last eight years.

However, what I don't 'feel better' about is your increasingly snide asides about what I think. Unkindness does not become you.
Wow, that is mighty rich Holly.
lol.gif


While I'd love nothing more than to explain my remarks to you, I am going to refrain, as it would undoubtedly be read as a personal attack, though in reality it wouldn't be. I value my time on PS much too much to jeapordize it. But I can say this, you won't be hearing from me anymore, so no worries!
2.gif
 
Ellen, I''m having red wine, but I pulled this one out for ya, you''ve earned it:
smoke.gif



2.gif
 
Yikes! Stealing this from Moon:

Why...so...serious? -The Joker
 
I don''t think Obama knows what he is doing. I think I read on election night, when he walked off the stage, he said to one of his campaign managers, "Now what?" I think he is hell shocked, and while the liberal media will gloss over this fact, anyone with two eyeballs and ears who listened and watched his first press conference could see the almost shocking difference in demeanor, confidence and poise from his campaign theatrics. I did not vote for him not because I felt John maCain was the end all and be all, but I believe, fundamentally, that liberal policies are not the ebst course of action for the future of this country. But after the election, I resigned myself to the reality of his victory because we need to pull together and look for common good. After watching that press conference, I had a deep, sinking dread in my stomach.

Surrounding himself with some experienced people will help mitigate this issue; that is what he is doing. I was in college during the Clinton years and admittedly, don''t remember rmuch about the national political scene because I was working 3 jobs, supporting myself and trying to get through school. Now that i have worked hard and have a couple dollars to my name, I can''t wait to give it all to the govenment but that''s another story... One thing that worries me is that the al quaeda machine was buidling during the Clinton years and 9/11 was in part due to someone not looking close enough or being aggressive enough. before I get jumped on, let me be clear--i do not soley blame Clinton for 9/11--but I do believe intelligence and national security failures of that administration helped lead to 9/11.

I hope he is picking smart people not just cronies. At this point, I am just praying for his success because we have way too much to lose.
 
Date: 11/22/2008 8:31:46 PM
Author: Apsara
I don''t think Obama knows what he is doing. I think I read on election night, when he walked off the stage, he said to one of his campaign managers, ''Now what?'' I think he is hell shocked, and while the liberal media will gloss over this fact, anyone with two eyeballs and ears who listened and watched his first press conference could see the almost shocking difference in demeanor, confidence and poise from his campaign theatrics. I did not vote for him not because I felt John maCain was the end all and be all, but I believe, fundamentally, that liberal policies are not the ebst course of action for the future of this country. But after the election, I resigned myself to the reality of his victory because we need to pull together and look for common good. After watching that press conference, I had a deep, sinking dread in my stomach.


Surrounding himself with some experienced people will help mitigate this issue; that is what he is doing. I was in college during the Clinton years and admittedly, don''t remember rmuch about the national political scene because I was working 3 jobs, supporting myself and trying to get through school. Now that i have worked hard and have a couple dollars to my name, I can''t wait to give it all to the govenment but that''s another story... One thing that worries me is that the al quaeda machine was buidling during the Clinton years and 9/11 was in part due to someone not looking close enough or being aggressive enough. before I get jumped on, let me be clear--i do not soley blame Clinton for 9/11--but I do believe intelligence and national security failures of that administration helped lead to 9/11.


I hope he is picking smart people not just cronies. At this point, I am just praying for his success because we have way too much to lose.


Well, based on McCain''s campaign theatrics and his erratic decisions in the developing financial crisis, he certainly did very little to instill confidence. And after 8 yrs of trickle down economics and corporate welfare, I''m quite pleased to have someone in office who will look out for the little guy. So, here''s to hoping and waiting!
28.gif
 
Date: 11/23/2008 12:01:24 PM
Author: trillionaire



Well, based on McCain''s campaign theatrics and his erratic decisions in the developing financial crisis, he certainly did very little to instill confidence. And after 8 yrs of trickle down economics and corporate welfare, I''m quite pleased to have someone in office who will look out for the little guy. So, here''s to hoping and waiting!
28.gif
yup, hoping and waiting for my rebate check from Obama.
36.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top