ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Our stupid leaders!!

4/3/2003 4:24 PM
Spewbag	Re: Our stupid leaders!! ) Actually I would kind of hope that to hold public office you would require some kind of qualification more involved than being able to give good TV face and being able to cry convincingly at will. However, I think I would support your right to speak freely and criticise your government regardless of what qualifications you hold You mean like Ol' Ronnie!!!Next you'll being tell me he was a genius. As for the above mentioned pieces of paper that these individual cabinet leaders have.................Money can buy all the discriptors and titles you want. Bottom line, Paper is cheap.

4/3/2003 4:24 PM

Spewbag

Re: Our stupid leaders!!

) Actually I would kind of hope that to hold public office you would require some kind of qualification more involved than being able to give good TV face and being able to cry convincingly at will. However, I think I would support your right to speak freely and criticise your government regardless of what qualifications you hold

You mean like Ol' Ronnie!!!Next you'll being tell me he was a genius.

As for the above mentioned pieces of paper that these individual cabinet leaders have.................Money can buy all the discriptors and titles you want. Bottom line, Paper is cheap.

4/3/2003 7:20 PM
Frank DeSalvo	Ronnie Regan Hey Spew, Ronnie was a genius. Where's the Berlin wall or the Soviet union? Frank

4/3/2003 8:09 PM
Spewbag	I think your getting confused. USSR is still there it's just privatised now. So now you can get a Nuclear missle in every happy meal. Don't kid your self (RR) is and will always be a moron. Bottom line don't feed your people,Don't pay them wages and kill them in the middle of nite while they sleep....That is what toppled the soviet system NOT a Former (B grade actor). Get real.

4/3/2003 8:42 PM
Frank DeSalvo	Spew, I'm as real as it gets, my friend. I just happen to disagree with you, and that's alright. However, I can appreciate the fact that the Communist/socialist system, in essence, is mostly responsible for the downfall of the USSR. Ronnie's Star Wars system, faux or not, was ingenious, really. Under his administration, the cold war ended and the Berlin wall fell. I was just a kid when he was around (and arguably coherent), so I'm sure that you know more solid facts than I about his administration-but I reserve my opinions. I am not a registered republican or democrat and since I am of voting age, I do my best to vote for the best man. Last season, I voted for Greenspan...go figure. Take care, ~F PS- From an entertainment standpoint, I really dug the impersonations/comedy that Ronnie (and Clinton) had inspired. Remember that Genesis video with the Rambo and Regan puppets ? During Ronnie's reign, I heard my first political joke. It went like this: "Why does Nancy Regan always get on top? Because Ronnie's always screwing up!" Hehe, I love that one.

4/3/2003 8:42 PM

Frank DeSalvo

Spew,

I'm as real as it gets, my friend. I just happen to disagree with you, and that's alright. However, I can appreciate the fact that the Communist/socialist system, in essence, is mostly responsible for the downfall of the USSR. Ronnie's Star Wars system, faux or not, was ingenious, really. Under his administration, the cold war ended and the Berlin wall fell.

I was just a kid when he was around (and arguably coherent), so I'm sure that you know more solid facts than I about his administration-but I reserve my opinions. I am not a registered republican or democrat and since I am of voting age, I do my best to vote for the best man. Last season, I voted for Greenspan...go figure.

Take care,

~F

PS- From an entertainment standpoint, I really dug the impersonations/comedy that Ronnie (and Clinton) had inspired. Remember that Genesis video with the Rambo and Regan puppets

? During Ronnie's reign, I heard my first political joke. It went like this: "Why does Nancy Regan always get on top? Because Ronnie's always screwing up!" Hehe, I love that one.

4/3/2003 8:45 PM
Spewbag	Fair Enough.

4/8/2003 4:36 AM

Dutch

Re: Our stupid leaders!!

quote:
"2) Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al aren't stupid (although Bush could have fooled me). They've been planning all these things for a LONG time and have cleverly taken the great opportunity presented to them by the atrocity of 9/11 to sway a modicum of public support toward their plans. "

*How long* have they been planning these things?

Pondering it, and looking back at the events of the past few years (or the past twenty-something years, for that matter), it makes me wonder about things.... Certain events seem to be far too conveniently coincidental when looking backward with this question in mind. Certain connections with the past in this mess seem like they might have a *very* dark siginicance. Ever see the movie "Wag The Dog"?

That is what worries me about the current administration.

C ya,
Dutch

4/8/2003 1:20 PM
Michael Tousek	Not a conspiracy This Iraq thing is not nearly as dark or conspiratorial as some may think. Intervention and regime change in Iraq are not new ideas. They have been out in the open as national policy priorities for years, extending at least as far back as the prior administration. Witness: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (which passed unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the House, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton), which prescribes the following... "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:/ And check out these interesting quotes... "Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning,"* -- Bill Clinton, just prior to air strikes on suspected Iraqi WMD facilities in 1998. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," -- Bill Clinton, from the same address source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ "We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam... We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver." -- Al Gore, remarks made in 2000 source: http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2000/fjun/05_gore.html For years, the United States has been acting on the premise that Saddam Hussein is a threat and should be removed from power. The Bush Administration just took this to a new level after the 9-11 attack highlighted the threat we face from Islamo-terrorism. The administration understood that Islamo-terrorism would become exponentially more dangerous if it were to collaborate with the WMD-producing, sociopathic Saddam Hussein, and it responded by pursuing a preexisting policy goal -- that of removing Saddam's regime -- with a heightened intensity, essentially killing two birds with one stone. This response by the Bush administration was perfectly rational, perfectly reasonable, and fully comprehensible on its face. It was done in the best interest of the people of the United States. To ignore the obvious and instead see a "wag the dog" conspiracy is to willfully miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion. This article makes an interesting comparison of present and prior administrations' handling of Iraq. http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20030310 MT

4/8/2003 1:20 PM

Michael Tousek

Not a conspiracy

This Iraq thing is not nearly as dark or conspiratorial as some may think. Intervention and regime change in Iraq are not new ideas. They have been out in the open as national policy priorities for years, extending at least as far back as the prior administration. Witness:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (which passed unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the House, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton), which prescribes the following...

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

*source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:/

And check out these interesting quotes...

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning,"

-- Bill Clinton, just prior to air strikes on suspected Iraqi WMD facilities in 1998.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"

-- Bill Clinton, from the same address

*source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam...

We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver."

-- Al Gore, remarks made in 2000

*source: http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2000/fjun/05_gore.html

For years, the United States has been acting on the premise that Saddam Hussein is a threat and should be removed from power. The Bush Administration just took this to a new level after the 9-11 attack highlighted the threat we face from Islamo-terrorism. The administration understood that Islamo-terrorism would become exponentially more dangerous if it were to collaborate with the WMD-producing, sociopathic Saddam Hussein, and it responded by pursuing a preexisting policy goal -- that of removing Saddam's regime -- with a heightened intensity, essentially killing two birds with one stone.

This response by the Bush administration was perfectly rational, perfectly reasonable, and fully comprehensible on its face. It was done in the best interest of the people of the United States. To ignore the obvious and instead see a "wag the dog" conspiracy is to willfully miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.

This article makes an interesting comparison of present and prior administrations' handling of Iraq.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20030310

MT

Page 2 of 13