This man is a nuts

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

it's obvious to me you don't understand politics

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

You say that I don't understand politics. What is it about politics that you think I don't understand?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

1st round goes to Rupert! Way to bring it, Rup? Mera?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i have a bs in poli sci from a school that shall remain nameless...along with a few other degrees...bfd...if u really have a bachelors of arts in poli sci from ucla it should be revoked and they should put u on a wall of shame...please tell me u had a double-major and the one u got most of the credits in was journalism or husbandry or something...i think dalikhali and others have said all i care to say (and if they haven't, it would be deleted anyways) besides... NUTRASWEET KILLS

If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.

****, Im still waiting for you to back up your original claim that Bush's foreign policy team was one of the best ever assembled.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

****, Im still waiting for you to back up your original claim that Bush's foreign policy team was one of the best ever assembled.

I already backed it up. Look at the resumes of Cheney(former Defense Sec.), Rumsfeld(former Def. Sec., Former US Ambassador to NATO), Powell(former chairman Joint Chiefs), etc.

Even the liberal mainstream media touted them as one of the best foreign policy teams ever assembled. What more could you look for in people's resumes? If these people didn't have strong resumes, then I'd like to know who does.

We're not debating ideology. We're talking about people's qualifications. How could someone have been more qualified than Rumsfeld? The guy's resume is incredible. And Cheney was a huge success as Sec Defense in the first Gulf War. Powell was a huge success as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the first Gulf War.

Who would have been more qualified for the jobs than these people?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I already backed it up. Look at the resumes of Cheney(former Defense Sec.), Rumsfeld(former Def. Sec., Former US Ambassador to NATO), Powell(former chairman Joint Chiefs), etc.

Even the liberal mainstream media touted them as one of the best foreign policy teams ever assembled. What more could you look for in people's resumes? If these people didn't have strong resumes, then I'd like to know who does.

We're not debating ideology. We're talking about people's qualifications. How could someone have been more qualified than Rumsfeld? The guy's resume is incredible. And Cheney was a huge success as Sec Defense in the first Gulf War. Powell was a huge success as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the first Gulf War.

Who would have been more qualified for the jobs than these people?

You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

I would say the same thing about Rober Gates as the other guys. I don't know if Gates will do a good job or not but he is widely respected and he is considered to be an excellent choice.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

Here is the kind of stuff that the mainstrem media was saying about the Bush foreing policy team when they first came into office. This article is from 2001:

The Bush Team Shares a Vision But Not How To Reach It
The Washington Post
September 30, 2001
By James Mann

"Suddenly, the Bush administration’s foreign policy team occupies center stage in Washington. After eight months of focus on domestic issues such as the tax cut, the nation will now be watching anxiously to see if the administration can deal with the rest of the world in a way that will prevent further attacks on American soil. Luckily, Bush’s foreign policy advisers have a remarkable record of experience to draw upon. They’re going to need it."

This is the type of thing that everyone was saying when they first came into office. That was my point. Even all my democratic friends thought Bush had a great foreign policy team.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I was just doing a search on the internet and I was surprised when I clicked on a google link and it lead to an article on commondreams.com. This article is actually relevant to some of the stuff that we have been discussing in this thread. The article was written just before the 2004 election. I bet you guys never thought I would post a link to an article on commondreams.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-13.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is the kind of stuff that the mainstrem media was saying about the Bush foreing policy team when they first came into office. This article is from 2001:

The Bush Team Shares a Vision But Not How To Reach It
The Washington Post
September 30, 2001
By James Mann

"Suddenly, the Bush administration’s foreign policy team occupies center stage in Washington. After eight months of focus on domestic issues such as the tax cut, the nation will now be watching anxiously to see if the administration can deal with the rest of the world in a way that will prevent further attacks on American soil. Luckily, Bush’s foreign policy advisers have a remarkable record of experience to draw upon. They’re going to need it."

This is the type of thing that everyone was saying when they first came into office. That was my point. Even all my democratic friends thought Bush had a great foreign policy team.

I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why don't u ask all the dead people? how old are you, 12?

I'm listening. What did Rumsfeld do wrong at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences? Maybe you know something that I don't. I'm all ears.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why don't u ask all the dead people? how old are you, 12?

You're saying that the vote doesn't tell us anything. So then how can you tell whether or not a nominee had bi-partisan support? Are you denying that there are nominess that have bi-partisan support?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day

A vote of 95-2 obviously means that they don't have a problem with the person and it may very well mean that they like the person. There are plenty of times that the vote is very close and the person barely wins confirmation. Sometimes the person does not win confirmation. There have been plenty of people nominated over the years who did not end up being confirmed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day

Gates won confirmation by a vote of 95-2. Are you saying that Gates does not have bi-partisan support? If Democrats don't like him, then why did Jimmy Carter hire him and have so much trust in him.

Here is a website that is very crtitical of Gates and even they say that the vote was very meaningful. Here is their quote:

"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."

The rest of the article is not so glowing, but they admit that the praise for Gates was bi-partisan. Here is the entire article:

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/113006.html

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i don't think so...at least not the vote-stealing chicago kind...come back to me when you know something about it...i don't denigrate your horse-sense...do not bother to talk about politics with me, or, if u want to, do it on pm like kasept says

Mera, you are totally wrong about Gates. Look what a liberal website said about him:

"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i don't think so...at least not the vote-stealing chicago kind...come back to me when you know something about it...i don't denigrate your horse-sense...do not bother to talk about politics with me, or, if u want to, do it on pm like kasept says

Yes, I have worked for politcal campaigns as a volunteer and several of my friends work in politics.

As I have said before, for the most part politics is a big game. There is not that big a difference between the two parties. Most of the people in the Senate are multi-millionaires that have much more in common with each other than they have with you or me. Their votes are pretty much for sale to the highest bidder.

The truth of the matter is that many of these senators in both parties are total hypocrites. Let's take Nancy Peolsi for example. She claims to be a real liberal that supports unions. But in real life, she owns a $25 million vineyard that is a non-union shop. She also owns a large stake in a ritzy hotel that has 250 employees, but once again it is strictly a non-union shop. This type of thing is typical with politicians in both parties.

[repent]

lot of talk on this thread.

much easier to just remember that President Bush and the ppl he appoints are always right.
hes the most powerful man in the history of time.
get on board or shut the hell up.



Repent