ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Jim Price - the "Kids nowadays ain't got no shame" sessions
© 1971 Ethan A. Russell
[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [FORO EN ESPAÑOL] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: President Dubya's favorite tracks ??? Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
February 25th, 2005 11:08 PM
Dan
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:

I know this might be hard to comprehend because you're still stuck in the Bill Clinton tuck tail & run mindset that got us into this fiasco in the first place, but as the song says, "the times they are a changin..."




I thought that was the Ronald Reagan mindset (ie Beirut 1983). But if you want to explain exactly how Clinton got us into this in the *first* place, I would love to hear it.
February 25th, 2005 11:11 PM
Dan
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:

the entire world thought/knew he had them, we now have evidence of trucks going into Syria weeks before the conflict started, whatever the case, we couldn't turn our back on Saddam so now he's gone bye bye



Where is that evidence (of trucks going to Syria?) I know some of the right wing pundits and the Richard Perle types have tried to imply that the WMD were in Syria but AFAIK the White House and the Pentagon have emphatically denied it when directly questioned about it (but more people listen to talk shows than government press conferences).
February 25th, 2005 11:14 PM
telecaster
quote:
Poplar wrote:


OH SHIT! Only lawyers can join in the discussion here? Sorry, I had no idea. Serioulsy, we all know everyone loves lawyers, they're the best!





Odd Rocksoff.org fact:

The only, only posters/people here that have ever mentioned their occupation are................?????????

LAWYERS!

Waz Up Wid Dat?

Why?
February 25th, 2005 11:18 PM
Poplar
no shit. i'm really stunned at that one. i was a history major, but you don't see me questioning other people's right to offer an interpretation of the past.

February 25th, 2005 11:22 PM
Starbuck tele! didn't i PM you about the disc? just burn me a copy and drop it in the mail.

funny onion article, BTW. on the contrary, however, in real life gov pawlenty wouldn't refuse so much as a dime from the feds. gotta give the rich their tax breaks, don't you know!

and as for being a teacher, politics and religion stays out of the classroom, thank you very much. i do try to teach them about music, however. an extra credit question on a recent test was "how many band members (current and former) are there in the rolling stones?" i actually had one student get it right!

i respect jimmy carter. at least he'll get into heaven. may have been a substandard prez, but he's perhaps the best ex prez we've ever had.

i didn't really say yes to the commies, did i? i just said the world was an easier place to deal with before the fall of the iron curtain. and do you honestly believe life is better for the russians now that they've got "freedom"? sure, they may have a "democracy", but methinks it ain't too much better than it was under the communists. the bread lines are still long and the money is shorter now than it was then. putin is still shurring down papers that critizize the government there.

i never said yes to saddam. he is an asshole and always has been. however, you missed my point entirely. the US said yes to saddam back when khomeni was public enemy number one in the ME. we let him gas the kurds and didn't do diddley squat, just like we let the turks shit on the kurds when it helps us out politically to do so. get a load of this picture, con boys, it isn't doctored. its your boy rummy:



and why can't we bring up the WMD argument, bloozehound? you certainly would be bringing it up had the mythical weapons actually been found, that's for sure. it was bushie's primary reason for dragging this country to war in the first place, wasn't it? that and the srong connections between al qaeda and iraq?

i think its you guys that don't understand the doctrine of preemption. you see, a preemptive strike is a strike against a country that actually HAS weapons that can attack you, isn't it?

personally, i think dubya just misread the memo about which ME country had nukes and confused "iraq" with "iran". after all, they're almost spelled the same, aren't they??

and he's not the sharpest tool in the shed!



i still don't understand why conservatives hate the clinton years so much. does a balanced budget scare you? eight years of economic prosperity sandwiched in between two major recessions? sure, morally/sexually he was as bankrupt as joey's posts are of substance, but you don't have to be a saint to be an effective president.

this is an excellent thread, BTW. best i've seen in the short time i've been hanging around.

[Edited by Barak Obama 2008]
[Edited by Starbuck]
February 25th, 2005 11:30 PM
sirmoonie
quote:
telecaster wrote:


Odd Rocksoff.org fact:

The only, only posters/people here that have ever mentioned their occupation are................?????????

LAWYERS!

Waz Up Wid Dat?

Why?


To the contrary. You mentioned FPMC10's occupation earlier today, before you deleted it.

So its you, the lawyers, and FPM via proxy.

There is of course more, I know what Riffhardt, Gypsy, Maxlugar, SS, and many others do as a result of personal statements online. Admire them all. Job-bashing is purely a Telecaster deal.

Anyway, the lawyer bit was an artifact from friendlier days at GasX3, when the plethora of them swine was noted.

Check with Nankie. He'll tell ya the same.
February 25th, 2005 11:37 PM
telecaster "You mentioned FPMC10's occupation earlier today, before you deleted it.
"

I did? Where? Show us

I have zero idea what he does

Is a "temp" an occupation?

Enlighten us

Show me where I mentioned what FPMC10's occupation was or ever was and I will buy every member of this board
their next Stones concert ticket

Moonie, it isn't what you do, it is just that you are not
very good at what you do

(Seriously, a large company pays you to do this all day long?)

Lucky dog

"There is of course more, I know what Riffhardt, Gypsy, Maxlugar, SS, and many others do as a result of personal statements online. Admire them all. Job-bashing is purely a Telecaster deal."

Honestly, there is a company that pays you to be a lawyer?

Of course you know what they do. You met some of them personally.

Wow.

[Edited by telecaster]
February 25th, 2005 11:46 PM
Poplar
i hate to admit it, but i knew damn well what i was starting when i got this thread stirred up back in the early phases of page one. thanks to everyone who joined it.

February 25th, 2005 11:54 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
Poplar wrote:


OH SHIT! Only lawyers can join in the discussion here? Sorry, I had no idea. Serioulsy, we all know everyone loves lawyers, they're the best!





so your wife tells me
February 26th, 2005 12:14 AM
Poplar
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
so your wife tells me



well, that pretty much signals the death of this thread.

funny thing is, i didn't even know i was married. wow.
February 26th, 2005 12:17 AM
telecaster
quote:
Poplar wrote:


well, that pretty much signals the death of this thread.

funny thing is, i didn't even know i was married. wow.



Poplar

The Thinline is THE guitar

You are smart beyond your years

We won

Enjoy

February 26th, 2005 12:24 AM
gypsy
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:


so your wife tells me



How did you come up with such a cool name like "lotsajizz?"
February 26th, 2005 12:38 AM
Bloozehound we're probably better off not knowing how
February 26th, 2005 12:44 AM
Starbuck gypsy!

you're not one of "them", are you?!



note: the above was my first emoticon.

[edited by Mr. T]
February 26th, 2005 01:15 AM
sirmoonie
quote:
telecaster wrote:
"You mentioned FPMC10's occupation earlier today, before you deleted it.
"

I did? Where? Show us



I can't. Like I said, you deleted it.

Ask VooDoo or Gazza, maybe they can help. Go ahead, ask them to dig up your latest "[edited by Telecaster]"






quote:

Is a "temp" an occupation?

Enlighten us


Howe did this come up? Did I mention "temp"? Show me where I mentioned "temp". YOU enlighten us as to why you even mentioned it.

I have no idea what FPM does. Is he a "temp"?

I can't en-lighten you Telecaster. You tell us. Tell America, the world, the coalition, the reserves in Iraq, what a "temp" is?

You know what it is. I think you are the phone all day talking about it.

Am I wrong? Enlighten us.
February 26th, 2005 02:10 AM
Bloozehound
quote:
Dan wrote:
I thought that was the Ronald Reagan mindset (ie Beirut 1983). But if you want to explain exactly how Clinton got us into this in the *first* place, I would love to hear it.




Haaaaa!

you know exactly what I'm talking about


quote:
Dan wrote:
Where is that evidence (of trucks going to Syria?) I know some of the right wing pundits and the Richard Perle types have tried to imply that the WMD were in Syria but AFAIK the White House and the Pentagon have emphatically denied it when directly questioned about it (but more people listen to talk shows than government press conferences).




Where's the evidence that they weren't taken into Syria? They don't appear to be in Iraq, so it's a possibility, no?

Maybe I'm bit optomistic, but I find it very very very hard to believe that Saddam actually ridded himself of them, especially with such a well stockpiled and vengful neighbor right next door.

And if they are in Syria then why's the White House expected to come out and admit this highly sensitive information to the world at this time?

That seems kinda dangerous to do to me.

Tell ya what Dan, since your the man, why don't we just unclassify everything so the Dan will be happy, no secrets are to be kept from the Dan during times of war

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm


February 26th, 2005 02:20 AM
Dan
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:

I have no evidence besides reports that have popped up in the news that you and I are both aware of, but I got a better question: where's the evidence that they weren't taken into Syria?


Well, we can start with Condoleeza Rice stating pretty much the same thing:

From The Associated Press, 1/9/04:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-syria,0,165605...

Rice: No Evidence Iraq Moved WMD to Syria

WASHINGTON --


The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday.


Rice said, "Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter.


"But I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place, but we will tie down every lead," she said at a White House briefing about Bush's trip Monday to a hemispheric summit in Mexico.


In nine months, arms control experts in Iraq have failed to find a single item from a long list of weapons of mass destruction.


The Bush administration cited an alleged weapons stockpile in Iraq as a primary reason for launching the war against Saddam's government.



quote:


but if they are in Syria then why's the White House expected to come out and admit this highly sensitive information to the world at this time?


I don't see whats much more highly sensitive about them allegedly being in Syria than in Iraq.

quote:

That would seem kinda dangerous to do to me.


Care to elaborate what would be so dangerous about pushing the issue to the forefront if Syria is now the percieved threat to world security?

quote:

Tell ya what Dan, since your the man, why don't we just unclassify everything so the Dan will be happy, no secrets are to be kept from the Dan during times of war


Useless hyperbole but I think this administration has been less than forthcoming with the American people.

quote:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm



From the second paragraph of the referenced article:

"The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition."

Key words here are "no proof" and "fueling speculation." Kinda fits in with Rice's assertion of "no credible evidence."
February 26th, 2005 01:38 PM
icydanger

radicalization zooming

BOT, i see i hear "Flip the Switch" for mister bush
February 26th, 2005 02:14 PM
Ten Thousand Motels I was riding around yesterday doing errands, listening to an oldies station. As soon as they started spinning Snowbird by Anne Murray I said yeah that's it. That's Bush's type of music.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
February 26th, 2005 03:57 PM
time is on my side
quote:
l don't understand why conservatives hate the clinton years so much. does a balanced budget scare you? eight years of economic prosperity sandwiched in between two major recessions?


I'm no conservative. The furthest thing from it (voted for Gore and Kerry in the last several elections and am strongly against the current war in Iraq as feel in the long run once the U.S. troops leave there will be no stable democracy- Iraq will disintegrate into civil unrest, civil war). However, I've never been able to understand all the things people give Clinton sole credit for. For instance, this idea that Clinton was solely responsible for eight years of prosperity.

Please give me specific policies, laws enacted that caused this prosperity. Personally, I felt Clinton did absolutely nothing because in the last six years of his presidency, Congress (Senate and House) was in the hands of the Republicans. Who monitors the economy on a daily, weekly basis??? If you answered the president, you would be wrong. In fact, it's the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Who was this person during the Clinton years??? His name, Allen Greenspan. May I add that he was first appointed to his current position by Reagan, a Republican president. Clinton merely renewed his appointment during his term in office. The Chairman of the Federal Reverse Board monitors the U.S. economy (the position is appointed by the U.S. president) because he sets the short term (and consequently long term) INTEREST RATES. This is the lifeblood of the economy. So if Clinton didn't and wasn't monitoring the economy on a daily basis, surely he deserves credit for an unprecedented economic boom which lasted during most of the eight years he was in office??? Right???

Again, it goes back to back to my original question. Instead of some sweeping general statement, give me specific policies, laws Clinton enacted. The reason who'll have some difficulty with the specifics is because there isn't all that much. Then what caused this economic prosperity if it wasn't Clinton?? Clinton looks good because of the TIMING of his presidency. The industries that really took off during the 90's were the computer, high tech, communication industries. Guys like Bill Gates had much, much, much more do with this prosperity that Bill Clinton ever dreamed possible. It was the DOT COM BOOM. How many people had personal computers, faxes, and cell phones in the 80's??? Now compare that to the 90's. Think back when you got your first computer (was it in the 90's by any chance???) Or your first cell phone (was it in the 90's by any chance??). All these new industries meant jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, cause the economy to grow, grow, grow. It wouldn't have made any difference who was in office. Clinton was just lucky enough to be in office at the right time when all of this was taking off. This idea if the economy is doing great, it's because of the President and if it's doing poor, it's the President's fault, is pure old fashioned nonsense. It's simply not true. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual reality. It hasn't been true for a long time. The simple truth of the matter is the President doesn't really have that much power to effect change either through a monetary policy (changing the interest rates) and fiscal policy (enacting new laws- normally done by changing the tax code).

If after all this, you still believe Clinton was soley responsible for the economic prosperity and did more than Bill Gates did to cause all those surpluses, please give me specific actions, policies and laws enacted during his presidency and not general statements.














[Edited by time is on my side]
February 26th, 2005 04:07 PM
glencar Pretty good post. Also, for those who forgot how our system works, the House appropriates funds. Clinton had to be bent over a barrel crying to get him to accept a balanced budget. He lost his magical midnight basketball leagues. The whole Clinton Era/Error was one small chimera.
February 26th, 2005 04:56 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
glencar wrote:
The whole Clinton Era/Error was one small chimera.




by the same logic--so were the Reagan years
February 26th, 2005 05:03 PM
glencar Nope. Reagan toppled Communism, restored American might & got rid of stagflation. Clinton gave us the V-chip & a few extra federally funded cops. Big whoop.
February 26th, 2005 05:10 PM
Poplar
Gotta give Clinton credit for moving towards welfare reform, something his party wouldn't have gone for just several years earlier. big props for that, Bubba. (see, i can give each side their due).

but - ya can't forget the republican revolution of 1994, that had A LOT to do with US fiscal policy through the 1990s. I know people hate Newt, but the Contract With America was some pretty simple, straightforward shit that most Americans could agree upon. We could use some of that right now, when it comes to spending, etc.

and Gypsy - you should be proud to be thought of as one of "them."
February 26th, 2005 05:17 PM
Bloozehound
quote:
Starbuck wrote:



note: the above was my first emoticon.

[edited by Mr. T]




I dunno we might have to get a ruling from the judges on this one, judges will pass as a true emoticon, and starbucks first ?
February 26th, 2005 05:29 PM
Riffhard Very good points TIOMS. The truth about the economy has never had much to do with who holds the WH. However,for some reason liberals like to give credit to Bubba for "eight years of economic prosperity". The truth is that he had next to nothing to do with it,and the Republican held Senate and House had much more to do with it than Clinton ever did.

It is a tough time to be a liberal in America(or the rest of the world for that matter)as current events are all pointing to the facts that Bush was right all along about the Middle East. His "drain the swamp" philosophy is having huge success all over the Middle East. The liberals will NEVER admit to that though. Their hatered of this president is so visceral and close to the surface that nothing will change their minds. They said the same thing about Reagan,yet as history so often does,Reagan's vision about the end of the USSR proved correct.He had foresight and showed four things that the leftwing of the democrat party does not have. Namely-courage,vision,guts,and a sense of history.

The stupid liberal adage is "You can't force democracy at the point of a bayonette!" That is brilliant! LOL! Tell that to Germany or Japan circa 1945! I would think that when over 60% of the Iraqi population shows up at the polls while risking life and limb it is rather self evident that they are hungry to give democracy a shot!

Let's review,shall we?

1.-9/11/01 the USA is hit by the worst terrorist attack in history.

2.-After gathering the military mite needed to retailiate. The USA removed the Taliban in record time with minor US casulties.

4.-After the Taliban was overthrown Afganistan held their first democratic election in the five thousand year history of that country. Even the UN applauded the results! (Let's remember that the NYT wrote no less than 35 above-the-fold articles where the word "quagmire" was used to describe this war.

5.-The USA goes to the UN for a solid fourteen months to try and force the enforcment of the previous 17 seperate UN resolutions drawn up in the Security Council. Rush to war? Hardly! The USA had every right to insist upon the enforcment of these resolutions. Why? Please refer to 9/11/01. Oh,I hear you! You say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. Ummm hmmm....WHO FUCKING CARES? All bets were off after 9/11/01. Considering that Saddma personally took out a hit on a former US president. He stated as recently as three years ago his ultimate goal was the complete destruction of the United States,and he gave refuge to terrorists with direct links to al Queada. Yes that's right! He did business with te exact group that attacked the USA on 9/11/01. Zarqauwi(sp?) was present in Iraq for over a year before we launched attacks inside Iraq. That is reason enough to remove this threat for most people that have any commen sense.

6.-Iraq holds it's first democratic elections in over fifty years! Over 60% of the population turned out. They did not let the evil(oh how liberals hate that word!)insurgents/terrorists scare them! They waved their purple stained fingers proudly in the air,and made no it a point to thank America for their first opportunity to vote.

7.-Libya has relented in it's WMD development programs,and has turned over loads of terrorists intelligence reports. As well as over three thousand tons of weapons and weapon related materials.

8.-Israel and the PLO are trying to restart the peace talks. Will the EVIL terrorists groups like allow that to happen? They certainly will try and derail them,but since Bush has shown the Middle East that democracy can happen in that part of the world their efforts for popular support are eroding at a much quicker pace than heretofore. Bush has them all concerned and petrified at the prospect of a democratic Middle East. That's good no matter what your politics.


All in all Bush has actully helped shape the world in a decidedly more democratic way. Who would have thought it possible? Some of us knew it all along! Gee,the last president to actully help shape the geopolitcs of the entire planet for the better was,........wait for it............here it comes.............almost...........drum roll................the one.....the only.......the legend himself......Ronald Wilson Reagan! YES!


The thing that is really shocking is that even some of the Euro-libs are begining to get it! Yes even the very liberal Der Spiegel from Germany is starting to see the light! See link. Yet the hardcore Bush haters will never give W credit for anything at all. Why? Because he is a republican. It's as simple,and stupid,as that. Three general election cycles in a row,loss after loss in the House and Senate,the GOP gaining more mayorships,governorships,and local council seats nationwide and the dems still can't see the writing on the wall! LOL! Dean for DNC Chair?! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! A million times thanks!


"The democratic party of the 21st century-the gift that keeps on giving"


http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html



Riffhard

February 26th, 2005 07:05 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
glencar wrote:
Nope. Reagan toppled Communism, restored American might & got rid of stagflation. ....




and grew the beanstalk and made everyone live happily ever after? more right wing fairy tales
February 26th, 2005 07:20 PM
gypsy
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:



and grew the beanstalk and made everyone live happily ever after? more right wing fairy tales



So, when you were picking out board names, was "cumguzzler" on the list?
What made you go with "lotsajizz?"


Poplar, I am proud to be "one of them."
I am also a proud card-carrying member of the LC6, with my buddy Riffhard, whose post is wonderful, by the way.
February 26th, 2005 07:27 PM
glencar Riffhard's post rocks. BTW Today Egypt announced moves towards democracy. Yesterday, Syria announced it will move out of Lebanon. This Iraq adventure is paying better dividends than anyone thought possible.


gypsy, glad to have you on board!
February 26th, 2005 07:36 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
gypsy wrote:


So, when you were picking out board names, was "cumguzzler" on the list?




I saved that one for you.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood