| This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there! |
| Jeb Bush - "I have no future"; Weird bylines | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 21 2006, 04:01 AM (195 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 04:01 AM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
I really have nothing much to say on this at the moment aside from the fact that weird bylines end up appealing to me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16305299/ |
|
|
| JanaW | Dec 21 2006, 04:10 AM Post #2 |
|
All I will say is that while Jeb might be popular and politically savvy...his brother seems to have nailed the last nail into his policical coffin, unless he changes is last name. |
|
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian. Linda McCartney | |
![]() |
|
| fab4fan | Dec 21 2006, 04:51 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Caretaker
|
Ya think? (you know I'm thinking Clinton TOO! Any truth she's gonna run as Rodham?) |
| Mnisthiti mou Kurie! | |
![]() |
|
| JanaW | Dec 21 2006, 04:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Jeb might have a chance if he changed his name to Shrub or Clampett. His name is better known than his face. Hillary on the other hand will need to change more than her last name. |
|
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian. Linda McCartney | |
![]() |
|
| theonlyfab4fan | Dec 21 2006, 05:09 AM Post #5 |
|
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
|
I`m reading this and looking at the Hilarry references and I will have to do research but this morning on the view she was the main guest and they introduced her as being the person at this point in time who is the front runner in the next election for president. Now Hilary was quite adept at sidestepping the question as to whether she is prepared to announce that she would like to be a candidate in the next election, but we aren`t dummies here, we know that all of this is in the realm of possibility. If she were not even remotely considering she would have put the squash on it long before now, like Colin Powell did when he was being touted as a possibility all those years ago. Do I think she has a chance at winning, realistically no, do I think she should have a chance at winning, realistically yes. Unfortunatley, I do not think that the United States is progressive enough and politically savvy enough to risk having a woman at the helm. Even though it has been done by England. Israel, India and quite a few other nations in our known lifetime. We have saddly failed in abolishing the old boy network in this country. So I don`t think at this point I will live long enough to see a woman in power. Although I wish and hope and dream that it could be a possibility if that is the best person for the job. |
|
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' ! I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN | |
![]() |
|
| fab4fan | Dec 21 2006, 05:21 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Caretaker
|
Betsy, I hope you are right about Hilary and wrong about the U.S. not electing a woman. I'd have no problem with Condaleeza Rice.
Sadly she doesn't seem to plan on running.
|
| Mnisthiti mou Kurie! | |
![]() |
|
| JanaW | Dec 21 2006, 05:22 AM Post #7 |
|
Here!...Here! Well said Betsy! I would vote for her in a minute if she runs. The only other person I can even think of that I would love to see run is Colin Powell. Unfortunately, the man is wayyyyy to smart for that! He has too many principles and too much integrity. |
|
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian. Linda McCartney | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 06:22 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'm a Barbara Boxer fan personally, but I doubt she's interested at this point ... too bad. I tend to watch a little C-SPAN on occasion (much more during the '90's than of late ... far too frustrating to watch things getting sneaked onto the floor in the middle of the night ... or worse yet groups of well thought out folks speaking to an empty house). At any rate if Barak Obama ran with Barbara Boxer that could be really interesting. On the other side I've always had a soft spot for John McCain ... he really got tanked by negative ads during the 2000 run-up ... it was absolutely shameful the manner in which he was dealt with by the Bush machine. |
|
|
| Bill | Dec 21 2006, 06:26 AM Post #9 |
|
Don't be so sure. Many of those who participated in the Clinton backlash of 2000 now realise how lucky they were. Hilary's best hopes come from those who want a third term for Bill. I can't understand why anyone thinks Rice would be a good candidate. She has shown no initiative, she simply parrots what the administration gives her. If you want a former secretary of state, you could do a lot worse than Colin Powell. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| JanaW | Dec 21 2006, 06:30 AM Post #10 |
|
I watched a wonderful program the other night...or should I say morning. it was 2:30 a.m. and it was an hour and a half with Colin Powell. They talked about everything beginning with his growing up through today. He made it quite clear that he has no real party affiliation and that he is a soldier and not a politician. What a loss for the rest of us. I think he would be the best thing that has happend to this country in many decades. |
|
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian. Linda McCartney | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Dec 21 2006, 06:34 AM Post #11 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Well said, Betsy! As for voting for Hilary, she is to conservative for me. I have absolutely no problems with voting for a woman for President but don't think Hilary is the woman to vote for. As for Condoleeza, PUH-LEASE!!! Give me a flippin' break! I certainly don't want reruns of the current administration. The person I choose thus far for the President is Barack Obama. He is a fresh horse and one that is intelligent and a force to be reckoned with. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM Post #12 |
|
That's the tragedy of it. All he's got going for him is great qualifications for the job and a complete lack of interest in partisan pandering. That's what's turned me off McCain of late - his pandering to the party base. As Jon Stewart said (to his face), Has the Straight Talk Express taken a detour down bullsh*t Lane? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Merry | Dec 21 2006, 06:35 AM Post #13 |
|
I like Colin Powell a great deal and would vote for him in a second, if he were ever to run. I guess he has too much intergrity to get back into the political arena again, though. I have no qualms whatsoever about a woman in the White House, however I don't feel that Hillary is the right choice. From what I've heard, she isn't that much like her husband and almost sounds Republican at times. I would never vote for Condoleeza Rice, she's a turncoat and out for her own gain. To me, she's a non-issue, I don't care for the lady at all! Merry
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 06:40 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
I like Colin Powell quite a lot myself ... and was rather disgusted with how he was used during some of the events that occurred (specifically the UN speech). Remember watching an interview on MSNBC on morning and he was being asked some questions related to the validity of the information that he'd provided to the UN and such and he was saying "if you're asking if we're cooking the books the answer is "no" we can't afford to cook the books at this point in time." I sat there a little stunned because he basically implied that they had been "cooking the books" previously but couldn't get away with it at that point in time, very shortly thereafter he left his position within the administration. I think this was a 'Meet the Press' episode. I honestly don't think that anyone in the room quite "got it" when he told them that if "they break it they bought it" when he told them that ... whatever. On another note, I was watching something on PBS a while back where they interviewed Condaleeza Rice's cousin (for the life of me I can't recall her name) ... at any rate she totally impressed me, very thoughtful and quite well schooled in the issues that were being brought up regarding world affairs. I think this was a Bill Moyer's show, yeah it was NOW but with the new guy not Bill. I'll have to figure out who she is again ... similar resume as her cousin it seemed, I was thinking this is proof positive that this administration is a rather wacky. If given the choice between this lady I'm referring to and Condi ... I'd definitely go with the cousin. |
|
|
| Bill | Dec 21 2006, 06:43 AM Post #15 |
|
Mercifully, thousands of others feel the same way.
Fresh? Intelligent? You say that like it's a good thing!
But how would you really tell? Hillary just agrees with whoever she's talking to at the time. Even her own daughter had to call her out for pandering. I think there are far more Republicans taking Hillary seriously than Democrats. She's their big scare tactic for 2008. They can't seem to work out that if they could just put up someone worth voting FOR, who could inspire people on his or her own merits, (see Powell again) they wouldn't have to pull out the fear factor every time. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Dec 21 2006, 06:46 AM Post #16 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Oh sorry, I forgot we are talking about politicians!! So sorry I'll try not to do that again!!
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 06:46 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Oh my goodness that's soooooo very funny (Jon Stewart really is quite the interviewer at times). It's really too bad that everyone is going through the CYA syndrome when it comes to current events, it always happens though ... it's like a poker game and that's just the way it is. I'd almost like to see something other than those issues that have come up over the past 6 years be the litmus test through which we judge all of these contenders, yes I realize this is impractical but it's just been such the surreal span of time and some very strange things have affected folks in a PTSD sense. I also think that the negative ads thing is something that should be banned altogether ... it drives people away from participating in the process, people get indifferent and depressed and then complacent. |
|
|
| Bill | Dec 21 2006, 06:58 AM Post #18 |
|
I think that's why they do it. They don't care if people don't vote, just so long as they don't vote for the other guy. For everyone who gets turned off the whole process, that's one more person who can't vote against them. Sorry to shitcan Hannity twice in one day (well, actually, I'm not really) but did anyone hear him before the midterms saying that Democrats shouldn't vote in this election because there's nothing in it for them since they can't change the administration. Wrong and wrong! But that's the message they want to get out - if you're not going to vote for us, don't vote at all. Shameful! |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Dec 21 2006, 07:09 AM Post #19 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
I heard it. He said it a couple of times a couple of months before the elections and on Bill Maher's show. So Bill, is there any difference between the politicians in the US and the politicians in Australia? You don't seem to quite have the puppy dog to the US syndrome that the Brits have with Tony Blair. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Dec 21 2006, 10:40 AM Post #20 |
|
Oh, I wish! At least Blair puts some small distance between his policy and Bush's. Tragically, our government is in complete lock-step with the White House. It's embarrassing. The one saving grace is that every humiliation of Bush translates to a humiliation of Howard. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| FamousGroupie | Dec 21 2006, 10:42 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Obsessive Saddo Fangirl
|
There's a reason they call John Howard "Bonsai". :rolleyes: |
| I don't believe in Bondi. I don't believe in rugby league. I believe in Yoko, John Lennon, the Lost Weekend and me. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 01:33 PM Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
Colin Powell one word IRAQ. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2006, 04:33 PM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well regarding the negative ads ... this past election I was so completely frazzled by the onslaught that I was tempted to just not even bother, then I ended up reading a few articles on the psychological ramifications of the negative ads. These articles were talking about how they have the tendency toward making one less inclined to vote, by doing exactly what I was referencing earlier ... they don't stir one up to vote for the party that's running the negative ad, they just quell those that would normally be compelled to vote in the other direction. At that I dragged myself over to the pamphlet, mulled over my choices and filled it out and then got the blasted thing down to the nearest drop off point. I was, evidently, being affected in the exact manner that the marketeers hoped ... and once I realized it I was able to work my way through it and participate in the process. Glad it got it done, but honestly I wasn't particularly interested in the returns at the time (even though the majority of the issues I voted on ended up going in the direction that I'd voted). I guess this would be the 'hang-over' affect ... yes, I voted but I'm still rather disgusted with the manner in which the lead-up went ... and as I stated I'd really like to see this whole negative ad issue rectified immediately. I think it's probably more relevant to get this banning of negative ads issue resolved than it is to get campaign financing reform at this point. These things are psychologically sinister and over the past 6 years there has been a precedence set for them that no one has really questioned or revolted against ... how negative are they going to allow themselves to go for the 2008 election? I was reading something for one of my history classes that was talking about advertisers from the 1920's and how they'd decided that based upon IQ tests that had been done following World War I that the vast majority of the American public (at that time) were not particularly intelligent. Given that they embarked upon the style of advertising that was emotionally charged, if they could appeal to the emotional quotient rather than the intelligence quotient then they'd have a much broader demographic. Eerily reminiscent of the years between 2000 and 2005 I'd say .... an old tactic that really didn't need to be resurrected. |
|
|
| beatlechick | Dec 22 2006, 07:13 AM Post #24 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Oh so sorry to hear that. You have my condolences. May your country have a speedy recovery once our elected heads of state get their asses out of office. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Dec 22 2006, 02:37 PM Post #25 |
|
It won't make any difference. The government of the day in Canberra will bend over for the government of the day in Washington. It's always the way. And the opposition of the day is always half-hearted in its objections - if it objects at all - because they know they would do the same thing. It's not America's fault that Australia's leaders have no self-respect. Can't blame Bush for that. I believe in the friendship between our countries, but a true friend doesn't blindly follow a friend into an ill-advised fight. The true friend tries to talk sense into the friend, and if that is unsuccessful, he still doesn't blindly follow but helps the friend to recover after he has lived to regret his bad decision. Again, it's not George Bush's fault that John Howard expressed his friendship by blindly following instead of reasoning with him. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic » |







Sadly she doesn't seem to plan on running.
Merry

8:09 AM Jul 11