glyn

[quote=Julie;365091]That's right...hence, you'll never find a man standing at the sink washing dishes, or, for that matter, the majority of men probably do not even know how to work a simple appliance called the "dish washer."

Well Julie, let me assure you that this household does not have an electrical appliance known as a dishwasher. It has me , as I don't in the least mind washing and drying the dishes. In fact I find it to be rather therapeutic. I can't imagine why some people find it demeaning.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Julie

[quote=glyn;365113]Kudos to you.

Personally, I'd rather do my own dishes then I known they are sanitary when I used them next time. Others in the home have washed them, and I found them to still have food remains on them when taken out of the cabinet.

Dreadnought: Do not fear, as you can see that both Bush and Pelosi have followed their background experience. Bush has a Masters in Business Administration, therefore our economy has been strong throughout his presidency. However, he has failed on foreign relations.

Pelosi has done well in public relations, but if she were to ever hold office as President, our economy would probably go down the drain.

Now, if we could just get the two to work together.......maybe things would work out.

dalem

You certainly implied exactly that with this post of yours:

Unless, of course, you think it's inappropriate for the Veep to go.

-dale

bfng3569

peace,, tell the terrorist that they want peace, i think they keep forgetting that when they blow themselves and children and other people up.

and yes, i want ice cream, vanilla in guiness,,, good, but dam is it bad for ya....

so you are saying you would be ok with them charging her for it and nothing else?

either all or nothing??

that mentality i really dont get in this instance.

and how could u say u never said it was ok for her to do it, all your posts that i have read about it seem to imply that you are ok with it?

bfng3569

[quote=Julie;365121][quote=glyn;365113]Kudos to you.

Dreadnought: Do not fear, as you can see that both Bush and Pelosi have followed their background experience. Bush has a Masters in Business Administration, therefore our economy has been strong throughout his presidency. However, he has failed on foreign relations.

Pelosi has done well in public relations, but if she were to ever hold office as President, our economy would probably go down the drain.

QUOTE]


how has he failed in foreign relations exactly???

and how has pelosi excelled?

Shek

bnfg,

Making a distinction between foreign policy and foreign relations, the administration has needlessly damaged many of our foreign relations by accentuating an either your with us or against us mentality at times when it wasn't needed. For example, they deemed going into Iraq as in the best interests of the US, and while I am not sure if there was a way to convince France and Germany to concur with that decision, there wasn't a need to have your SecDef speak of Old Europe/New Europe or to exclude non-coalition of the willing countries from the reconstruction effort as "punishment" for not support the invasion. While tough talk like that may feel good, it doesn't help foreign relations.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Ray

Shek,

That was a brilliant point - the distinction between foreign policy and foreign relations!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

Didn't want to start a thread, but here is how each side is bumbling along the course.

Poleoski shrugs White House criticism and the White House wipes out history and shrugs it off as a 'screw up'! The White House minions sure know how to screw up Bush's happiness!

White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing - CNN.com

smilingassassin

Perhaps unlike the democrats the Republicans are acctually trying to persue a non-partian aproach to politics? By the way, hows that "War" funding bill going? Last I heard there was quite abit of pork thrown into the bill. That couldn't be a partisan tactic could it?, becuse the Dems have stated they very much would like to co-operate with the current administration post mid terms

__________________
Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

-- Larry Elder

Julie

Here is some backtrack on "pork":

BUSH AND REPUBLICANS ADDED OTHER FUNDS TO PAST IRAQ FUNDING BILLS

2006 Bush Request Included $24 Billion in Domestic Funding.

The Washington Post reported that the president's own 2006 supplemental request for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier. The total: $24.3 billion. [Washington Post, 4/4/07] This is more than the $15 billion in truly domestic items included in the 2007 supplemental going through Congress.

The Domestic Items That Were in the 2006 Iraq Supplemental are, in Many Cases, the Exact Same Domestic Items That the Republicans are Now Ridiculing in the 2007 Iraq Supplemental. The key domestic items that were in the GOP-drafted 2006 Iraq Supplemental, signed by President Bush on June 15, 2006 (with all of these categories also in the Democratic-drafted 2007 Iraq Supplemental that Congress is now considering: Hurricane Disaster Relief and Recovery (for a total of $19.3 billion); Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance (for a total of $409 million), including such specific programs as sugar and sugarcane disaster assistance, livestock assistance, specialty crops and nursery crops, dairy assistance, and cottonseed; Homeland Security (for a total of $1.2 billion), including such specific programs as air and marine interdiction, salaries and expenses for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and Office for Domestic Preparedness; Pandemic Flu Preparedness (for a total of $2.3 billion); Aquaculture Producer Grants; and funding for employee safety at the Capitol Power Plant (for a total of $28 million)

Republicans Tried to Add Even More Funds to 2006 Supplemental.

In 2006, according to the Washington Post, “ the Republican-controlled Senate tried to load the 2006 bill with $4 billion for agricultural subsidies, $1.1 billion for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, $594 million for highway projects unrelated to Hurricane Katrina, and $700 million for rerouting a rail line in Mississippi.” The total: $6.394 billion. [Washington Post, 4/4/07]

2005 Iraq Supplemental Included Unrelated Funds. The Washington Post reported that, “the 2005 emergency war-spending bill included $70 million for aid to Ukraine and other former Soviet states; $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police; $24 million for the Forest Service to repair flood and landslide damage; and $104 million for watershed protection -- the lion's share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state's Republican senators.” The total: $210 million. [Washington Post, 4/4/07]

2003 Iraq Supplemental Included Unrequested Funds. The 2003 Iraq supplemental included $481 million in unrequested funds for Hurricane Isabel recovery, $500 million in unrequested funds mainly for California fire relief, $245 million for the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping operations in Liberia, and $100 million for international disaster and famine assistance. The total: $1.326 billion. [H.R. 3289, CQ House Action Report, 10/30/03]

First Iraq War Supplemental Included Unrelated Provisions. The 2003 Iraq supplemental bill required that Alaskan salmon caught in the wild be classified as "organic" for purposes of consumer labeling and included a provision appropriating $110 million for continued construction of a food and bio-safety research facility in Ames, Iowa. Provisions in the bill included the president's request of $1.1 billion in aid for Jordan and the president's request of $300 million to Egypt. The measure even appropriated $30 million to facilitate peace efforts in Mindanao, a largely Muslim island in the southern Philippines. The total: $1.54 billion. [HR 1559, CQ House Action Report, 4/12/03]

President Bush Signed These Bills Despite Non-Military Funding. President Bush signed each of these bills into law despite the fact that they had items in them not directly related to military operations. [Library of Congress, clerk.house.gov]

Julie

Strongly agree with that.

bfng3569

i'll certainly admit i wasnt looking at the disntinction bewteen foren policy, and foreign relations.

as far as saying that this administration has needlessly damaged those relations i woudnlt exactly agree with that.

Ever think that maybe it was France and Germany that did the damaging? Or at least started it down the slope?

If they didn't agree with the decision, thats there choice, but it was also there choice to turn it into a political battle with the U S government as well.

i think there is a much broader picture to this than just saying that Bush's administration is soley responsible for any damaged foreign relations.

diplomacy is a two way streeet.

Shek

bfng,

There is no doubt that policy decisions resulted in strains on foreign relations. However, some of the actions of the administration amounted to pouring gasoline on the fire. That is something that the administration is culpable for. To blame it on the other country (they forced me to make a public announcement that we weren't going to allow them to compete for reconstruction projects ) simply doesn't fly.

There is a difference between being the big boy on the block (speak softly and carry a big stick) and letting everyone know that you are the big boy on the block.

Dr Fu Manchu

House work is okey by me, except ironing. I hate it!

If I were an American, I'd rather have all the money go down the military drain rather than giving it to destructive commies like the NEA.

Julie

I wasn't referring to WHO was representing the US, but the COUNTRIES we were embracing as Allies. I have never considered Pakistan an ally on terror, as much as the Bush Administration portrays them to be.

From a legal standpoint, I've never said it was okay. Read back through my posts regarding the Logan Act.

One particular statement Pelosi made while in Syria sticks in my mind. She said, "If the US considers the road to terror leads to Syria, then that is also the road to peace as well." I can't argue with that statement. With that said, wasn't it you who said diplomacy is a two-way street? Bush has proven not to be very good in Foreign Relations. Whether Pelosi is or is not the right person to represent the US in that regard, she seems a damn better sight qualified than Bush is, or has been.

In the forum "The Iranian Question," I have posted in a discussion involving Nixon embracing China, as well as Reagan embracing the Soviet Union, both nations being isolated and/or considered rogue nations at the time, and the successfulness of those two Presidents' Foreign RELATIONS in their embracement. These Foreign RELATIONS accomplishments were done successfully without war.

That, my dear, is my argument.