| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Real Liberalism
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/24/2011 12:39 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. Hmmm. Maybe that's why Harry changed his stripes to Progressive. |
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. No need to develop and invest in ones self, save, invest, just whine and entitlement. Envy others for their wealth not asking the obvious, how come they don't go out and work for some of their own. Equal rights also means I should be able to save and invest without my liberal-socialist neighbor wanting to tax me for my success and reward him for his failure. It includes economics and economic liberty from debt-tax slavery. Nope, liberal socialism is about discarding the conservative values that made America great and rewarding losers that wallow in greed, envy and whine. Greedy *******s mortgaging our kids and gand kids with their selfishness of "just more debt" today. "In Debt We Trust!" - 0bama and the new American liberal-socialist way. -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But we have big huge government we can't afford... -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
Real Liberalism
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker slogans. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/24/11 3:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:15 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:39:00 -0400, wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. In the 20th century "liberalism" has become everything but freedom. For that you need to be libertarian. "Liberals" want to tell you what kind of car to drive, (preferably none at all), what to set your thermostat to, whether you wear a helmet or not, who can have a gun, who gets to spend your money, which wars we need to get into and what speech is acceptable, particularly religious speech. I understand conservatives may be worse on many freedom related things (sex, drugs and Rock&roll) but they don't call themselves "liberal". I agree, not many today know what the true meaning of liberalism is. I am a little left of center. I don't want more and bigger government, and I don't want them dictating what I drive, up to a point. I don't think we should be able to pollute the environment and put our heads in the sand like it will do no harm, for one. In the liberty sense, I too would be a liberal. But liberal or libertarian are two different things. Todays people that call them selves "liberals" or "liberal-socialists" are not much about integrity, freedom, personal liberty or any of that. For example personal liberty also comes with personal responsibility. I don't see todays liberals taking any responsibility at all. Just whine, envy and greed of others. No one, and I mean no one, whines here more than you do, asshole. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/24/2011 3:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker slogans. Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. |
Real Liberalism
On 24/10/2011 1:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker slogans. Funny, Rosanne Barr is a liberal religious nut ball, so are the Osmonds. Religion has fanatics on both sides. But agree, GOP could tone down the religious crap a bit. But I suspect it is the liberal urinalism egging it on. But 0bama is like a bad poker hand, even some democrats know when to quit. -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But we have big huge government we can't afford... -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
Real Liberalism
On 24/10/2011 2:51 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/24/2011 3:00 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker slogans. Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. 0bama is hopeless and a chance. Depends if you donated money or not. -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But we have big huge government we can't afford... -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
Real Liberalism
On 10/24/2011 12:39 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. If all of this were true, "liberals" wouldn't be so bigoted... |
Real Liberalism
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:00:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So, to clear things up, from Wiki: Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents. By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism. Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are about discarding conservative values. There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker slogans. The only conservative "value" I've detected in the current crop of Republican leaders is "what's mine is mine." Jesus would throw the mother****ers overboard. |
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) |
Real Liberalism
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:12:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) It's not a good excuse to use the ship's schedule as the reason for the banner. It was a media event, replete with a deck landing by the CIC in flight jammies, including cod piece. I seriously doubt the ship carries and hangs banners when it completes each mission. Nice try though. |
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 1:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, Nope, it was a Navy request oh dishonest one... |
Real Liberalism
|
Real Liberalism
In article ,
says... In article , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... And here's more!!!! At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the decision to put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier where he gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake." It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News political analyst Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this morning by Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was responsible for the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past ? Bartlett said that it was actually his call. "Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed off" on posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the aircraft carrier approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this day, because it did send the wrong message." |
Real Liberalism
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... And here's more!!!! At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the decision to put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier where he gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake." It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News political analyst Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this morning by Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was responsible for the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past ? Bartlett said that it was actually his call. "Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed off" on posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the aircraft carrier approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this day, because it did send the wrong message." Oh, and yet MORE about the banner!!!!! MR. WOODWARD: And you know, one thing ? just one quick thing not on the list but someone told me about the other day, which I found fascinating. When the person that gave that speech on the Lincoln with the ?Mission Accomplished? on the back, somebody told me that the White House speechwriters had used MacArthur?s surrender speech on the Missouri as a model. And they literally had in that speech ?the guns are silent,? and you edited it out. SEC. RUMSFELD: I took ?mission accomplished? out. I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it?s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back.. MR. WOODWARD: were you on the trip? SEC. RUMSFELD: I was. And we got it back and they fixed the speech, but not the sign. MR. WOODWARD: That?s right. But it had ?the guns are silent,? and someone said you line-edited it out and said the guns are not silent. SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah, that?s for darn sure. MR. WOODWARD: Is that ? SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. No, there?s no question but that I was well aware that things were still happening there. I was there. And more!!!! Scott Sforza flew out to the USS Lincoln five days before the speech. Sforza was the White House?s in-house producer. ~~~ In the course of his labors, Sforza became quite taken with the crew. When they mentioned to the White House aide that they would like to emblazon the stage with a banner reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED so as to send up a victorious signal to their families and Navy buddies, Sforza loved the spirit of it and was effusive in his pitch to Fleischer, Bartlett, and the others. By conference call, they mused among themselves: Could the slogan backfire? But Fleischer reminded the others that the press had been haranguing Bush to declare an end to major combat operations for weeks now. The press shop gave Sforza the green light. Sforza had the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner designed by a private vendor, with a slick red-white-and-blue background. It was unfurled and pinned alongside the carrier, directly behind where the president would give his nationally televised speech on the evening of May 1. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 1:00 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:12:29 -0400, wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) It's not a good excuse to use the ship's schedule as the reason for the banner. It was a media event, replete with a deck landing by the CIC in flight jammies, including cod piece. I seriously doubt the ship carries and hangs banners when it completes each mission. Nice try though. You are a Navy veteran of how many years? |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 2:38 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... Never said he knew nothing, why must you always lie. I said it was requested by the Navy, and it was.. Period... |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 2:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... In , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... And here's more!!!! At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the decision to put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier where he gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake." It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News political analyst Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this morning by Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was responsible for the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past ? Bartlett said that it was actually his call. "Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed off" on posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the aircraft carrier approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this day, because it did send the wrong message." So, you don't know who signed off on the banner, but you know it was Bush..Riiiight... |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/2011 2:48 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... In , says... In , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... And here's more!!!! At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the decision to put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier where he gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake." It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News political analyst Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this morning by Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was responsible for the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past ? Bartlett said that it was actually his call. "Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed off" on posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the aircraft carrier approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this day, because it did send the wrong message." Oh, and yet MORE about the banner!!!!! MR. WOODWARD: And you know, one thing ? just one quick thing not on the list but someone told me about the other day, which I found fascinating. When the person that gave that speech on the Lincoln with the ?Mission Accomplished? on the back, somebody told me that the White House speechwriters had used MacArthur?s surrender speech on the Missouri as a model. And they literally had in that speech ?the guns are silent,? and you edited it out. SEC. RUMSFELD: I took ?mission accomplished? out. I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it?s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back.. MR. WOODWARD: were you on the trip? SEC. RUMSFELD: I was. And we got it back and they fixed the speech, but not the sign. MR. WOODWARD: That?s right. But it had ?the guns are silent,? and someone said you line-edited it out and said the guns are not silent. SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah, that?s for darn sure. MR. WOODWARD: Is that ? SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. No, there?s no question but that I was well aware that things were still happening there. I was there. And more!!!! Scott Sforza flew out to the USS Lincoln five days before the speech. Sforza was the White House?s in-house producer. ~~~ In the course of his labors, Sforza became quite taken with the crew. When they mentioned to the White House aide that they would like to emblazon the stage with a banner reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED so as to send up a victorious signal to their families and Navy buddies, Sforza loved the spirit of it and was effusive in his pitch to Fleischer, Bartlett, and the others. By conference call, they mused among themselves: Could the slogan backfire? But Fleischer reminded the others that the press had been haranguing Bush to declare an end to major combat operations for weeks now. The press shop gave Sforza the green light. Sforza had the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner designed by a private vendor, with a slick red-white-and-blue background. It was unfurled and pinned alongside the carrier, directly behind where the president would give his nationally televised speech on the evening of May 1. Yup, Bush was right there the whole time.. Oh wait? The Navy requested it... |
Real Liberalism
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/11 5:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn An "unfortunate" juxtaposition, eh? Well, I have no reason to doubt you on this, but history (which is sometimes wrong) thinks otherwise! |
Real Liberalism
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. |
Real Liberalism
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn Let's let the man speak for himself... "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 Were the rest of combat operations in Iraq non-major? That's not my impression nor do I believe that most soldiers that did 3 or 4 tours over there would subscribe to that notion. Was the "surge" a minor operation? Why did we need the surge since the US and allies had prevailed? We're arguing over a small point. What comes to light is how stupid Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl and the rest of the neocons were about the eventual depth of their misadventure. No one arguing against Bush needs to twist, he's done it all for us. |
Real Liberalism
On 26/10/2011 5:27 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. They consider short memories an asset, not a liability. -- The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is the problem. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/11 7:27 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. Herring channels Canuckles and Ingertool. |
Real Liberalism
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:13:57 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 10/26/11 7:27 PM, John H wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. Herring channels Canuckles and Ingertool. I have proof that Herring and Canook are sockpuppets of Snotty. |
Real Liberalism
On 10/26/11 8:45 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:13:57 -0400, X ` wrote: On 10/26/11 7:27 PM, John H wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. Herring channels Canuckles and Ingertool. I have proof that Herring and Canook are sockpuppets of Snotty. :) |
Real Liberalism
On 26/10/2011 6:45 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:13:57 -0400, X ` wrote: On 10/26/11 7:27 PM, John H wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. Herring channels Canuckles and Ingertool. I have proof that Herring and Canook are sockpuppets of Snotty. You should ask harryk for a date, then you can fleabags can pamper each other with your bull****. -- The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is the problem. |
Real Liberalism
On 26/10/2011 6:51 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/26/11 8:45 PM, jps wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:13:57 -0400, X ` wrote: On 10/26/11 7:27 PM, John H wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:34:45 -0400, wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They worked for one clown. Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished". -------------------------------------------------- This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq. The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media and Bush haters would like to believe. US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for 4-6 months or more away from their home port. Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to the ship or the task force that it is part of. Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the performance of the unique cruise or mission. When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise and not the end of the Iraq war. Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran) Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot. ------------------------------------------------ It's a big deal ... even on a nuke aircraft carrier .... to have the Commander in Chief come aboard. I was on a couple of small ships and we were once visited by the Secretary of the Navy. I thought the Captain was going to **** a brick getting the ship prepared for his visit. I am sure the CO of the Lincoln did everything he could to make Bush's visit memorable. But again, I repeat ... flying the broom or celebrating the successful completion of a ship's long term cruise and mission is traditional. In this case it was not intended to celebrate a victory in Iraq. The media reports and interpretations over the years have made it what many now view it as. Eisboch Anyway, twist and turn 'Liberal' history and the truth often have little in common. Herring channels Canuckles and Ingertool. I have proof that Herring and Canook are sockpuppets of Snotty. :) So is that a kiss on the balls for jps? -- The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is the problem. |
Real Liberalism
In article ,
says... On 10/26/2011 2:38 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it. Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying.. But this means nothing to you? Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you really so blinded by your party that you can't see? Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's, his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the banner made) knew nothing of it. Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT..... Never said he knew nothing, why must you always lie. I said it was requested by the Navy, and it was.. Period... Okay, I guess you are too narrow minded to read. You do realize that Bush could have told them that was inappropriate and had it taken down, don't you. The trouble with this conversation is that because Navy personnel put it up, you try, because you can't bring yourself to say anything bad about Bush, to present that the banner wasn't for Bush. I've proven several times yesterday that what Eisboch said about the banner being for the ship's mission is just not true. |
Real Liberalism
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com