Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Outdoor Speaker Placement

Speaker Placement: Unusual Room Layouts and Elevating Speakers

Wall'O'Fame
Experimental Atmos
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
Who's Online
2 registered (CV, bridgman), 39 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13317 Members
11 Forums
22875 Topics
404226 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17768
pmbuko 16273
SirQuack 13333
CV 11194
MarkSJohnson 10878
Meanwhile On Facebook

Love this comment from Doug T! "The M22 bookshelf speakers sound so clean and a...

󾓶 Andrew has spoken! Big update on the AxiomPlay Wireless Platform on the Axiom...

A New Look For Our Amps and Pre-amps? Adding yet another level of customization...

Hurry - sale ends Sunday!

Page 108 of 172 < 1 2 ... 106 107 108 109 110 ... 171 172 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#53679 - 10/01/04 01:50 PM Re: OT: politics
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
Vary well said, turbodog, in both posts. I believe I said on page 2 that Kerry is your typical whore politician. Painfully obvious to all. That there remains a chance he may be President is disturbing. I cannot think of a candidate in my lifetime - maybe Dukakis - who has been less deserving, less qualified to become President.
He "won" the debate because he attacked Bush and his policies with hyperbole, malice and half-truths. IMO, his new, desperate campaign strategy borders on treasonous. He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America, fueling the opposition and undermining our efforts in the field. He's doing the same thing now because he wants to be President so bad he'll do or say anything - even marry for money.

Top
#53680 - 10/01/04 01:58 PM Re: OT: politics
ringmir Offline
aficionado

Registered: 02/03/04
Posts: 619
Loc: boston
How is it that nobody understands his position? He has said repeatedly that he thinks Saddam needed to be removed, there is no question of this, and he doesn't deny it. What he is saying is that Bush did it wrong. Not that doing it was wrong, but that Bush did it wrong. That is his position, not too fuzzy. Yes, he voted to give Bush the authority, based on the same information Bush had. But when he voted for that it was assuming a set of steps would be followed. Those steps were not followed. He was for the war in Iraq, but ended up against the war because of how Bush chose to fight it. This is not flip-flopping, it's recognizing mistakes as they are made and attempting to right them.

I mean hypothetically, if your brother says "Hey, can I take your kids out to the movies Friday." You might say "Sure". If they come back and tell you they saw a double feature of "Sliver" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", you would then go severely reprimand your brother. There's no flip flopping here on your part, it's a perfectly reasonable progression of opinions.
_________________________
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]

Top
#53681 - 10/01/04 02:37 PM Re: OT: politics
bigjohn Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 3016
Loc: San Angelo, TX
good analogy there ringmir!!

In reply to:

He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America



bigwill- thats another issue that irks me that the republicans always use as a parachute.. kerry actually went to vietnam and fought in the war, unlike bush.. then, once he came home, he did what any activists would do about something that he thought was wrong.. so he, along with a LARGE part of the nation, joined in an effort to 'call-out' the government for the things it was doing wrong.. i for one find no fault in that at all.. he never questioned the troops or their loyalty, but he did question the authority that put them there.

would you rather we all just abide and follow every rule the government gives us?? do you wanna spend your life as a sheep?? not me.......

bigjohn
_________________________
EXCUSE ME, ARE YOU THE SINGING BUSH??

Top
#53682 - 10/01/04 03:01 PM Re: OT: politics
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16273
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
In reply to:

He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America, fueling the opposition and undermining our efforts in the field.


Whoah, whoah, whoah. So you're saying is was right for the US to be in Vietnam in the first place? I thought it was pretty much agreed that our involvement -- other than advising the South Vietnamese -- was a complete mistake, and not just because of how it turned out in the end.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#53683 - 10/01/04 04:10 PM Re: OT: politics
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
Rather than get bogged down again in a protracted argument about the UN, failed resolutions, WMD, etc..., I mean only to talk about Kerry's position here.
He says the Iraq war was a mistake - both in its inception and prosecution - but, if elected, he will train the Iraqis better, get more allies to contribute, spend more money, send more troops, and get them home sooner. I got that right?

My point would be: If he feels the war was a mistake, then he should say that he will withdraw troops immediately. Why? Because the commander-in-chief cannot commit more troops or attract allies and their troops to a cause that he feels is in error. Obviously therefore, Kerry must recognize (despite low brow political rhetoric to the contrary) that what is happening in Iraq is in some way critical to the interests of the US, our security and that of future generations. Why else would he commit more troops to the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, etc...? If he feels it's wrong then quit - don't send more of our guys off to die.

He was very hawkish, from what I saw, in the primaries against Dean, et al. But his position on the war (the one we saw last night) has been carefully formulated with polls in mind, to attract the anti-war and anti-Bush voters, yet still appeal to swing voters who feel the war is justified. It is a lawyer's position. Maybe I'm being overly ideological, but I would like my President to stand for something other than his own political gain.

I think the notion that Kerry would prosecute the war better than the current administration is absurd. Does anybody actually believe that?

I think that Vietnam was a totally different ball of wax. I'm not sure how I feel about that war. But from what I saw of Kerry's testimony before Congress, accusing his fellow soldiers of widespread atrocities despite his narrow view of the war, he does not understand the proper way to dissent in time of war.

Top
#53684 - 10/01/04 04:42 PM Re: OT: politics
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16273
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
In reply to:

I think the notion that Kerry would prosecute the war better than the current administration is absurd. Does anybody actually believe that?


I do, for one. You call him a political whore, and I can't completely deny it. The thing is, there is such great political pressure to do Iraq differently, so to speak -- a pressure that President Bush completely ignores -- that Kerry's whoreishness picks up on. On the other hand, being a political whore can get you in bed with the wrong people.

In reply to:

accusing his fellow soldiers of widespread atrocities despite his narrow view of the war, he does not understand the proper way to dissent in time of war.


I agree.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#53685 - 10/01/04 05:28 PM Re: OT: politics
TurboDog1 Offline
devotee

Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 342
Ringmir - You've boiled it down nicely. The problem is, that's his position on one day and not on others. He has consistently stated that this is "The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".....So, why did you vote for it?...Why did you say that you supported the Presidents efforts? He consistently calls Bush a Liar (Yes, he has used the term LIE) about WMDs, yet he has clearly stated in the past that Hussein had WMDs and that "the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real". Even earlier, he states "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest." Yet, he continues to say that the President misled the country. He continues to chant the "No WMDs" mantra.

John Kerry is a pathetic semblance of a leader, politician, and a man. A person with honor would not lie to the face of the American people like that. A person of honor would not seek to lead a nation/world without having the personal conviction to take ownership of his words and suffer the consequences. He is nothing but a power-hungry cowardly snake. He slithers away from the truth and accountability using slight of hand, wordplay, distortion, and distraction. The thought of such a man controlling the fate of my daughter makes me want to puke. I think I need to get a big stiff drink to help wash away the cold sweat that I just got.

Top
#53686 - 10/01/04 05:33 PM Re: OT: politics
spiffnme Offline
axiomite

Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 5214
Loc: Los Angeles
Don't hold back Turbo...tell us what you really think.


_________________________
"A nation cannot prosper long, when it favors only the prosperous." -President Barack Obama

Top
#53687 - 10/01/04 06:03 PM Re: OT: politics
2x6spds Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 03/16/02
Posts: 2726
Loc: CA, USA
Spiff, bilateral talks with North Korea would be a disaster. The US position is that the talks must be multilateral, because there are many interested parties. Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, nations most directly effected by North Korea's nuclear program, and in the case of China, the nation most responsible for this criminal proliferation. If we have bilateral talks, it would reinforce North Korea's position that Japan and South Korea are nothing more than US puppet states and would not advance the cause. Why not? Because we cannot speak for South Korea and Japan.

Do you really think that the agreements made under Clinton represented progress? Spiff, they blackmailed us, took the oil and food we provided and then welched on the deal by going forward with their nuclear weapons program anyway. Do you suggest we do that again? That would be absurd.

The only way to make progress in the effort to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons is if China insists on it.

You have to understand that North Korea is the most insulated totalitarian police state in the world. It is a criminal state run by mad men. The threat is that North Korea will sell nuclear weapons/technology to Arab states, and indeed, North Korea was a key player in the A.Q. Kahn network, as well as Libya's and Pakistan's program. Of course it's not all North Korea's fault, in that obviously China uses North Korea as its cat's paw to proliferate this WMD technology among criminal states.

So, hopefully, as China liberalizes its markets it will progress politically as well. That progress will be marked by China using its enormous economic influence over North Korea as leverage to induce North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. If we enter into bilateral talks with North Korea, as North Korea insists, it takes the pressure off China and deprives the world of its only real leverage against the depraved North Korean regime run by an alcoholic sex maniac.

What happened to liberals? Once liberals were noted for their commitment to human rights and their criticism of gross offenders. Liberalism has morphed into something which now tolerates and makes excuses for the most egregious human rights violators and directs all its criticism at the United States and Israel. We've come a long way, from a dignified political voice to one too silly to take seriously.


_________________________
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.

Top
#53688 - 10/01/04 07:34 PM Re: OT: politics
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
"If we enter into bilateral talks with North Korea, as North Korea insists, it takes the pressure off China and deprives the world of its only real leverage against the depraved North Korean regime run by an alcoholic sex maniac."

I didn't know bigjohn was the leader of North Korea!

Seriously though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, nuclear waepons leave a tell tale signature after they have been used - it can be determined who made the bomb, right? I don't think the Koreans would be as willing to risk annhilation as the Iranians would be.

So, even though the Korean leadership is nuts, I get the feeling that their sabre rattling is calculated to produce a specific goal - acceptance. The loss of sanctions and perhaps eventual take over of S Korea. But at least it seems they have a policy goal that is not simply the destruction of the US and the glorification of Islam. Nobody's thrilled about the North Koreans having nukes, but a nuclear armed Iran (and Pakistan's weapons if that gov't should fail) seems far, far, far more threatening to us.

Top
Page 108 of 172 < 1 2 ... 106 107 108 109 110 ... 171 172 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.