     Xoogsade | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 04:58 pm
An article from a filthy liberal rag but eye-opening nevertheless. A choice between an idiot and a psychopatic liar. If I were an American I would just spoil my ballot instead of casting a vote.
I once knew a fairly intelligent man who disconcerted me one day by denouncing the arbitrary domination of the then-Soviet Union by a sinister-sounding body named "the Politurbo." Allowance could be made in his case; not everybody understood the abbreviations of "agitprop" and the crude origins of Com-speak. Had the term been spelled out as "Political Bureau" I am sure he would have got there easily in the end. But what unhorsed me at the time was this: He must have seen the word "Politburo" in print many times, and also heard it spoken very often, without ever registering the connection.
The term for this failure of mental word-processing is dyslexia, and it can occur in mild and severe forms. I used to have the job of tutoring a dyslexic child, and I know something about the symptoms. So I kicked myself hard when I read the profile of Governor George W. Bush, by my friend and colleague Gail Sheehy, in this month's Vanity Fair. All those jokes and cartoons and websites about his gaffes, bungles and malapropisms? We've been unknowingly teasing the afflicted. The poor guy is obviously dyslexic, and dyslexic to the point of near-illiteracy. Numerous experts and friends of the dynasty give Sheehy their considered verdict to this effect.
The symptoms and clues have been staring us in the face for some time. Early in the campaign, Bush said that he did indeed crack the odd book and was even at that moment absorbed by James Chace's biography of Dean Acheson. But when asked to report anything that was in the damn volume, the governor pulled up an empty net. His brother Neil is an admitted dyslexic. His mother has long been a patron of various foundations and charities associated with dyslexia. How plain it all now seems.
The rhetorical and linguistic train wrecks in the speeches of Reagan and Bush Senior were of a different quality, arising variously from hysterical lying, brutish ignorance, senile decay and cultural deprivation. But the problem was chiefly syntactical. The additional humiliations of Dubya derive from utter failures of word recognition. A man who has somehow got this far in politics and refers to "tacular" weapons is unclear (or do I mean nuclear?) on the concept. In free-trade language, tariffs and barriers are not necessarily conterminous, but in no circumstance are they "terriers." To use "vile" for "viable" might look like misfortune, but to employ "inebriating" for "enthralling" looks like carelessness, especially in someone with his booze and cocaine record. Bush doesn't want our enemies to "hold us hostile"; I must say I agree with what I'm sure he didn't mean to say. Confusing "handcuffs" with "cufflinks" might be a yuppie slip; at any rate it presumably doesn't mean softness on crime. As for "Reading is the basics of all learning," well, there you are.
Does any of this matter? Of course it does. Bush has already claimed with hand on heart that he personally scrutinized the death-row appeals of more than a hundred condemned wretches in the shocking Texas prison system; we now have to face the fact that he not only did not review the clemency petitions but could not have read them even if he wanted to. Aides now remember the times they presented the governor or the candidate with that crucial briefing paper, only to see him toss it on the desk and demand a crisp, verbal, "bottom line" summary of its contents. Decisive, right? Wrong.
I know from my teaching experience that nature very often compensates the dyslexic with a higher IQ or some grant of intuitive intelligence. If this is true for Bush it hasn't yet become obvious; his Texas chief of staff, Clay Johnson, told Gail Sheehy that the attention span of his boss is, not to euphemize matters overmuch, somewhere in the vicinity of fifteen minutes. In other words, and as far as we know, he has only the downside of his difficulty, which is attention-deficit disorder. In the high noon of the age of information, the Republican Party packages and presents a provincial ignoramus who can neither read nor write. Woof.
But now here's another amazing thing. Nelson Rockefeller was dyslexic, though nobody knew it until after he'd become Vice President. Ronald Reagan's neurons and synapses were being devoured by Alzheimer's from at least... well, I'd say 1982 from personal observation, though experts differ. Bill Clinton was understood by some of the closest of his circle, including his awful wife, to be a pathological liar and sexual delinquent when he was still lucky enough to be governor of Arkansas. Usually, these and many other disqualifications, like Nixon's alcoholism, await the patient, too-late forensic attention of the court historians. Yet here's a man whose aides and flacks are visibly white-lipped every time he opens his mouth, and who should be seeking remedial care but is instead seeking the presidential therapy that he doesn't need, and nobody says a word. Nobody had the poor taste to follow up Gail Sheehy's findings.
Ah, but Bush has a disability.... Can that be it? From "compassionate conservatism" to compassion for the conservative? Well, I'm ready to feel compassion for him. I want him to get all the help he needs (which will probably involve him in emulating his flabbergasting running mate and moving his official residence to another and more compassionate state). But I think, in presidential terms, we should leave this child back and let him catch up in his own special way at some later date.
Meanwhile, the press and the Democrats should either stop citing and mocking the flubs or come right out and say what they mean. A danger of heartlessness, even of callousness, exists. Seeking to explain away his wastrel life and his obnoxious manner--nagging problems that persisted until his mid-40s--Bush invites us to believe that he mutated into finer personhood after having a personal encounter with God. The pious toads at the head of the Democratic ticket are full of unction at this and any other manifestation of hypocrisy. In a farcical recent moment, Bush contradicted his own mother, who claimed he'd always read his Bible as a youngster, by telling the Washington Post that he'd read no such thing. So--what if he had meant to say all along that he'd found a personal "dog"? The time to clear this up is now. |
| Anonymous | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 06:51 pm
" |
| 101Somalians | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 10:27 pm
someone has had too much spare time, we think.
otherwise there would not be so much bullshit over there. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 10:43 pm
Xoogsade
Sad state of affairs isn't it. What a choice!!! Dumb and dumber. I'm writing in John McCain. Anyway, I think the thing that tips the scales for Bush are two fold: First the basic Repulican principal that less government is more. Hence Bush will be less likely from an idealogical standpoint to do any real damage. Second, Chaney will actually run things and Colin Powel will be SEC STate and run foreign affairs. Powel and Cheny are smarter than George W. ever will be, much smarter, and he'll likely rely on their advice heavily. |
| Xaali | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 06:10 am
pheeeeeeew, what a prespective!!!!!!
Gore seems to be the lesser evil. |
| Anonymous | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 07:03 am
Xoogsade....where did you get the article you posted??...great work man!!!! you are the only man who posts something worth reading.keep it up and dont listen to jealous that useless people write here. |
| Anonymous | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 07:08 am
anon = xoogsade |
| Joker | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 08:17 am
dont blow your own horn Xoogsade ! |
| Xoogsade | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 02:24 pm
I swear that is not me. They took away my net access at work. In any case I am very uncomfortable with praise and friendliness. Give me conflict and disagreement anytime. It keeps the conversational juices going. When we are at the donut shop and arguing, I hate it when someone the mood becomes more conciliatory so at those moments I throw a well-aimed verbal grenade get things goin again.
Xaali
There is no such thing as a lesser evil. Only evil. Besides that is what they said about Clinton and look where that got us? He bombed a country to help save his miserable, bloated ass from disgrace and maybe even incarceration.
Notions of evil would be far less abstract for you, I would imagine, if you had the not-so-singular displeasure of receiving the Commander-in-Chief's odious, vulgar and very definitely criminal attentions.
But you are right the very thought of this slobbering moron called Bush near near the nuclear button is enough to give you the shakes.
On the other hand he is for school vouchers so it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive for parents to send their children to private schools. Muslims schools even. Above all a place where they are not thought about how great homoism is as they are starting to do in Canada. |
| Ms Hargeisa | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 03:16 pm
Xoogsade
President Clinton has unprescedently lead America to a new level of prosperity.The Man is Super Intelligent,Super Attractive,Super Politician,Super Charisma,and Super president.You know you can't argue these facts? |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 11:05 pm
Ms Hargeisa
Allow me to retort. President Clinton is quite intelligent, and women find him quite attractive. Being a supeor politician is hardly a compliment as politicians are scum. He is also totally amoral. His foreign policy is called "Bomb 'em". Every time you turn around he's bombing or invading someone. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him with a mack truck. Lastly, I will remind you that in a market economy the president has very little impact on how well that economy functions. The Fed (operated independently of the Chief Executive) and the Congress, which makes budgets and passes laws, has far more to do with economic growth or lack thereof than the president. And at the top of the heap is provate enterprise, without which nothing happens in a market economy. So "BIG BUSNIESS" that enemy of the people that the Democrats love to hate, is actually responsbile for our ecnomic success right now. |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 11:48 am
Mad mud
You hypocracy as puritan people really make me sick. You claim that President is amoral is this alluding to the Monica fiasco, are you telling me that Kennedy with his known womenizing i.e. Marilyn Monroe and also FDR was known to have extra martial affairs. The Only difference with Clinton is that he got caught.But if you look at the History of this Nation, majority of the past presidents did amoral things but the press never ventured into the private areas ..sort of gentleman's agreement not report.
As for the market economy, I differ here again. Who was Clinton's sectretary of treasury?????????
Rubin a former CEO of the pre-immenent Brokerage house Goldman Sachs. Anybody would tell you that Rubin along with Alan Greenspan helped to economy to au unheard expansion...so your premises that President has virtually no control over the economy is partly farse. |
| Xoogsade | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 03:04 pm
Mad Mac
There must be a cold front moving into the regions of Hades when the two of us are so much in agreement. Perhaps there is hope for you after all. Now only if you would stop your infidel ways....
People who like Clinton just leave me shaking my head. Who can forget the scene when he told America "I did not have sex .....". Is that not the most basic and fundamental breach of trust? Kennedy and the others never had to lie. Of course we are dealing with morally flexible infidels(FDR had a mistress and his wife Eleanor had a lesbian lover at WH) but happily for all of them they were never confronted. But Clinton was and compounded his errors. What about Paula Jones. I don't think you ladies out there would appreciate one bit if your male boss whipped out his gross anatomy and told you to pleasure him. Is Paula Jones a lesser creature who is less deserving of female if not feminist compassion and solidarity. And what about the lady(Willey?) he molested in the white house. Clinton is a deranged psychopath and it speaks badly of the character of anyone who would even give him the slightest benefit of the doubt.
As for Clinton and the economy:
His biggest initiative was the push for Universal Health Care and if it came in: Helloooo big taxes, hellooo big government. Goodbye boomtimes and all this prosperity. In Canada we have Health Care. Great but take a look at the deductions in your paycheck and if you are used to an Ameircan paystub you will probably faint. 15% sales tax too. So his biggest initiative was shot down by Gingrich who prevented an economic trainwreck. If you wanna thank someone thank Greenspan and the republicans. |
| Waleed | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 03:35 pm
Xoogsade, First of all, Clinton was too smart for those dumb Republicans, he said with his famous finger pointing that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with Lwensiky, but he was right though, it all depends on how you look at it. As a result, his impeachment was vanished and was thrown out in the garbage. His views on Sex different than the way you, myself, and every one else including the Republicans, which will cause them severe destruction to their party when election time approach. Many people LOVED Clinton, to many American females, he is a cute president, to the rest of the nation, he boomed the country economically. More people are out of welfare, and many live in their own homes, work is everywhere, he made it a country to the point where if you arrive today, you start working tomorrow. If there is unlimited term for a president, Clinton will be still in office for a third time, no doubt about it. Clinton has caused the Republicans a complete disaster due to their reaction to the impeachment process, and most likely American never elect those who favored for Clinton impeachment. As a matter of fact, American don’t care how is the man morally, just look around and see how many fathers molested their own children, how many parents having sex with other people despite of the vows they took. America never cares for anything related to moral or decency, all they care about is their financial well being. |
| Ms Hargeisa | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 03:56 pm
Mad Mac
lol...President Clinton still remains the Best President America would ever have.All those women who came foward with their 'allegations' are part of the right wing conspiracy that make only a potion of 'The Grand Envy' .I only view him as an Able Super Intelligent guy who can lead a country without labouring his citizens along to have an excellent economy!His methods of leadership is admired every where in the world.Clinton came with a fresh idealistic mind,a free mind with extensive education and a powerful leadership impulse.The only reason you detest him is,because of his international military decisions.(which i think not ill of it,i trust 'The Politician'.).About his morality?He is a humanbeing who faults.He asked for forgiveness,and received it.( As much as i hate his adultry,that matter should be between the concerned "Parties"..Bill & Hill....not Bill and other Sneaky willy's)The only thing unforgivable is Hypocrisy!Condenming others of the vice of infidelity and lies,yet secretly 'them' doing the same sin is disgusting.(The Media and the republicans)
A Super Politician is most certainly a Compliment.If you can stand at a podium sorrounded by press and most powerful Political analysts and still make them confused,belittled,and manuevre around on your own terms,you have certainly acomplished 'Degree of Political Science'!Politics is a dirty line of work,but if you decide to become a Politician,be excellent at it or forget.Clinton is no mediocre Politician,one in a century!Two in a century!Kennedy and Clinton! |
| Xoogsade | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 04:25 pm
Waleed:
Do you believe that America would not have enjoyed the same prosperity if say George Bush Sr. won in 92.
I personally don't think Clinton was a factor one way or the other. As soon as they neutralized his Health Care push and his party was beaten in the Midterm elections in 94 he made a beeline for the centre. He just stood on the sidelines and let the people get on with their business of making money. But HE HAD to be forced into that position.
Ms Hargeisa:
You are a silly girl. Go and have a slice of strawberry cheesecake and watch "the Young and the Restless".
This place is for intelligent folk only. You are woefully underqualified. |
| Ms Hargeisa | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 04:57 pm
Xoogsade
Who is intelligent?One who insults to express themselves or another who ignores to catch the express train?Who i wonder?" A loud voice cannot compete with a clear voice,even if it's a whisper".by Barry neil Kaufman. |
| Xoogsade | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 05:13 pm
A clear voice emanating from a murky brain, lol. |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 06:21 pm
Xoogsade
Isn't this the same Gingrich 'who supposedly saved the economy from Clinton's trainwreck', the Guy who managed to shut the Gov't simply because he was forced to sit in the back seat (near the toilet) of Airforce one on the Way home from Rabin's funeral? Is this the same guy who was pointing finger at Clinton's infidilty while having an affair with one of his staffers eventually divorcing his for her?
His biggest accomplishment wasn't Universal health that was Hillary Clinton's baby and while it was a great idea if little premature, the Republicans assured it's demise.
To really put Gingrech on the same level with Clinton is just absurt, the man is just a loud mouth baffon, what did his Contract with America accomplish...Zilch except put in Congress lot of KKK leaning politicians.
Clinton has streed the Country to an unprecedented prosperity, long in the history of this young Nation, further more the Middle Class & so called moinorities have reached an economic empowerment that has never existed in the recorded history...look at the stats of Housing market & the tremondous increase of first time home owners.
Brother Xoogsade, don't fall for the Compassionate Conservative BS of the Republicans,
They are nothing more than KKK in business suits. |
| Ms Hargeisa | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 06:37 pm
Xoogsade
"A desk is a Dangerous place from which to watch the world" by John Lennon.
Anonymous we all know Clinton is Super Cute what more do we need?..lol |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 10:42 pm
Now I've seen everything. I've got Somalis quoting John Lennon!!!!!! Pretty soon Ms Hargeisa is going to get you guys to join hands and start singing "give peace a chance."
OK, let's start with the economy. Alan Greenspan (not a Clinton Appontee mind you) takes some credit in managing interests rates and inflation. No credit to Clinton on this one - who a number of times earlier in his presidency objected to some of Greenspans moves and did so publicly. The US government can do a few things to hinder or help economic growth in a market economy like the US has. It can raise taxes. If the econmomy is running hot, then a slight tax raise won't hurt it. But generally speaking, the more you raise taxes, the more money you take out of circulation in the private sector which transllates to fewer major business investments which translates to less job creation, which in turn translates to less moeny circulating because now those without jobs aren't spending much money. So the much criticized "Reaganomics" has a valid central thesis - the less we divert money from the private sector the more money is out there for investment and job creation. The congress can also pass laws that hinder growth. Environmental laws, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, etc. With all of these laws there has to be a cost benefit analysis. We want people to have a decent standard of living, but we don't want to legislate the jobs away so that we hinder the thing we were trying to foster. Our current balance between Chief Executive (which can veto laws) and Congress has helped us maintain some middle ground on this one. Bottom line: Regardless of who had won the 92 election, I suspect the economy would have grown anyway. The time was ripe. In terms of tax rates George Bush was not far from Bill Clinton - he just didn't articulate his position as well.
Now let's talk morals. When I said he was totally amoral, I wasn't just alluding to where and when he dipped his wick. Basically I don't care about that, although Kennedy certainly gets points for taste - I mean, at least he was doing Marilyn Monroe. But he was flagerantly lying about it. Even by his own admission he deceived the country and his wife. OK, everyone makes mistakes. But he has an ugly track record on this. He lied about Bosnia. "I will pull our troops out within one year." He knew that wasn't going to be possible. We all knew it. But he publicly lied about it so he could get congress to approve the funding.
Let's talk about Somalia. Who do you think authorized the Abdi House raid (the attack on Abdi Hassan Awales House on 12 July)? Take a wild guess. That kind of operation has to be authorized by??? You guessed it, the president of the United States. Now, at the time lots of Somalis thought it was a great idea, and I still do. But I know lots of you out there think it was murder. Where do you stand on this one Ms Hargeisa?
Then of course there's his foreign policy in general. Geroge Bush and Ronald Reagan endorsed the Weinberger / Powel doctrine. We will use force to protect vital interests, presuming we can garner public support. Geroge Bush authorized the delivery of food, but the delivery of food only, to Somalia. As for "nation building", using threat of violence to force the belligerents to come to the negotiting table, he did not support this. Who did??? You guessed it - your man Bill Clinton. Now, I'll be the first to admit, I supported then and still support the presidents decision on this one. There was no point in going in without a long term solution, which required us to put pressure on all the factions to negotiate a permanent solution. That having been said, we NEVER SHOULD HAVE QUIT WHEN THE GOING GOT ROUGH with the SNA. We should have smoked them and driven on with the process. Still no matter which side you come down on on this one, we screwed all factions in the end. We killed bunches of the "pro-Aideed" side, and then walked out on the "pro-negotiating" side as soon as the road got a little bumpy. I can't see how any Somali could help but be disappointed with how things turned out. I certainly was. Now, every time you turn around we're sending troops here, sending troops there, bombing this guy and bombing that guy. I mean, it's ridiculous. I can not understand how I hear a stream of anti-US venom on the one hand from Somalis all over this net, and then on the other hand praise for the guy who is responsible for our foreign policy. It doesn't make any sense.
Xoogsade, truth be told, we were never that far apart, it only seems like that sometimes. If we sat down together you'd be surprised how similar we think. Speaking of which, I might go to Toronto to visit my sister in December. Want to get together and talk issues and have a Somali meal - on me. |
| Anonymous | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 06:02 am
Mad Mud
Let’s get one thing straight from the onset, the military establishment has traditionally had more closer relations with the Republican party than the Democrats and part of that reason is that Republicans poured large portion of the Tax dollars to the Military machine coffers even when it’s not necessary, money that would have been more suitable to other needed domestic programs like education, youth programs e.t.c
Clinton cut back a lot of this funds to the already bloated Military coffers, I am sure you heard of corruption’s in terms of Military contractors and lack of accountability in spending on the part of the Military i.e. Cigarette ash trays costing $80 while it only cost $8 on the open Market, fighter planes that cost $Millions but end up being defective and never see action. It’s very rare to see any major military projects whether building Subs or Carrier or planes without it running an overhead in the Millions at times Billion or two than budgeted.
Having said that, let’s get back to Clinton. Why you Military establishments want so much money for your military toys & maintaining it but don’t want to put these goods into use when called for is beyond me. Isn’t that the greatest welfare fraud. Support our community with $ billions but don’t call us for duty??? Does this have to do with psychological scares suffered from the defeats in Korea & Vietnam and in some ways Somalia??
On the Economy front, yes the points you made are somewhat valid but one important factor you failed to mention is that ‘Reagonomics’ with it’s irresponsible less Tax central theme has created the largest Deficit in US history. Now any child would know that the more debt you have the more interest you pay to keep your finances solvent. The higher the Debt the more inflation rises and the less buying power the $$ has, hence recession…why do you think Bush (senior) lost, simply because he had a full blown recession in his hands and simply people who couldn’t feed their families could care less about military victories in far away lands like IRAQ and guess who was the at helm of the treasury non other than Greenspan. What you fail to understand is that you just can’t offer lower taxes like it’s free candy’s without looking at it’s consequences. Whether you like it or not the current interest rates is roughly around 6.+% while it was lot more higher during Reagon & Bush’s tenure, now you that the lower the interest rate the more people will borrow for Housing, Cars and start small businesses…..Isn’t this tools for a sound economy????????? |
| Xoogsade | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 02:27 pm
Mad Mac that was a brief, and excellent, diquisition on the America's political economy.
Well sure we can meet up and discuss things for sure. Every saturday afternoon for about 4-6 hours I can be found just west of Bethridge and Kipling. |
| Plot-Master | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 06:04 pm
At least he'll get rid of all the gayz in professional jobs, and inforce the death penalty for most states, other then that he can suck ass, theres always a good and bad for each candidate but Gore will win because of popularity and not common sense, I would vote for bush but his other stupid remarks aren't worth voting for, so my vote goes for Al Gore even if he supports FAGGOTS how disgusting! |
| ceelgaab | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 10:35 pm
Who is worse? womanizer, idiot or an ass***l :
Clinton,Kennedy,Gore, FDR (F*ck Democrats & Republicans) or Bush?
Who the hell cares?
especially when you consider the reasons y'all are defending or slandering these men's characters!
For instance:
MAC is a white american (middle-class ?) male,
1000% of them support the GOP !!!
So what is the point of asking/reading about his opinion - when he voted Republican all his adult life, except the last two elections in which any intelligent pro GOP person abstained from voting due to the clear choice of :
(Wimp Vs ?) and (Old-fart Vs ?)
Xoogsade:
I would love to see you analyze the "Current Somalian Government"
I do mean Somalia-Somalia (emphasis on the lack of 'land') at the end. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 11:16 pm
Ceelgab
Are you kidding. I definately voted for Dole - he was a 10th Mountain Veteran. What's the matter with you? 10th Mountain Rules. Besides, he was smart and stuff. OK, his wife is a bitch to rival Hillary, but he's still smart and stuff. |
| SOMMAN | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 11:36 pm
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????? |
| Xoogsade | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 09:57 am
If anybody was in doubt that democracy is a wretched completely unworkable system that is unsuitable for selecting one's future leaders, then this farcical American presidential saga should have disabused you of those notions.
You have a blithering idiot running against a shameless liar and a thief. It is a system that ensures the election of mediocrities or out and out psychopathic frauds.
How could the republicans choose Dubya? Were there no better candidates smarter than this imbecile? What about the black guy Keys? The man an outsize intellect and powerfully eloquent and engaging oratorical style that will transfix even the dullest mouth-breather. With Bush you can see as the mental gears slowly turn in his head as he tries to recall exatly what was in the briefing memo. Keys on the other hand can speak about any issue easily and compellingly without script. With Bush you are lucky to get a coherent sentence or even a phrase. This guy will give you paragraph upon paragraph.
I wish all blacks were like this guy. It says a lot about blacks in America that if this guy was running he would't get a single black vote. Race-pimps like Jesse Jackson on the other hand..... |
| ass | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:08 am
 |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:00 pm
Xoogsade
Hate to quote that great Imperialist leader, but he did save us from Nazism and he was brilliant. As Winston Churchill said, Democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just better than all the rest.
Admitedly, sometimes we end up with the wrong guys. But speaking of Keys, he's engaging and intelligent but he's somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan. I wouldn't be surprised to see him launch another crusade to free the holy land from the clutches of the infidels (Jews and Muslims). I think a better and snaer choice would be Colin Powel. In fact, Powel / Cheney would be my dream ticket. But since we didn't get that let's settle for Powel as Secretary of State (to replace that dimwit Albright) and Cheney as Veep - prepositioning him for an eventual presidential run. I just can't take four more years of democratic foreign policy - they're trying to get me killed!!! |
| Anonymous | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 04:05 am
Mad mac you are a whimp you know that.Fight like a soldier,dont complain and whine aight!
Tokyo army reserve. |
| Anonymous | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 05:11 am
Hey, Leave the dude alone he is only expressing his opnion one luxury we Somalis should learn.
Mad Mud, I for one appreciate your inputs even though we may not see things eye to eye at times but your though provocing & Intellectually stimulating inputs are well appreciated specially your inputs regarding Somalia since you don't suffer from Clan affiliation biase.
Keep on Ticking Bro Man |
| Xoogsade | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 07:53 am
Mad Mac don't give me the words of that fat imperialist pig.
He was against the independence for all British colonies and advocated in the thirties the hanging of Mahatma Gandhi for treason.
And he had a deep and abiding hatred of Islam. This what he wrote about Hitler's "Mein Kampf", the illiterate and hateful ramblings of that Nazi demon:
****
Here is the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, but pregnant with its message.
****
This from the first volume of his "History of WW2". I think it is called the "The Gathering Storm".
He compares the Koran, the book of humanity, love and liberation to Mein Kampf, a hateful screed written by a demented mad man that was intended as a tribal call to arms with the ultimate intention of destroying most of humanity.
You could scarcely choose a less credible figure to quote if you tried; at least in this setting.
In any case was it not the democratic process itself that inflicted Herr Hitler and his gang on the rest of humanity? |
| MAD MAC | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 10:06 am
No, Hitler destroyed nascent democracy in Germany. It was the fact that democracy here was so weak that he was able to seize control of the government. I knew quoting Churchill would set you off. But he's da man. Had the good guys lost that war and the NAZIs won it, rest assured you all would have eventually been rounded up and shot in his program for genetic purification.
Check this out - I'm not making this up. When my favorite man to hate, Mohamed Farah Aideed, blew out of Hamer in October of 93 and went to Adis he wrote this verbose article for Some newspaper or other entitled "My Struggle". I couldn't believe it. Either the guy knew nothing of History or he was trying to emulate his personal hero.
Anyway, when you come up with a better system of government than Democracy let me know. |
| Xoogsade | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 07:50 pm
Still and all a democratic system gave us this maniac Hitler and he proceeded to kick democracy in the teeth which is what it deserves. A democratic system gave us Bill Clinton, thief, liar, rapist.
Churchill was good for the western man. But he wanted us to live in slavery forever to preserve his empire and that was is not kosher. He hated our religion. He hated us period. He is your hero not mine. You worship Winnie. I will pray to Allah.
Churchill was a tough, squalid old brute and could stand up to Hitler and that is why they belatedly made him the PM. The only reason he got in was because of the war and the coalition government. As soon as they won the war they turfed him out. That is democracy for you. It promotes mediocrity. It is a process that weeds out people with strong opinions given that you must appeal to the broadest constituency.
Btw can you give me the proof that Keys has advocated the destruction of jews and muslims. You are slandering a great man. This is the old trick of secularists to scare people from conservatives by playing on the insecurities of minority populations. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 09:50 pm
Xoogsade
Of course I didn't mean he would literally try to destroy Infidels, or that he was literally to the right of Ghengis Khan. Geez, how 'bout a little literary license??? Keys is a good man, but he would definately advocate very conservative policies with distinct religious (Christian) leanings. I also think he lacks experience, particularly foreign policy experience which is the primary responsibility of the executive branch of government. While I don't think he's qualified or suitable to be president, I respect Allen Keys. Don't get me wrong there. I'm surprised you do, Keys being as Christian and vocal about it as he is.
As for Churchill, like hinm or hate him, he saved our asses. Yours and mine. And he had Cajones, no gettin' around that. |
| Dhakafaar | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 01:55 pm
Dr Keys is good man.
I saw him speaking on the public affairs channel in Canada. He was speaking for two hours about the murderous evil of abortion when he explained that the preceding two hours were the preface to his main argument. I shut off the tv and ran away. Brainy motherfu....
Xoogsade |
| Anonymous | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 04:20 pm
Alan Keyes is as good Uncle Tom as they come, now if xoogsade wants to have this Clown or Oreo Cookie as his ideal politician then that's his prerogative but you what they say a zebra can not change his stripes.
He looked so comical sitting there between George Bush and that stooge Forbes in one of his last appearances, getting animated, ranting and raving while his conservative WHITE audiences sat there snickering and laughing as if there were in Chris Rock or Eddie Murphy show, actually one of them said later that he was funny go figure
nuf said |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 12:01 am
What's up with that Uncle Tom, Oreo Cookie nonsense? What a bunch of Bullshit. White American, Black American, Mexican American, whatever. He's American. You're clan-based thinking has you thinking that all ethnic groups have to stick with each other, they all have to act the same and think the same. Has it ever occured to you that maybe Allan Keys has more in common with George Bush than with, say, Louis Farakhan??? What would you call Farakhan - he's black on the outside but Arab on the inside? Same for Somalis - all this Muslim nonsense. They were animist before they decided to kiss up to the Arabs. You see how obnoxious that sounds??? Well, when you call Allen Keys an Oreo, that's how obnoxious you sound. |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 04:36 am
Hoooohoo haahhhhhaaaaa looooooooooool man that’s was good ………Can I get another pop-corn please before the second phase of the show starts :-)
Ma Man……. Mad Mud chill and be accommodating afterall this is a public forums to express variety of opinions, but clearly this White, Black, Mexican, Port Rican Americans act as much Clans as we do back home only in a very conceited manner.
As for Louis Farakhan, why jump to that extreme. Ever heard of Cornel West or Alan Pousaint? Why not compare Alan Keyes to them. Also in your Slave era racial litmus test, Arabs will still be classified as Minority since their shade is still bit darker than Caucasians therefore fall short of being member of that elite entitled class called White……what you say?
Lastly I find your outburst…should we say a bit immature and condescending. Remember civilization started in Africa while your forefathers “Europeans” were still in Caves.
P.S. I hate Louis Farrakhan & his ideology
Peace |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 05:24 am
Anonymous
My point is we should stop attaching labels to race, stop attaching predetermined notions based on where someone came from. Allan Keys is as much an American as I am (maybe more so). Just because he's black people shouldn't assume he's going to adopt the lingo or the habits of many black Americans. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I don't eat with my hands (I picked that habit up from Somalis, embarrases my mother whenever we're in a restaraunt) or agree with all white Americans. These groups are not monolithic. When someone calls a credible man like Keys an Uncle Tom or an Oreo Cookie, they are trying to insult his credibility by presenting a false assumption (that he should fit into some sort of black American stereotype). I think that is a mistake - I think it's a mistake in Somalia and I think it's a mistake in America. Judge each man as an individual, when you have to judge him at all. Don't heap people into groups and label them all the same. That's unfair to a learned man like Keys. |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 05:57 am
Agree 100% on that, but the same criteria should be afforded to Louis Farrakhan after all lot’s of Americans find him credible (Not me though) or at least respect some of his actions like the “Million Man March” others say that he underlines or voices a lot of the racial problems in this country that the main stream Black politicians will avoid like a plaque. You will also note that ‘HE’ still remains as the pattering ram or is singled out for racism by the White & Jewish establishment in this country while some one Like Jesse Helms enjoys wide support among majority i.e. non Minorities. WHY ……….double-standard? |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 10:12 am
Jesse Helms is a freak. Only South of the Mason Dixon Line, sahib. Don't ask me to explain southerners, a lot of them are from a different planet than me. I can't relate.
I have a great idea, let's lock Farakhan and Helms in a room together for a few years. THAT would be funny. |
| this is non sence | Friday, October 27, 2000 - 08:26 am
hello all,
this is extremmly facinating debate....
but 2 be honest i dont live in the US...
and this articles are (2 say the least pretty lenghfull.) hence i dont 2 absolutly frank give a flaying monky about ur rather ematiculate debate non-of business argument.
ladies i'm somali and i live i the UK.. so therefore no mattter how rather facinating and heated up ur topic might be,( by the way did u notice there are inly about 5-6 people involved in exchanging and contributing into this debate)...NIGGAZZZZ U R FORGETTIN 1 THING ...WE ARE SOMALIS IN HEERE AND SOMALIS IN GENERAL HATE 2 GET INVOLVED IN SOME WORD USING DEBATES (WHICH THIS IS) ESPECIALLY WHEN IT INVOLVES USA WHICH MOST SOMALIS HATE ALONG WITH ISREAL.
so my final contribution to you regarding this topic is ABOLISH it completly because it seems to me to be rather...non sence party political ... vote orientated towards the elcetion period..
people get a live this has nothing to do with us AS SOMALIS ______ P E R I O_____
PEICE AND MUCH LOVE |
| Xoogsade | Friday, October 27, 2000 - 04:27 pm
So what are you doin in here? Or you finish your jaad already? |
