No doubt just another amazing and unusual coincidence that has nothing to do with American or Bush policies in the region… yeah right.
[quote]CAIRO, May 16 - Kuwait’s Parliament granted full political rights to women on Monday, making way for them to vote and run for office in parliamentary and local elections for the first time in the country’s history. The surprise amendment to Kuwait’s election law ends a decades-long struggle by women’s rights campaigners for full suffrage, and promises to redefine the city-state’s political landscape.
Kuwaiti women applauded after Parliament passed a law granting women the right to vote and contest elections for the first time in the country’s history.
The State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, welcomed the new legislation, calling it “an important step forward for the women of Kuwait and for the nation as a whole.”
The vote climaxed an extraordinary turn of events, just two weeks after the Parliament had thwarted a measure allowing women to take part in city council elections.
The prime minister, Sheik Sabah al-Jaber al-Sabah, a member of Kuwait’s ruling family, has been under growing pressure to allow women’s suffrage and is believed to have forced the measure through ahead of a planned trip to Washington. He is widely expected to appoint a woman as minister of health in coming weeks.
[/quote]
In the process for 20 years and suddenly just before his trip to Washington DC as was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons in this article, we get rights for women. All just a coincidence even though the reporter SPECIFICALLY mentioned the Washington trip as a key reason for pushing this through.
By the way, can Rascal or anyone else explain why this has taken 20 years? What caused the delay? And if 20 years, why not another 20 years?
I think that a number of remarkable “coincidences” are taking place and that we once again see posters like Rascal on the wrong side of history, where they fully intend to remain lest they have to admit that they were wrong about Bush and his initiatives. It is especially ironic when one considers how loudly they often proclaim themselves defenders of international rights and concerned world citizens who merely care about protecting women, children, minorities, etc. No?
In the process for 20 years and suddenly just before his trip to Washington DC as was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons in this article, we get rights for women. All just a coincidence even though the reporter SPECIFICALLY mentioned the Washington trip as a key reason for pushing this through.
By the way, can Rascal or anyone else explain why this has taken 20 years? What caused the delay? And if 20 years, why not another 20 years?
I think that a number of remarkable “coincidences” are taking place and that we once again see posters like Rascal on the wrong side of history, where they fully intend to remain lest they have to admit that they were wrong about Bush and his initiatives. It is especially ironic when one considers how loudly they often proclaim themselves defenders of international rights and concerned world citizens who merely care about protecting women, children, minorities, etc. No?[/quote]
Fred. strange that you dont use the same philosophy for every negative event that has come up during Bush’s watch. How many times in th epast have you written, that the root cause came from Clintons or some other democrats watch.
If you play a card, at least have the decency to stand there and take crap with good, if not then dont play the card.
As usual Fred gets taken down with his own words of wisdom.
So what are we suffering because of Bush? Be sure and provide examples. But when the reporter in question SPECIFICALLY links the action to the impending trip to Washington, I think that you have failed to make your case why this cannot be attributed to Bush. I know how you feel about Bush and I think that perhaps you are being somewhat irrational in your reading of this article. Look at what the reporters says and try not to read too much of your own denial into this. As MFGR would say, denial ain’t a river in Egypt and you can take that to the bank!
So, are you saying whatever action a country takes before one of it’s leaders visits the US has to be a direct result of AFP or Bush’s policies? That’s an interesting notion and I am excited to see the proof of that.
Anyhow, if we were to read the article then doesn’t the reporter merely report (pun intended) that this happened ahead of the planned visit or does the reporter actually say it happened because of the visit?
Quite an important distinction to make me thinks and I see nothing that supports the latter, which you seem to imply.
Now i know you have been taking lessons in pedantry, but how in hell do you get from believed to specifically linked. One suggests a link i grant you, but that is all, a suggestion. Sometimes fred, you enthusiasm does you a disservice.
I agree with Rascal. It had nothing – absolutely NOTHING – to do with influence from Washington or anywhere else. The Kuwaiti princes just decided to be nice to the ladies.
[quote=“sandman”]I agree with Rascal. It had nothing – absolutely NOTHING – to do with influence from Washington or anywhere else. The Kuwaiti princes just decided to be nice to the ladies.[/quote]Maybe, but how can anyone doubt that George W. Bush personally stopped slavery, ended World War II, brought democracy to the middle east, cured cancer and caused the breakup of Boyzone. Everything good that ever happened in the world is due to GWB and him alone.
No one said that George Bush was responsible for everything good that is occurring in the world, though perhaps someone should. I do notice with great pleasure that the usual team is out in force to deny that progress is taking place in the Middle East and that it just happens to be occurring under Bush. Ironic then isn’t it that so much trumpeting about human rights under Carter actually resulted in less respect for human rights and less democracy in the Middle East. I am sure, however, that this was merely a “coincidence” as well. Anyway, to each their own. I am sure, however, that we may see more such “coincidences” arising in the next year or so. No doubt many will be amazed at the sheer number of “coincidences” that will occur. Amazing.
Rascal nice try. I believe that you know full well that inclusion of any such information in an article with the tag “is to be believed” is opinion that the journalist provides which is widely held. Anyway, continue to flail. I know how much it bothers you to be proved wrong. hee hee hee
[quote=“fred smith”]No one said that George Bush was responsible for everything good that is occurring in the world, though perhaps someone should. I do notice with great pleasure that the usual team is out in force to deny that progress is taking place in the Middle East and that it just happens to be occurring under Bush. Ironic then isn’t it that so much trumpeting about human rights under Carter actually resulted in less respect for human rights and less democracy in the Middle East. I am sure, however, that this was merely a “coincidence” as well. Anyway, to each their own. I am sure, however, that we may see more such “coincidences” arising in the next year or so. No doubt many will be amazed at the sheer number of “coincidences” that will occur. Amazing.
Rascal nice try. I believe that you know full well that inclusion of any such information in an article with the tag “is to be believed” is opinion that the journalist provides which is widely held. Anyway, continue to flail. I know how much it bothers you to be proved wrong. hee hee hee[/quote]
Fred as and when you actually admit that some of the negative things that happened were also down to Bush whilst they happened on his watch then people may be more inclined to reciprocate, until now you have always tried to pass the blame of onto others, generally Clinton.
And I ain’t just a whistlin Dixie when I say that you can take that one to the bank! Hobbes: Thanks for playing. Bye bye now. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.
T: Prove that I have blamed everything on Clinton. Second, what specifically did I blame on Clinton? And can nothing every be blamed on someone for someone else to be able to get credit for what they have done? That is incredibly stupid. Otherwise, if all things were equal why would anyone choose to vote Democrat or Republican? Only personal bias? no real true belief in what one says that one stands for? Honestly, I think that you had better call it a day. Thanks for playing.
[quote=“fred smith”]And I ain’t just a whistlin Dixie when I say that you can take that one to the bank! Hobbes: Thanks for playing. Bye bye now. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.
T: Prove that I have blamed everything on Clinton. Second, what specifically did I blame on Clinton? And can nothing every be blamed on someone for someone else to be able to get credit for what they have done? That is incredibly stupid. Otherwise, if all things were equal why would anyone choose to vote Democrat or Republican? Only personal bias? no real true belief in what one says that one stands for? Honestly, I think that you had better call it a day. Thanks for playing.[/quote]
Fred, when you do both together, then you can have what you want, but when you try to accept the credit for each piece of conceived good, and try to fob off the blame for each piece of conceived bad, then you have lost your credibility.
As for locating your posts in the past that have done exactly that, then i have no intention of trolling through 7345 slates of apathy and counting just to prove what you already know you have done in the past.
You are accurate when you say personal biasty has a lot to do with it, now just apply that to yourself first, theres a good boy.
Thanks for playing Fred, but you lost and just can accept it. Life is tough huh !!
Where does this suggest that i am accusing you of blaming everything on clinton, a generalisation in the second perhaps, but that is all.
It is only your own personal biasty that does not allow you to accept any Republican Admin. has ever done anything wrong etc.
No doubt according to you, if the Reb. stay in office for another20 years, then the ills of the US at that point in time will still be because of a Dem. decision taken in the year xx. Sheesh.
Nice to see you agree with me but the thing is I don’t recall myself saying it had nothing to do with influence from Washington or anywhere else. Actually the latter wasn’t mentioned by me at all, was it?
Hm, given that I haven’t really made any statement here but just questioned your arguments and sought clarification, I wonder what you have proven me wrong on?
I think the two of you are reading too much into the questions.
