Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

mikemckelvy wrote:

It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under oath.


So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.

  #42   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:55:56 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

mikemckelvy wrote:

It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under oath.


So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


Well, Condi Rice dismisses this as "a mistake".

It's OK for Republicans to "make mistakes" apparently...
  #43   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:33:10 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:
Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.


Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle. Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?


Interesting article in last week's Economist magazine -- hardly a
supporter of the Democrats -- pointing out that the current
Administration has presided over the largest increase in government
spending in many years. To do this while promising the electorate
continuing cuts in taxation and not dong anything about about reforming
government entitlement programs is going to result in a terrible
crash around 2009, was the article's conclusion.

It's odd to look back at the previous administration -- traditionally
tax and spend Democrats every man jack of 'em -- and realize that
_they_ were the fiscal conservatives compared with what we have now. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #44   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:

Bull. That's the POINT. They haul you away as a "terrorist" and
they can lock you up. The court ruling was that they don't have
to give you access to a lawyer.


IIRC theis doen't apply to American citizens.


Actually, guess what - they DO. The case in point where the person
was denied a right to see a lawyer and the courts upheld it was
a man who was a U.S. citizen from Florida.

Yes. It really happened. They just enabled the government to
haul away any U.S. citizen and all but make them dissapear in
a series of room and boxes and military tribunals.

Voting shold be by district - each state gives as many districts
to each side as they earn. ie - 57 D and 43 R and those votes go
right towards the totals. That way the smaller team is properly
represented. Here in California? Moot point - always will go to
the Democrat, no matter what you vote.

I live in California and know better. How many states did reagan win?


Notable exception. When you see post-poll results showing a 70%
Democratic bias in this last election, it becomes moot. OTOH, I *do*
vote for everything else, since the local and state levels are important.

the left is famous for that.

Last I heard, Facism is a conservative agenda, politically.


It's a form of collectivism. There are right wing collectivists and

left
wing ones.


Well, I see the government lately filled with would-be facists from
all sides and parties.

It's the cycle, afterall - those in power want absolute power and more
and more of it. They want to subvert all freedoms - it's in their
nature.

Eventually they take over, the place erupts into chaos or a war,
and the people take back their rights.

I give our nation maybe 300 years lifespan before it crumbles
and we have to rebuild it again.

Too much from either side is a recipe for disaster.


Which is why I vote Libertarian, usually.


Gasp. We agree on something???



Honestly can you say what getting rid of overtime pay for millions
of hard-working people is a good thing?

The law changed, it is not hawever required for employers to stop

paying
overtime to those mentioned.

Wrong. Name me ONE that will fail to do so.


The ones that want to keep from losing employees who will walk.
In the movie studios they have insurance coverage for gay domestic

partners,
Disney was the last one to go along but they had to in order to keep
employees.


Of course with millions out of work and this being the worst summer job
market for students in *55* years... They'll get a lot of people who
want some money rather than none.

Last I heard Libertarians were opposed to any laws regarding how employers
pay employees and the minimum wage, not to mention scores of other
regulatory measures by the government.

says we can now classifty anyone making over 22K a year and working
full time as management and skil overtime pay - but NOT give them
a single management perk.

How is it any business of the government what people get paid?


It isn't, but the laws were enacted back in the 30s to keep people
from abusing the workers and especially children.


The reasons are irrelevant, nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't
wish to. Employers who want the best quality employee's will compensate
them. The laws against children working cause the starvation of families
with no other means for income and created the welfare state, another thing
Libertarians are opposed too.

I suggest some remedial reading for you beginning with rand's "Capitalism:
The Unknown Ideal."

That the bums had
to have to government come down on them to enact an 8 hour workday
is telling.

Not really, it was becoming the standard anyway, since employees were more
productive when not overworked and overtired.

Explain over 100 billion in projected spending in Iraq. Where it
comes from. And tax cuts. 100 billion has to come from somewhere
unless we print it and dilute the value of our money.


When taxes are cut investment happens creating more taxpayers and more

tax
revenue, happens every time.


Bull. This time people are holding onto their money and not investing.
Everyone rightfully is scared of a real depression happening. At this
rate, it will happen in the next coupe of years.


Every time a bank makes aloan it's an investment. The stock market may be
somewhat wobbly but it's not in any way in danger of crashing. Allan
Greenspan said tody he's prepared to keep interest rates low until an
economic rebound.


  #45   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.


Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget


The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.



  #46   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:33:10 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:
Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.


Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle. Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?


Interesting article in last week's Economist magazine -- hardly a
supporter of the Democrats -- pointing out that the current
Administration has presided over the largest increase in government
spending in many years. To do this while promising the electorate
continuing cuts in taxation and not dong anything about about reforming
government entitlement programs is going to result in a terrible
crash around 2009, was the article's conclusion.

It's odd to look back at the previous administration -- traditionally
tax and spend Democrats every man jack of 'em -- and realize that
_they_ were the fiscal conservatives compared with what we have now. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Demonstrating once again your failure to grasp reality.

It was the GOP controlled Congress that gave us a banced budget by holding
Clinton's feet to the fire.

Thanks in part to Hilary care the US had GOP majority in both houses.


  #47   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message

...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making

****
up
for
political advantage


This really isn't a partisan issue:

'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'


http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...m_claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush.


Everyone? Who told them?

In fact
with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:

Clinton NEVER did anything like that did he?


"White House officials have refused to specify which official or
agency insisted on inserting the claim into the text, even after it
had reportedly been removed from a speech several months earlier
following a warning from the CIA that it was based on dubious
intelligence. ''We're not going to get into that level of detail,''
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said."


The British government still stands behind it.


  #48   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:

It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.

You're right Clinton lied all the time.


  #49   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


George M. Middius said:

dave weil said:

It's OK for Republicans to "make mistakes" apparently...


Who didn't admire Shrub for blaming his underlings for the wrong info
about the uranium?



This is a great campaign slogan for GOP next election:

"In 2004, vote for Dick and Bush"

And they though Clinton was obscene...



  #50   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"dave weil" wrote in message
...

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget


The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


Actually the last part can be
answered by naming 2 Republican presidents of recent memory).

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle.


Endured under a Republican president not created by one.


You have no clue about what you are talking about. The majority of the
90s was under Clinton, a DEMOCRATIC president.

Should have been: created by a GOP led Congress, while the Clinton
administration tried to subvert it, at least for the first 2 years. Then
magic, Bubba loses control of the House and decides to move to the middle.

Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?

Irrelevant. The President doesn't create economic problems or fix them.


This is patently untrue. President Reagan singlehandedly caused the
slide of the dollar against foreign currencies.

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about? How do Presidents do such
things? Only Congress can spend money.

Congress does both, with help from the Fed.
FDR made it last longer.


You're insane, you know.

You totally ignore when the Republicans cause the very problems that
you are accusing the Demos of causing.

What problems are they causing? Why is somehow noble for the Dems to ****
away money on vote buying giveaways but it's insane to spend money on
national defense?

In other words, you're as successful at arguing your ideas are you are
a speaker manufacturer.

Ah yes, the personal attack, when you have no case go for the ad-hominem.




  #51   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:11:26 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


Actually the last part can be
answered by naming 2 Republican presidents of recent memory).

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle.

Endured under a Republican president not created by one.


You have no clue about what you are talking about. The majority of the
90s was under Clinton, a DEMOCRATIC president.

Should have been: created by a GOP led Congress, while the Clinton
administration tried to subvert it, at least for the first 2 years. Then
magic, Bubba loses control of the House and decides to move to the middle.


So, we blame the GOP for the highest unemployment figures in years,
*and* the highest defict in history.

Cool.

Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?

Irrelevant. The President doesn't create economic problems or fix them.


This is patently untrue. President Reagan singlehandedly caused the
slide of the dollar against foreign currencies.

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about? How do Presidents do such
things? Only Congress can spend money.


You do it by making the statement, "I'd like to see the dollar fall by
10% against foreign currency". That's exactly what Reagan did and it
had the effect of causing a freefall that went a lot further than 10%.
I know - I was in Germany at the time and was dismayed when he said
this.

Congress does both, with help from the Fed.
FDR made it last longer.


You're insane, you know.

You totally ignore when the Republicans cause the very problems that
you are accusing the Demos of causing.

What problems are they causing? Why is somehow noble for the Dems to ****
away money on vote buying giveaways but it's insane to spend money on
national defense?


Hey, you're the one who's talked about economic disasters.

In other words, you're as successful at arguing your ideas are you are
a speaker manufacturer.

Ah yes, the personal attack, when you have no case go for the ad-hominem.


Ahhhh, I know it hurts to get poked in the eye like that.

I've supported my case. Everytime you bring something up, I counter
it. You talked about economic disasters, I bring up the worst of the
centery, the Republican-shepherded Great Depression. Then, you try to
back-pedal, claiming that FDR prolonged it, which is insane. The list
goes on and on...

These are *your* tactics - talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Sometimes, it's appropriate to simply smack that mouth.
  #52   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

Dave Weil wrote:


On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:11:26 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

Actually the last part can be
answered by naming 2 Republican presidents of recent memory).

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle.

Endured under a Republican president not created by one.

You have no clue about what you are talking about. The majority of the
90s was under Clinton, a DEMOCRATIC president.

Should have been: created by a GOP led Congress, while the Clinton
administration tried to subvert it, at least for the first 2 years. Then
magic, Bubba loses control of the House and decides to move to the middle.


So, we blame the GOP for the highest unemployment figures in years,
*and* the highest defict in history.

Cool.

Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?

Irrelevant. The President doesn't create economic problems or fix them.

This is patently untrue. President Reagan singlehandedly caused the
slide of the dollar against foreign currencies.

Now who doesn't know what they are talking about? How do Presidents do such
things? Only Congress can spend money.


You do it by making the statement, "I'd like to see the dollar fall by
10% against foreign currency". That's exactly what Reagan did and it
had the effect of causing a freefall that went a lot further than 10%.
I know - I was in Germany at the time and was dismayed when he said
this.

Congress does both, with help from the Fed.
FDR made it last longer.

You're insane, you know.

You totally ignore when the Republicans cause the very problems that
you are accusing the Demos of causing.

What problems are they causing? Why is somehow noble for the Dems to ****
away money on vote buying giveaways but it's insane to spend money on
national defense?


Hey, you're the one who's talked about economic disasters.

In other words, you're as successful at arguing your ideas are you are
a speaker manufacturer.

Ah yes, the personal attack, when you have no case go for the ad-hominem.


Ahhhh, I know it hurts to get poked in the eye like that.

I've supported my case. Everytime you bring something up, I counter
it. You talked about economic disasters, I bring up the worst of the
centery, the Republican-shepherded Great Depression. Then, you try to
back-pedal, claiming that FDR prolonged it, which is insane. The list
goes on and on...

These are *your* tactics - talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Sometimes, it's appropriate to simply smack that mouth.








Well said. It also reeks of hypocrisy for this obnoxious, repulsive RAO
hatemonger and frequent purveyor of personal attacks to complain about being
insulted by others. After all, he usually only posts on RAO when he's in
personal attack mode.




Bruce J. Richman



  #53   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.

It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in the past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.


Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...

It's still an idea invented by the dems and the reasons for it currently are
acceptable. Had it not been for the GOP we'd never have had a balanced
budget.


Bull****.

It's funny how you blame Democratic presidents for all sorts of
things, but when Republican presidaents are blamed for things,
suddenly it's not their doing.

And, nice speaking out of both sides of your mouth again - apparently
this "*acceptable* defit spending" was invented by Democrats. So, you
should thank them, right?
  #54   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.

It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in the

past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.


Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...

And what percetage was under Carter or Johnson?


It's still an idea invented by the dems and the reasons for it currently

are
acceptable. Had it not been for the GOP we'd never have had a balanced
budget.


Bull****.

Youu keep dishing it.

It's funny how you blame Democratic presidents for all sorts of
things, but when Republican presidaents are blamed for things,
suddenly it's not their doing.

And, nice speaking out of both sides of your mouth again - apparently
this "*acceptable* defit spending" was invented by Democrats. So, you
should thank them, right?


All things considered, no.


  #55   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

dave weil wrote:
It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.


They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget


The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.



I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.


Factor in the purplus we had before.

Then add in the military spending which does NOT appear in that report.

It's closer to $650 billion. Holy crap.

Oh - 600 billion is pure oversepnding domestically. WTF is it all going?



  #56   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

mikemckelvy wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message


...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making

****

up
for

political advantage

This really isn't a partisan issue:

'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'



http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...m_claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush.



Everyone? Who told them?

In fact

with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:


Clinton NEVER did anything like that did he?



"White House officials have refused to specify which official or
agency insisted on inserting the claim into the text, even after it
had reportedly been removed from a speech several months earlier
following a warning from the CIA that it was based on dubious
intelligence. ''We're not going to get into that level of detail,''
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said."



The British government still stands behind it.


The British government still stands by its actions in the Boer war.

They are known to deny anything that makes them look bad, so
their insistance is worth squat. Blair is tryig to hold onto
his position. I give him two months.

  #57   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under


oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.


So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

  #58   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.


They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.


It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in the past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.



Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...


AND the difference between the past surplus and the current defecit.

It's a huge sum of pork and fat - which you can't lay on anyone but
the Republicans in charge. They own the majority of Congress, the
White House, and the Supreme Court.

They get what they want and like anyone who has the security
removed, goes on a mad rush and grab for anything in the store
that they can get ahold of.

Oh - half of that money is being funnelled into all sorts of
black-ops and covert projects and things like a new-age Star-Wars
system. 600 billion in domectic spending is kind of hard to explain
as anyone's fault but those in power who have absolute control over
everything.

And conservatives are ****ed off too. Rightfully so.

My town - the local school district is over a million in the red due
state funds dissapearing. They had to have local fund drives to get
citizens to pay out of their pocket. We have outrageous taxes here
as well. It still wasn't enough.

If the money wasn't raised, the *public* school in our town would
have had to shut down next year. Not a private school, but the
government mandated state-governed public school. No classes - sorry.
No money. In a town where the average house price is $600,000.

This isn't Compton or D.C. or some other rathole, but one of the
best upper-class communities in California. And yet our school
district is having to ask for money from the community to keep
its doors open.

Next year it is projected to be 1.5 million. We can spend money on
bailing out corporations and fighting wars and funding missile defense
systems and so on - which are good things IF you have the basics covered
already - but we can't keep our schools open? We can't keep energy prices
in line?

That sort of mismanagement by the people in charge gets even the
staunchest conservatives more than a little angry as family and
children and education are huge on their radars.

  #59   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

mikemckelvy wrote:

Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...


And what percetage was under Carter or Johnson?


600 billion in domestic spending overruns in the last three years?

That's a hell of a lot of money and yet we are sliding into a recession
a bit further every day.

Our government spending 200 billion a year more than it takes in in
domestic pork and waste doesn't bother you? All the Republicans I
talk to where I live are apalled at the fiscal mismanagement.

Can't fill the potholes or keep the power on 24/7. For all of that
spending and waste - we are worse off than we were 10, or even 20 years
ago as far as our infrastructure goes.

  #60   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:37:57 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


Now there's a good one. What do you mean by this?

--

Jacob Kramer


  #61   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:15:14 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message

...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making

****
up
for
political advantage


This really isn't a partisan issue:

'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'


http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...m_claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush.


Everyone? Who told them?

In fact
with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:

Clinton NEVER did anything like that did he?


What in the heck does Clinton have to do with this?


"White House officials have refused to specify which official or
agency insisted on inserting the claim into the text, even after it
had reportedly been removed from a speech several months earlier
following a warning from the CIA that it was based on dubious
intelligence. ''We're not going to get into that level of detail,''
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said."


The British government still stands behind it.


That's true, but the Bush administration has already conceded that it
shouldn't have been in the State of the Union Address.

--

Jacob Kramer
  #62   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:17:44 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold

standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is

of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.

It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in the

past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.

Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...

And what percetage was under Carter or Johnson?


Ummmm, wasn't there a war going on under Johnson? Weren't we getting
the interstate system completed? It's OK to run a deficit during
wartime *only* if they're Republicans, right?


That's not what I'm saying.

I wonder what the
percentage under Bush would be if he folded in the costs of the Iraq
war in, something he refuses to do.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about Reagan's use of debt spending as
well...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they spent
$1.25.

It's still an idea invented by the dems and the reasons for it

currently
are
acceptable. Had it not been for the GOP we'd never have had a

balanced
budget.

Bull****.

Youu keep dishing it.

It's funny how you blame Democratic presidents for all sorts of
things, but when Republican presidaents are blamed for things,
suddenly it's not their doing.

I don't blame presidents for much to do with the economy since they have
very little to with it either way.

And, nice speaking out of both sides of your mouth again - apparently
this "*acceptable* defit spending" was invented by Democrats. So, you
should thank them, right?


All things considered, no.


OK, so it's back to being a bad thing. Make up your mind please...


I never said it was a good thing, only that the current one while as a
number is big, it's a small % of GDP which is the way we have traditionally
viewed it. I prefer governments to have balanced budgets. If it were up to
me they'd have much smaller budgets to begin with.

You also seem to think I'm enamoured of the GOP, I'm not, they have plenty
of faults, I just get tired of the constant distortions and blank outs from
the left.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is in such a
state of chaos. Not that long ago Liberia and it's president were fading
out due to the world turning it's back on the regime there. Then some
asshole gave the Taylor governement legitimacy.


  #63   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:15:14 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message

...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply

making
****
up
for
political advantage

This really isn't a partisan issue:

'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'



http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...after_uranium_

claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush.


Everyone? Who told them?

In fact
with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:

Clinton NEVER did anything like that did he?


What in the heck does Clinton have to do with this?


A Hell of a lot, since he is part of the reason Iraq needed to be dealt with
and Bin Laden was able to raise so much hell. He ignored both while trying
to hold onto his job and get his wife elected. Bin laden would have been in
jail and Iraq would have been disarmed if he'd been paying atention. Then
of course ther's the fact that he couldn't ever be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. As Jay Leno put it, he didin't strectch the truth, he came
nowhere near the truth.

"White House officials have refused to specify which official or
agency insisted on inserting the claim into the text, even after it
had reportedly been removed from a speech several months earlier
following a warning from the CIA that it was based on dubious
intelligence. ''We're not going to get into that level of detail,''
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said."


The British government still stands behind it.


That's true, but the Bush administration has already conceded that it
shouldn't have been in the State of the Union Address.

But not because it itsn't true.

Jacob Kramer



  #64   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.


So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.


We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've more of
the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.


  #65   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:27:11 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:17:44 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold

standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is

of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.

It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in the
past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.

Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the moment...

And what percetage was under Carter or Johnson?


Ummmm, wasn't there a war going on under Johnson? Weren't we getting
the interstate system completed? It's OK to run a deficit during
wartime *only* if they're Republicans, right?


That's not what I'm saying.

I wonder what the
percentage under Bush would be if he folded in the costs of the Iraq
war in, something he refuses to do.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about Reagan's use of debt spending as
well...

You mean congress spending?


No, I mean the hugely increased military spending that Reagan rammed
through. Star Wars anyone?

The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they spent
$1.25.


And who's idea was that? Star Wars anyone? It's generally accepted by
anyone with half a brain that the increase in defic spending during
the Regan era was due to Reagan's desire to spend spend spend on the
military.

It's still an idea invented by the dems and the reasons for it

currently
are
acceptable. Had it not been for the GOP we'd never have had a

balanced
budget.

Bull****.

Youu keep dishing it.

It's funny how you blame Democratic presidents for all sorts of
things, but when Republican presidaents are blamed for things,
suddenly it's not their doing.

I don't blame presidents for much to do with the economy since they have
very little to with it either way.


That is sooooo wrong. They are the ones who submit the budget after
all. They are the ones who have the power of veto after all.

And, nice speaking out of both sides of your mouth again - apparently
this "*acceptable* defit spending" was invented by Democrats. So, you
should thank them, right?

All things considered, no.


OK, so it's back to being a bad thing. Make up your mind please...


I never said it was a good thing, only that the current one while as a
number is big, it's a small % of GDP which is the way we have traditionally
viewed it. I prefer governments to have balanced budgets. If it were up to
me they'd have much smaller budgets to begin with.


Except for military spending, right?

You also seem to think I'm enamoured of the GOP, I'm not, they have plenty
of faults, I just get tired of the constant distortions and blank outs from
the left.


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet, his
administration marshalled just about the strongest economic period in
American history. True, he did somethings wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life. But,
Ithink if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times ccan be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is in such a
state of chaos. Not that long ago Liberia and it's president were fading
out due to the world turning it's back on the regime there. Then some
asshole gave the Taylor governement legitimacy.


Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?


  #66   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"dave weil" wrote in message


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet, his
administration marshalled just about the strongest economic period in
American history.


Does anybody actually believe that the economic state of the world or even a
large sophisticated nation starts and ends on the boundaries of any given
president's administration? I would sincerely hope not!

True, he did something's wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


As if 9/11 had a single cause or a single major contributing cause. Then
there's the question as to whether or not any American president could have
done anything effective about them. There's a large scale management problem
in the Arab world that is beyond the scope of these comments to even
outline. It didn't get set up in a day, but instead it evolved in place
over centuries. Guess what the time scale of any effective solution to it is
likely to be!

But, I think if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times can be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.


The historical perspective on the Clinton years seems to be forming along
the lines of "good in spite of", rather than "good because of". I think
that the Republicans deserve points for keeping Clinton from doing maybe 80
or 90% of what he and his wife wanted to do.

We'll never know for sure what the Clinton response to 9/11 would have been,
but all informed speculation I've seen has been a lot less than encouraging.
Of course we don't really don't know yet what good we did with the Bush
response to 9/11, but what we saw on TV sure was satisfying to most of us! I
might add that if we had done as well in Iraq as we did in Afghanistan, the
world would be a happier place, not that Afghanistan is shaping up as any
kind of an encouraging success.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds; simpler times, a vastly simpler world.
You've got to remember that the CIA was formed under Truman's
administration, as an example of how much simpler those times were.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is
in such a state of chaos.


Speak for yourself.

Not that long ago Liberia and it's
president were fading out due to the world turning it's back on the
regime there. Then some asshole gave the Taylor government
legitimacy.


Say what?

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?


I think someone needs a little historical review here. Both times we went up
against him, were Hussein's troops pushing US iron or Russian iron? Were
his troops carrying M16s or AK47s? Were they driving M1s, and M60s or T60s
and T70s? Where they flying MIGs or F-15 and F18s? Were they launching Scuds
or Pershings? Who gave weapons to Hussein? Well they didn't give Hussein
squat, they sold it to him and they are still waiting to get paid. They are
probably going to wait a long time!

The Russian, French, and German response to our invasion plans can be summed
up in two words: accounts payable. We probably did them a big favor by
setting the stage for them to charge off their bad debts now, before they
drag their economies down for years like is happening to the Japanese.

OK, we gave Hussein some help back during the Iraq-Iran war. However, any
reasonable analysis shows that what we gave him was mostly highly
perishable, and he pretty much squandered it anyway.


  #67   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet, his
administration marshalled just about the strongest economic period in
American history.


Does anybody actually believe that the economic state of the world or even a
large sophisticated nation starts and ends on the boundaries of any given
president's administration? I would sincerely hope not!


You should probably stick to bashing tubes.

Nobody said what you are asking. So, the answer is probably, no.

Which Shoepenhauer did you use here?

True, he did something's wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


As if 9/11 had a single cause or a single major contributing cause. Then
there's the question as to whether or not any American president could have
done anything effective about them. There's a large scale management problem
in the Arab world that is beyond the scope of these comments to even
outline. It didn't get set up in a day, but instead it evolved in place
over centuries. Guess what the time scale of any effective solution to it is
likely to be!


Once again, you have little ability to talk about geopolitics. As has
been disclosed, the attacks of 9/11 were hatched as a direct result of
the botched attempt on bin Laden's life.

But, I think if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times can be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.


The historical perspective on the Clinton years seems to be forming along
the lines of "good in spite of", rather than "good because of".


OSAF.

I think that the Republicans deserve points for keeping Clinton from doing maybe 80
or 90% of what he and his wife wanted to do.


You mean like getting health care to the people who have been priced
out of it, or who don't have access through their employers? Is *that*
what you mean?

BTW, I haven't claimed that the Republicans haven't done good things
on occasion.

We'll never know for sure what the Clinton response to 9/11 would have been,
but all informed speculation I've seen has been a lot less than encouraging.


You can speculate all you want. It makes no difference whatsoever. It
was impossible for there have been a "Clinton response to 9/11".

Of course we don't really don't know yet what good we did with the Bush
response to 9/11, but what we saw on TV sure was satisfying to most of us! I
might add that if we had done as well in Iraq as we did in Afghanistan, the
world would be a happier place, not that Afghanistan is shaping up as any
kind of an encouraging success.


It's funny - we're so stretched now militarily, that the Army is
contracting out force protection. That means that the Army isn't even
doing much guard duty or MP duty these days. It's being done by
private firms.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds; simpler times, a vastly simpler world.


Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.

It's funny how guys like youhave such elastic views about personal
integrity. There's ALWAYS a catch, right?

You've got to remember that the CIA was formed under Truman's
administration, as an example of how much simpler those times were.


This makes no sense whatsoever.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is
in such a state of chaos.


Speak for yourself.


Yes, you tell Mr. McKelvy! Make him sorry that he expressed an
opinion!

LOL!

Not that long ago Liberia and it's
president were fading out due to the world turning it's back on the
regime there. Then some asshole gave the Taylor government
legitimacy.


Say what?


You go, Arnold! Bust Mike for mouthing off!

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?


I think someone needs a little historical review here. Both times we went up
against him, were Hussein's troops pushing US iron or Russian iron? Were
his troops carrying M16s or AK47s? Were they driving M1s, and M60s or T60s
and T70s? Where they flying MIGs or F-15 and F18s? Were they launching Scuds
or Pershings? Who gave weapons to Hussein? Well they didn't give Hussein
squat, they sold it to him and they are still waiting to get paid. They are
probably going to wait a long time!


C'mon Arnold, you know I didn't imply that we gave those weapons for
free. Give means to hand over in a general sense. This is a good
example why you're a despicable debater. You try to subvert the common
meaning of terms just to make a point.

We didn't just sell them conventional weapons that he ended up using
on his own people (something that we're moaning about now), we also
sold chemical weapons and supplies through the CIA, things that he
used on his own people. We also supplied massive amounts of
intelligence as well.

The Russian, French, and German response to our invasion plans can be summed
up in two words: accounts payable. We probably did them a big favor by
setting the stage for them to charge off their bad debts now, before they
drag their economies down for years like is happening to the Japanese.

OK, we gave Hussein some help back during the Iraq-Iran war. However, any
reasonable analysis


Using the term reasonable in terms of almost anything you say is
ludicrous.

shows that what we gave him was mostly highly perishable, and he pretty much squandered it anyway.


Ahhhhh, sort of like the "weapons of mass destruction" that we claimed
he was hoarding...

I see though that you are willing to talk around the point. Mr.
McKelvy mentioned Charles Taylor and I noted that the Republicans did
something far worse - directly enabled a mad dictator to assemble the
means to kill his own people and invade his neighbors - and then we
have the nerve to bitch about it.
  #68   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they spent
$1.25.


That's not true. Revenues rose in absolute terms, but they declined
as a percentage of GDP and relative to what they would have been in
the absence of a tax cut.

This is one of the great fallacies that is nonetheless not even
credible enough for Bush to attempt to invoke it. Instead he claimed
that the loss of revenue would be less than the projected surplus. In
Reagan's case, according to his budget director David Stockman, the
tax cuts were never really expected to increase revenues, but were
instead a way to put pressure on spending. This was probably the case
with Bush as well, although the cuts were put forward as
"privatization" of medicare and Social Security, "school choice," and
greater "flexibility" for state governments, hence the changing
rationale for the tax cuts: to increase growth, to reduce the
surplus, then to promote recovery. The real goal is to reduce taxes
and the size of the federal government.
  #69   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
Interesting article in last week's Economist magazine -- hardly a
supporter of the Democrats -- pointing out that the current
Administration has presided over the largest increase in government
spending in many years. To do this while promising the electorate
continuing cuts in taxation and not dong anything about about reforming
government entitlement programs is going to result in a terrible
crash around 2009, was the article's conclusion.

It's odd to look back at the previous administration -- traditionally
tax and spend Democrats every man jack of 'em -- and realize that
_they_ were the fiscal conservatives compared with what we have now. :-)


Demonstrating once again your failure to grasp reality.


I fail to grasp why you feel the need to respond with a flame Mr.
McKelvy. I didn't attack you personally, I was referring to an
article in a ostensibly right-wing magazine pointing out that it is
an impossibility for increases in government spending to be financed
out of reduced tax revenue. If you believe in cutting direct taxation,
then you must also be committed to cutting government spending. Not to
do so is nothing than an example of de Tocqueville's statement that
democracy breaks down when you allow the electorate to vote themselves
money.

It was the GOP controlled Congress that gave us a banced budget by
holding Clinton's feet to the fire.


If that is the case (and I am not saying that it is not), then the
question has to be begged why Congress has reveresed itself to support
an executive branch that appears not to want to balance the budget.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #70   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet,
his administration marshalled just about the strongest economic
period in American history.


Does anybody actually believe that the economic state of the world
or even a large sophisticated nation starts and ends on the
boundaries of any given president's administration? I would
sincerely hope not!


You should probably stick to bashing tubes.


In short David, I've nailed you again for shallow, dogmatic thinking.

Nobody said what you are asking.


Not in so many words. But by implication, yes you did.

So, the answer is probably, no.


I'm glad to see that with some prompting, you can actually think a rational
thought from time to time, Weil.

Which Shoepenhauer did you use here?


None.

True, he did something's wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


As if 9/11 had a single cause or a single major contributing cause.
Then there's the question as to whether or not any American
president could have done anything effective about them. There's a
large scale management problem in the Arab world that is beyond the
scope of these comments to even outline. It didn't get set up in a
day, but instead it evolved in place over centuries. Guess what the
time scale of any effective solution to it is likely to be!


Once again, you have little ability to talk about geopolitics.


OSAF.

As has
been disclosed, the attacks of 9/11 were hatched as a direct result of
the botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


What disclosure? Speculation and rumors?

But, I think if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times can be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.


The historical perspective on the Clinton years seems to be forming
along the lines of "good in spite of", rather than "good because of".


OSAF.


I guess Weil you really need to think that Clinton had more value than he
did. Whatever winds your clock!

I think that the Republicans deserve points for keeping Clinton from
doing maybe 80 or 90% of what he and his wife wanted to do.


You mean like getting health care to the people who have been priced
out of it, or who don't have access through their employers? Is *that*
what you mean?


I guess you can't tell the difference between pie in the sky and a botched
plan, Weil. I see that you've failed to figure out why health care is
getting priced out of so many people's ability to pay.

BTW, I haven't claimed that the Republicans haven't done good things
on occasion.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trade trick would that be?

We'll never know for sure what the Clinton response to 9/11 would
have been, but all informed speculation I've seen has been a lot
less than encouraging.


You can speculate all you want.


I never said that I speculated, now did I?

It makes no difference whatsoever.


As if anything written on Usenet does...

It was impossible for there have been a "Clinton response to 9/11".


Your grasp of the blatantly obvious is improving at times, Weil.

Of course we don't really don't know yet what good we did with the
Bush response to 9/11, but what we saw on TV sure was satisfying to
most of us! I might add that if we had done as well in Iraq as we
did in Afghanistan, the world would be a happier place, not that
Afghanistan is shaping up as any kind of an encouraging success.


It's funny - we're so stretched now militarily, that the Army is
contracting out force protection.


We're stretched thin because of military cuts that were initiated, planned
and implemented under the Clinton administration. Thanks for sharing, David.

That means that the Army isn't even
doing much guard duty or MP duty these days. It's being done by
private firms.


If this bothers you so much David, why are you such a defender of Clinton?

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds; simpler times, a vastly simpler
world.


Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.


Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy technophobes and
revisionists notwithstanding.

It's funny how guys like you have such elastic views about personal
integrity.


No need to get personal, David you dimwit.

There's ALWAYS a catch, right?


Nothing's perfect, not even a democratic president.

You've got to remember that the CIA was formed under Truman's
administration, as an example of how much simpler those times were.


This makes no sense whatsoever.


Shows how shallow your thinking is, David. I lead you to the trough and you
can't even see the water right in front of your nose.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is
in such a state of chaos.


Speak for yourself.


Yes, you tell Mr. McKelvy! Make him sorry that he expressed an
opinion!


Just goes to show how intolerant you are of opinions that aren't yours,
David.

LOL!


Unlike you McKelvy is a big boy.

Not that long ago Liberia and it's
president were fading out due to the world turning it's back on the
regime there. Then some asshole gave the Taylor government
legitimacy.


Say what?


You go, Arnold! Bust Mike for mouthing off!


See recent comments.

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?


I think someone needs a little historical review here. Both times we
went up against him, were Hussein's troops pushing US iron or
Russian iron? Were his troops carrying M16s or AK47s? Were they
driving M1s, and M60s or T60s and T70s? Where they flying MIGs or
F-15 and F18s? Were they launching Scuds or Pershings? Who gave
weapons to Hussein? Well they didn't give Hussein squat, they sold
it to him and they are still waiting to get paid. They are probably
going to wait a long time!


C'mon Arnold, you know I didn't imply that we gave those weapons for
free.


David, why not address the whole paragraph, not the last 3 sentences? Oops,
Kryptonite!

Give means to hand over in a general sense. This is a good
example why you're a despicable debater. You try to subvert the common
meaning of terms just to make a point.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trick is this?

We didn't just sell them conventional weapons that he ended up using
on his own people (something that we're moaning about now), we also
sold chemical weapons and supplies through the CIA, things that he
used on his own people.


So you've got proof that the chemicals that he used on the Kurds were made
in the USA? Howdja do that?

We also supplied massive amounts of
intelligence as well.


That would be covered below.

The Russian, French, and German response to our invasion plans can
be summed up in two words: accounts payable. We probably did them a
big favor by setting the stage for them to charge off their bad
debts now, before they drag their economies down for years like is
happening to the Japanese.


OK, we gave Hussein some help back during the Iraq-Iran war.
However, any reasonable analysis


Using the term reasonable in terms of almost anything you say is
ludicrous.


You handle opposing opinion so bloody well, David.

shows that what we gave him was mostly highly perishable, and he
pretty much squandered it anyway.


Ahhhhh, sort of like the "weapons of mass destruction" that we claimed
he was hoarding...


Seems like you are jumping the gun here, David.

I see though that you are willing to talk around the point.


What. the point on your head, David?

Mr. McKelvy mentioned Charles Taylor and I noted that the Republicans did
something far worse - directly enabled a mad dictator to assemble the
means to kill his own people and invade his neighbors - and then we
have the nerve to bitch about it.


You seem to be making facts up as you go along. Weil. I'd like to see your
proof that the WMD that Hussein used on the Kurds were made in the USA.

The real truth is that nobody has needed help from the US government to make
WMD since the publication of The Anarchist Cookbook in 1971. ...and probably
long before that!




  #71   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:27:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet,
his administration marshalled just about the strongest economic
period in American history.

Does anybody actually believe that the economic state of the world
or even a large sophisticated nation starts and ends on the
boundaries of any given president's administration? I would
sincerely hope not!


You should probably stick to bashing tubes.


In short David, I've nailed you again for shallow, dogmatic thinking.

Nobody said what you are asking.


Not in so many words. But by implication, yes you did.


Mindreading again?

Why don't you try to read the words as they are written. It is clear
that his administration marshalled just about the stongest economic
period in American history. That doesn't mean that there weren't
others involved. After all, there's a marshall and there's a judge
(and a city council as well chuckle

So, the answer is probably, no.


I'm glad to see that with some prompting, you can actually think a rational
thought from time to time, Weil.


Considering that I never claimed that, it would be a rational answer
indeed.

If you think that the president doesn't influence economic policy,
nay, makes it, then you are silly stupid.

Which Shoepenhauer did you use here?


None.


Liar.

True, he did something's wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


As if 9/11 had a single cause or a single major contributing cause.
Then there's the question as to whether or not any American
president could have done anything effective about them. There's a
large scale management problem in the Arab world that is beyond the
scope of these comments to even outline. It didn't get set up in a
day, but instead it evolved in place over centuries. Guess what the
time scale of any effective solution to it is likely to be!


Once again, you have little ability to talk about geopolitics.


OSAF.


Agreed that it's my opinion.

As has
been disclosed, the attacks of 9/11 were hatched as a direct result of
the botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


What disclosure? Speculation and rumors?


Testimony from the inside.

But, I think if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times can be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.


The historical perspective on the Clinton years seems to be forming
along the lines of "good in spite of", rather than "good because of".


OSAF.


I guess Weil you really need to think that Clinton had more value than he
did. Whatever winds your clock!


I feel that he had considerable value. More than guys like you give
him credit for.

I think that the Republicans deserve points for keeping Clinton from
doing maybe 80 or 90% of what he and his wife wanted to do.


You mean like getting health care to the people who have been priced
out of it, or who don't have access through their employers? Is *that*
what you mean?


I guess you can't tell the difference between pie in the sky and a botched
plan, Weil. I see that you've failed to figure out why health care is
getting priced out of so many people's ability to pay.


I'm far loser to health care than you are, that's for sure. I'm
constantly around the CEOS of the HMOs.

BTW, I haven't claimed that the Republicans haven't done good things
on occasion.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trade trick would that be?


I don't know. I'm simply pointing out that my defense on of
Democratics and Clinton specificlaly doesn't preclude an
acknowledgement about the positive things that the Republicans have
done.

We'll never know for sure what the Clinton response to 9/11 would
have been, but all informed speculation I've seen has been a lot
less than encouraging.


You can speculate all you want.


I never said that I speculated, now did I?


OK, so you're *not* saying anything about Clinton's possible response.
Cool. We'll just strike your statement from the record.

It makes no difference whatsoever.


As if anything written on Usenet does...

It was impossible for there have been a "Clinton response to 9/11".


Your grasp of the blatantly obvious is improving at times, Weil.


Glad to have brought the obvious to your attention. It seems that
*smoebody* needed to.

Of course we don't really don't know yet what good we did with the
Bush response to 9/11, but what we saw on TV sure was satisfying to
most of us! I might add that if we had done as well in Iraq as we
did in Afghanistan, the world would be a happier place, not that
Afghanistan is shaping up as any kind of an encouraging success.


It's funny - we're so stretched now militarily, that the Army is
contracting out force protection.


We're stretched thin because of military cuts that were initiated, planned
and implemented under the Clinton administration. Thanks for sharing, David.


Which actually ironically started with the Reagan administration. He
wasnted to put all of the money into Star Wars and reduce the size of
the military by something like 25%. Remember, I was THERE, and I
remember all of the guys who had years in the service being forced out
to save money. This from "Mr. Military".

That means that the Army isn't even
doing much guard duty or MP duty these days. It's being done by
private firms.


If this bothers you so much David, why are you such a defender of Clinton?


It doesn't bother me all that much. I might just go over there and do
guard duty for $50,000 a year. I'm just saying that it's ironic that
the Army can't even muster the forces to guard their own facilities,
because they're being employed hither and yon. Plus, President Bush
isn't even including these new costs into the figures for the deficit.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds; simpler times, a vastly simpler
world.


Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.


Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy technophobes and
revisionists notwithstanding.


And a few million cancer victims as well...

It's funny how guys like you have such elastic views about personal
integrity.


No need to get personal, David you dimwit.


Oooooh, touched a nerve. I don't think I was getting nearly as
personal as someone calling someone a dimwit.

LOL!

There's ALWAYS a catch, right?


Nothing's perfect, not even a democratic president.


I don't know of any Democratic president who has been perfect.

You've got to remember that the CIA was formed under Truman's
administration, as an example of how much simpler those times were.


This makes no sense whatsoever.


Shows how shallow your thinking is, David. I lead you to the trough and you
can't even see the water right in front of your nose.


Still doesn't make any sense.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is
in such a state of chaos.


Speak for yourself.


Yes, you tell Mr. McKelvy! Make him sorry that he expressed an
opinion!


Just goes to show how intolerant you are of opinions that aren't yours,
David.


You're wrong, of course. Is this another case of leading a trough to
the horse's water?

LOL!


Unlike you McKelvy is a big boy.

Not that long ago Liberia and it's
president were fading out due to the world turning it's back on the
regime there. Then some asshole gave the Taylor government
legitimacy.


Say what?


You go, Arnold! Bust Mike for mouthing off!


See recent comments.


Yep, bust him! He's a big boy! He can take it!

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?

I think someone needs a little historical review here. Both times we
went up against him, were Hussein's troops pushing US iron or
Russian iron? Were his troops carrying M16s or AK47s? Were they
driving M1s, and M60s or T60s and T70s? Where they flying MIGs or
F-15 and F18s? Were they launching Scuds or Pershings? Who gave
weapons to Hussein? Well they didn't give Hussein squat, they sold
it to him and they are still waiting to get paid. They are probably
going to wait a long time!


C'mon Arnold, you know I didn't imply that we gave those weapons for
free.


David, why not address the whole paragraph, not the last 3 sentences? Oops,
Kryptonite!


Already did, in another thread:

Here are the links:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

Interesting that we were [laying both sides against the middle, eh?

Give means to hand over in a general sense. This is a good
example why you're a despicable debater. You try to subvert the common
meaning of terms just to make a point.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trick is this?

We didn't just sell them conventional weapons that he ended up using
on his own people (something that we're moaning about now), we also
sold chemical weapons and supplies through the CIA, things that he
used on his own people.


So you've got proof that the chemicals that he used on the Kurds were made
in the USA? Howdja do that?


Which Schopenhauer trick is this? Where did I say that the chemical
weapons were "made in the USA"?

We also supplied massive amounts of
intelligence as well.


That would be covered below.

The Russian, French, and German response to our invasion plans can
be summed up in two words: accounts payable. We probably did them a
big favor by setting the stage for them to charge off their bad
debts now, before they drag their economies down for years like is
happening to the Japanese.


OK, we gave Hussein some help back during the Iraq-Iran war.
However, any reasonable analysis


Using the term reasonable in terms of almost anything you say is
ludicrous.


You handle opposing opinion so bloody well, David.


Yes I do, don't I?

shows that what we gave him was mostly highly perishable, and he
pretty much squandered it anyway.


Ahhhhh, sort of like the "weapons of mass destruction" that we claimed
he was hoarding...


Seems like you are jumping the gun here, David.

I see though that you are willing to talk around the point.


What. the point on your head, David?


You handle opposing opinion so ****tily, don't you, Arnold?

Mr. McKelvy mentioned Charles Taylor and I noted that the Republicans did
something far worse - directly enabled a mad dictator to assemble the
means to kill his own people and invade his neighbors - and then we
have the nerve to bitch about it.


You seem to be making facts up as you go along. Weil. I'd like to see your
proof that the WMD that Hussein used on the Kurds were made in the USA.


I never SAID that they were "made in the USA".

You lose.

Again.

The real truth is that nobody has needed help from the US government to make
WMD since the publication of The Anarchist Cookbook in 1971. ...and probably
long before that!


And yet, we used CIA front organizations to supply them with those
very materials. This is well-documented.
  #72   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:27:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message


You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet,
his administration marshalled just about the strongest economic
period in American history.

Does anybody actually believe that the economic state of the world
or even a large sophisticated nation starts and ends on the
boundaries of any given president's administration? I would
sincerely hope not!


You should probably stick to bashing tubes.


In short David, I've nailed you again for shallow, dogmatic thinking.

Nobody said what you are asking.


Not in so many words. But by implication, yes you did.


Mindreading again?


How can I do again what I never did in the first place?

Why don't you try to read the words as they are written.


Been there, done that.

It is clear
that his administration marshalled just about the stongest economic
period in American history.


Repetition of the same claim you just got nailed for doesn't constitute
proof or even support, Weil.

Since I've reduced you to blathering Weil, let's move on.

That doesn't mean that there weren't others involved.


Then why not give them credit or admit that putting Clinton's name and only
Clinton's name on that period was gratuitous and perhaps even wrong?

After all, there's a marshall and there's a judge (and a city council as

well chuckle

Since I've reduced you to blathering Weil, let's move on.

So, the answer is probably, no.


I'm glad to see that with some prompting, you can actually think a
rational thought from time to time, Weil.


Considering that I never claimed that, it would be a rational answer
indeed.


Since I've reduced you to blathering Weil, let's move on.

If you think that the president doesn't influence economic policy,
nay, makes it, then you are silly stupid.


I never said anything like that. Since I've reduced you obvious deception
Weil, let's move on.

Which Shoepenhauer did you use here?


None.


Liar.


Since I've reduced you to a screaming meemie Weil, let's move on.

True, he did something's wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


As if 9/11 had a single cause or a single major contributing cause.
Then there's the question as to whether or not any American
president could have done anything effective about them. There's a
large scale management problem in the Arab world that is beyond the
scope of these comments to even outline. It didn't get set up in a
day, but instead it evolved in place over centuries. Guess what the
time scale of any effective solution to it is likely to be!


Once again, you have little ability to talk about geopolitics.


OSAF.


Agreed that it's my opinion.


Why not admit that you've also got no facts to back up your claim?

As has
been disclosed, the attacks of 9/11 were hatched as a direct result
of the botched attempt on bin Laden's life.


What disclosure? Speculation and rumors?


Testimony from the inside.


Why not admit that you've again got no facts to back up your claim?

But, I think if you throw out the vindictiveness of the
Republican marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense
scrutiny of the Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your
massive spending), and the hectoring over extramarital affairs,
the Clinton times can be seen as a period of great things for the
US as a whole.


The historical perspective on the Clinton years seems to be forming
along the lines of "good in spite of", rather than "good because
of".


OSAF.


I guess Weil you really need to think that Clinton had more value
than he did. Whatever winds your clock!


I feel that he had considerable value.


Ask someone who knows him best, like Hillary. Only don't follow her words,
follow her actions.

More than guys like you give him credit for.


Prove it.

I think that the Republicans deserve points for keeping Clinton
from doing maybe 80 or 90% of what he and his wife wanted to do.


You mean like getting health care to the people who have been priced
out of it, or who don't have access through their employers? Is
*that* what you mean?


I guess you can't tell the difference between pie in the sky and a
botched plan, Weil. I see that you've failed to figure out why
health care is getting priced out of so many people's ability to pay.


I'm far loser to health care than you are, that's for sure. I'm
constantly around the CEOS of the HMOs.


Next time try writing this in English.

BTW, I haven't claimed that the Republicans haven't done good things
on occasion.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trade trick would that be?


I don't know.


It's not for lack of me trying to teach you, Weil.

I'm simply pointing out that my defense on of
Democratics and Clinton specificlaly doesn't preclude an
acknowledgement about the positive things that the Republicans have
done.


Now that you've pretty well cut yourself off at the knees, Weil...

We'll never know for sure what the Clinton response to 9/11 would
have been, but all informed speculation I've seen has been a lot
less than encouraging.


You can speculate all you want.


I never said that I speculated, now did I?


OK, so you're *not* saying anything about Clinton's possible response.


Wrong again.

Cool. We'll just strike your statement from the record.


Stupid again.

It makes no difference whatsoever.


As if anything written on Usenet does...


Weil has no response

It was impossible for there have been a "Clinton response to 9/11".


Your grasp of the blatantly obvious is improving at times, Weil.


Glad to have brought the obvious to your attention. It seems that
*smoebody* needed to.


Now who is this Smoebody person?

;-)

Of course we don't really don't know yet what good we did with the
Bush response to 9/11, but what we saw on TV sure was satisfying to
most of us! I might add that if we had done as well in Iraq as we
did in Afghanistan, the world would be a happier place, not that
Afghanistan is shaping up as any kind of an encouraging success.


It's funny - we're so stretched now militarily, that the Army is
contracting out force protection.


We're stretched thin because of military cuts that were initiated,
planned and implemented under the Clinton administration. Thanks for
sharing, David.


Which actually ironically started with the Reagan administration.


Which actually started at the end of world war two...

He wasnted to put all of the money into Star Wars and reduce the size of
the military by something like 25%. Remember, I was THERE, and I
remember all of the guys who had years in the service being forced out
to save money. This from "Mr. Military".


Who is Mr. Wasnted and why doesn't he show up on the Regan-ear personel
list?

;-)

That means that the Army isn't even
doing much guard duty or MP duty these days. It's being done by
private firms.


If this bothers you so much David, why are you such a defender of
Clinton?


It doesn't bother me all that much.


The why are you complaining it about it so long and loud, eh Weil?

I might just go over there and do
guard duty for $50,000 a year. I'm just saying that it's ironic that
the Army can't even muster the forces to guard their own facilities,
because they're being employed hither and yon.


The idea of division of labor seems to be lost on you, Weil. Well so much
for table waiters as management consultants!

Plus, President Bush
isn't even including these new costs into the figures for the deficit.


Prove it.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened
to "The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds; simpler times, a vastly simpler
world.


Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.


Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy
technophobes and revisionists notwithstanding.


And a few million cancer victims as well...


Tell that to the tobacco companies.

It's funny how guys like you have such elastic views about personal
integrity.


No need to get personal, David you dimwit.


Oooooh, touched a nerve.


No, you tried to put your hand where it doesn't belong, Weil.

I don't think I was getting nearly as
personal as someone calling someone a dimwit.


LOL!


You do a good impersonation of a hyena, Weil. Oops that's no impersonation,
its your real self showing through!

There's ALWAYS a catch, right?


Nothing's perfect, not even a democratic president.


I don't know of any Democratic president who has been perfect.


I'm glad to have finally disabused you of your fantasies about Clinton being
without fault...

You've got to remember that the CIA was formed under Truman's
administration, as an example of how much simpler those times were.


This makes no sense whatsoever.


Shows how shallow your thinking is, David. I lead you to the trough
and you can't even see the water right in front of your nose.


Still doesn't make any sense.


It will if the doctors ever get your IQ over 50, Weil.

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia
is in such a state of chaos.


Speak for yourself.


Yes, you tell Mr. McKelvy! Make him sorry that he expressed an
opinion!


Just goes to show how intolerant you are of opinions that aren't
yours, David.


You're wrong, of course.


See what I mean?

LOL! Gotcha!

Is this another case of leading a trough to the horse's water?


It isn't even the first one.

LOL!


Unlike you McKelvy is a big boy.


Not that long ago Liberia and it's
president were fading out due to the world turning it's back on
the regime there. Then some asshole gave the Taylor government
legitimacy.


Say what?


You go, Arnold! Bust Mike for mouthing off!


See recent comments.


Yep, bust him! He's a big boy! He can take it!


Come back when you grow up, Weil.

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?


I think someone needs a little historical review here. Both times
we went up against him, were Hussein's troops pushing US iron or
Russian iron? Were his troops carrying M16s or AK47s? Were they
driving M1s, and M60s or T60s and T70s? Where they flying MIGs or
F-15 and F18s? Were they launching Scuds or Pershings? Who gave
weapons to Hussein? Well they didn't give Hussein squat, they sold
it to him and they are still waiting to get paid. They are probably
going to wait a long time!


C'mon Arnold, you know I didn't imply that we gave those weapons for
free.


David, why not address the whole paragraph, not the last 3
sentences? Oops, Kryptonite!


Already did, in another thread:


Here are the links:


http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY


"The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense
Intelligence Agency who
helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed
information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles,
plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said."

All intangibles whose lasting value was zero.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html


"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German
companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including
anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a
CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says."

The biological agents were a few test tubes of Antrax spores, available from
many other sources. The vital ingredients were common knowlege and readily
avaiable elsewhere. Lots of other people can and probably did provide
cluster bombs.

Interesting that we were [laying both sides against the middle, eh?


What did we do to help Iran? Neither article seems to say anything about
that. Or was there some other unnamed country that was an active antagonist
in the Iran-Iraq war?

Give means to hand over in a general sense. This is a good
example why you're a despicable debater. You try to subvert the
common meaning of terms just to make a point.


Which Schoepenhauer debating trick is this?


Well, it starts out with name-calling which I don't think is on
Schoepenhauer's list.

We didn't just sell them conventional weapons that he ended up using
on his own people (something that we're moaning about now), we also
sold chemical weapons and supplies through the CIA, things that he
used on his own people.


So you've got proof that the chemicals that he used on the Kurds
were made in the USA? Howdja do that?


Which Schopenhauer trick is this?


The one where I quote Weil saying: "we also sold chemical weapons and
supplies through the CIA, things that he used on his own people."

Where did I say that the chemical weapons were "made in the USA"?


Oh, so you're saying we resold chemical weapons and supplies made by someone
else? How do you know that the weapons used on the Kurds were the ones we
resold?


We also supplied massive amounts of
intelligence as well.


That would be covered below.


The Russian, French, and German response to our invasion plans can
be summed up in two words: accounts payable. We probably did them a
big favor by setting the stage for them to charge off their bad
debts now, before they drag their economies down for years like is
happening to the Japanese.


OK, we gave Hussein some help back during the Iraq-Iran war.
However, any reasonable analysis


Using the term reasonable in terms of almost anything you say is
ludicrous.


You handle opposing opinion so bloody well, David.


Yes I do, don't I?


Not at all!

shows that what we gave him was mostly highly perishable, and he
pretty much squandered it anyway.


Ahhhhh, sort of like the "weapons of mass destruction" that we
claimed he was hoarding...


Seems like you are jumping the gun here, David.


I see though that you are willing to talk around the point.


What. the point on your head, David?


You handle opposing opinion so ****tily, don't you, Arnold?


Better than you, Weil.

Mr. McKelvy mentioned Charles Taylor and I noted that the
Republicans did something far worse - directly enabled a mad
dictator to assemble the means to kill his own people and invade
his neighbors - and then we have the nerve to bitch about it.


You seem to be making facts up as you go along. Weil. I'd like to
see your proof that the WMD that Hussein used on the Kurds were made
in the USA.


I never SAID that they were "made in the USA".


I'm still waiting to see you back up your claim that:

"we also sold chemical weapons and supplies through the CIA, things that he
used on his own people."

You lose.


Not at all. It appears that you're cornered by your own words, Weil.

Again.


There was never a first time, except in your imagination, Weil.

The real truth is that nobody has needed help from the US government
to make WMD since the publication of The Anarchist Cookbook in 1971.
...and probably long before that!


And yet, we used CIA front organizations to supply them with those
very materials.


As could anybody with a fairly complete chemical set.

This is well-documented.


I notice all the independent references you've cited that actually support
your claims, Weil: ZERO.


Since I've reduced you to blathering Weil, this is my last reply to you on
this topic unless by some act of God you manage to say something
interesting.



  #73   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"dave weil" wrote in message


And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".


Different times, different worlds ...


.... different political party.
  #74   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:24:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY


"The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense
Intelligence Agency who
helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed
information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles,
plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said."

All intangibles whose lasting value was zero.


I see. You know see fit to judge the effacy of the US inteeligence
community as of zero use, even though you don't even know anything
about what was passed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html


"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German
companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including
anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a
CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says."

The biological agents were a few test tubes of Antrax spores, available from
many other sources.


Prove it! Besides, what in the hell is "Antrax", some new digital
multitack mixing device?

"Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth
(£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used
for chemical warfare".

Using Republican logic, this is a smoking gun! LOL!

The vital ingredients were common knowlege and readily
avaiable elsewhere. Lots of other people can and probably did provide
cluster bombs.


So? That doesn't mitigate *our* role.

You lose.

Again.

Interesting that we were playing both sides against the middle, eh?


What did we do to help Iran?


You answered that yourself in the previous post. You talked about F15s
and the like. Guess which side had them. That answers your question,
right?

Neither article seems to say anything about
that.


The articles spelled out the help that we gave the Saddam. Try reading
them.

BTW, Mr. Krueger, I have to take my leave now. I'm going out to see a
live concert featuring Todd Rundgren. Have fun watching TV!


  #75   Report Post  
Schizoid Man
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message


snip

Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy
technophobes and revisionists notwithstanding.


And a few million cancer victims as well...


Tell that to the tobacco companies.


Ummm... I don't think the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki carried a
'Nuclear Bomb May Cause Lung Cancer If You Are Not Already Incinerated'
warning.

Then again, I don't think the fine denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
elected for the bomb out of their own volition. Incidentally, the tobacco
companies don't force you to smoke, in case you didn't notice.

Comparing cigarettes to the A-bomb is not only reprehensible and ludicrous,
it is also belittling all those who suffered and died.




  #76   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???



Schizoid Man said:

Comparing cigarettes to the A-bomb is not only reprehensible and ludicrous,
it is also belittling all those who suffered and died.


Welcome to the "debating trade".



  #77   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message


snip

Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy
technophobes and revisionists notwithstanding.


And a few million cancer victims as well...


Tell that to the tobacco companies.


Ummm... I don't think the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki
carried a 'Nuclear Bomb May Cause Lung Cancer If You Are Not Already
Incinerated' warning.


Agreed, but any modern war carries an implicit "You may die a horrible
death, whether you are civilian or soldier" warning.

Then again, I don't think the fine denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
elected for the bomb out of their own volition. Incidentally, the
tobacco companies don't force you to smoke, in case you didn't notice.


I did notice. If your country's politics look like they are going haywire,
there are often times where it is feasible to become an exile. IOW get the
heck out, even if it means losing just about everything. Certainly a true
fact for my grandparents who were exiles from Russia and Germany ca. WWI.
Also true for numerous Jews in Germany and nearby countries ca. WWII.

Comparing cigarettes to the A-bomb is not only reprehensible and
ludicrous, it is also belittling all those who suffered and died.


It's not belittling at all to recognize the fact that war is hell, whether
your country wins or loses. Every citizen of a country at war has moral
responsibility for the acts of his country. If you don't like what your
country does, it is generally feasible to leave, sometimes at a high price,
but it's still feasible to leave. If you stay and die a horrible death, that
is how life works. If you leave you may die a horrible death, anyway. There
is no promise that life is a rose garden.


  #78   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" said:


"dave weil" said


snip


Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.


Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy
technophobes and revisionists notwithstanding.


Please elucidate why it is a 'fine' idea to drop an atomic bomb and
instantly snuff out 105,000 lives, notwithstanding all those who
succumbed to burns and the radiation fall-out.


Why not expand upon the alternatives, which included gassing millions of
civilians and/or up to a quarter million or more US casualties and some
large multiple of that in terms of Japanese casualties.

Needless to say that the majority of those who died over those two
fateful days were largely civilian and innocent.


There are no true innocents in any country at war. If you haven't noticed,
you bear moral responsibility if your country goes to war and you stick
around.


  #79   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???

"Sandman" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:37:09 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message ...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message ...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth
under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire
nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.

So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.


Sort of like the obstructionist Repubs that have allowed 23,000,000
people who can't get health insurance...

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've
more of the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.


You mean like we had to deal with the Reagan legacy in Iraq?

Is *that* what you mean?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

This bit is especially telling:

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or
German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents,
including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and
cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report
says".

Oooops! Once again, you bring something up, I counter it with worse
stuff...


Let him chew on this, Dave...

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19255


For a lawyer Sanders you seem to have zero appreciation of the meaning of
the word "hearsay".

Sanders, it's really too bad that Saddam's regime has already fallen, as a
person with your appreciation for the sanctity of his regime really needs to
spend a few years living there...


  #80   Report Post  
mikemckelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction???


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
Interesting article in last week's Economist magazine -- hardly a
supporter of the Democrats -- pointing out that the current
Administration has presided over the largest increase in government
spending in many years. To do this while promising the electorate
continuing cuts in taxation and not dong anything about about

reforming
government entitlement programs is going to result in a terrible
crash around 2009, was the article's conclusion.

It's odd to look back at the previous administration -- traditionally
tax and spend Democrats every man jack of 'em -- and realize that
_they_ were the fiscal conservatives compared with what we have now.

:-)

Demonstrating once again your failure to grasp reality.


I fail to grasp why you feel the need to respond with a flame Mr.
McKelvy. I didn't attack you personally, I was referring to an
article in a ostensibly right-wing magazine pointing out that it is
an impossibility for increases in government spending to be financed
out of reduced tax revenue.


1. It wasn't so much a flame as rib.

2. It is possible to increase spending through tax cuts, it's been done.
You remember the Reagan years?
Revenue increased 4 fold into the Treasury.


If you believe in cutting direct taxation,
then you must also be committed to cutting government spending.


I'm committed to both. We spend to much money on crap. We need tax cuts to
stimulate the economy.

Not to
do so is nothing than an example of de Tocqueville's statement that
democracy breaks down when you allow the electorate to vote themselves
money.

Riiiiiight.

It was the GOP controlled Congress that gave us a banced budget by
holding Clinton's feet to the fire.


If that is the case (and I am not saying that it is not), then the
question has to be begged why Congress has reveresed itself to support
an executive branch that appears not to want to balance the budget.

That is the perception the left wants you to have. They cite the dollar
figure as huge, while neglecting to mention that 3-4% of GDP is tiny
conmpared to say WW2 era budgets with 30% deficits. During Reagan's term it
was around 6% and we recovered from both.



John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: Audiomobile MASS 2012 or other 12" subs Ge0 Car Audio 0 August 2nd 03 07:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"