[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/washington/30stevens.html?hp

Mr. Stevens, 84, was indicted on seven counts of falsely reporting
income. The charges are related to renovations on his home and to gifts
he has received. They arise from an investigation that has been under
way for more than a year, in connection with the senator’s relationship
with a businessman who oversaw the home-remodeling project.


An octogenarian (who was probably headed for retirement) couldn't contain
his greed. Instead of completing a long career of honorable service and
retiring with the respect of the nation, he chose to sully himself in a
tawdry money-grubbing scheme.

It's a good thing the Republicans proclaim themselves the country's morals
watchdogs. God only knows how disgraceful the scandals would be if the
Democrats were in charge.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:
Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

[Vinylanach]

On Jul 29, 10:49�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

This was the scumbag who wanted the FCC to regulate satellite radio
and cable/satellite TV programming...one of those family values guys.
Good...hope he burns.

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree. Their news reporting is as factual as any paper's. Also, FYI, the
Times carries blogs by several of their reporters and editors, and they're
clearly labeled as blogs. You know you're getting a mix of news, opinion,
and observation in them.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Vinylanach said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree.

I don't that's what he's implying.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree.

I don't that's what he's implying.

How come you didn't resent it when Stephen called you an oick? Hahaha, just
kidding. Nobody who wields both a baton and a guitar could possibly be an
oick. In fact, I don't think girls can be oicks at all. They probably have a
completely different slur for the female equivalent.

Shall we wait for Marc to clarify, or would you like to splain me where I
went wrong in my reading of his post?

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree.

I don't that's what he's implying.

How come you didn't resent it when Stephen called you an oick? Hahaha, just
kidding. Nobody who wields both a baton and a guitar could possibly be an
oick. In fact, I don't think girls can be oicks at all. They probably have a
completely different slur for the female equivalent.

Shall we wait for Marc to clarify, or would you like to splain me where I
went wrong in my reading of his post?

It just reads to me like a complement.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree.

I don't that's what he's implying.

How come you didn't resent it when Stephen called you an oick? Hahaha, just
kidding. Nobody who wields both a baton and a guitar could possibly be an
oick. In fact, I don't think girls can be oicks at all. They probably have a
completely different slur for the female equivalent.

Shall we wait for Marc to clarify, or would you like to splain me where I
went wrong in my reading of his post?

It just reads to me like a complement.

Yes, I think he was contrasting the relatively credible NYT to the
slaverings of Right Blogistan.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 30, 3:30*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,





*Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this
group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. *George, a
liberal,
used the NY Times. *Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal"
politics, I
disagree.

I don't that's what he's implying.

How come you didn't resent it when Stephen called you an oick? Hahaha,
just
kidding. Nobody who wields both a baton and a guitar could possibly be
an
oick. In fact, I don't think girls can be oicks at all. They probably
have a
completely different slur for the female equivalent.

Shall we wait for Marc to clarify, or would you like to splain me where
I
went wrong in my reading of his post?

It just reads to me like a complement.

Yes, I think he was contrasting the relatively credible NYT to the
slaverings of Right Blogistan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._20082/2008_pr
esidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_o bama_win

"A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of
American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The
paper¹s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines,
with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives."

Are they implying that only 24% of America is liberal enough to have a
favorable opinion of the NYTs?

That would assume no conservatives have a favorable opinion, so no. Is
that a trick math question or something?

Many liberals have unfavorable views of the NYT, especially of the op-ed
page.

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 30, 6:30 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
I think he was contrasting the relatively credible
NYT to the slaverings of Right Blogistan.

I am still trying to digest ScottW's statement that if
there is ever a nuclear attack by North Korea, Bill
Clinton will be to blame. That ranks down there with
Michelle Malkin's recent claim that Latino immigrants
are responsible for the current banking crisis!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 30, 9:50 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:09 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
I am still trying to digest ScottW's statement that if
there is ever a nuclear attack by North Korea, Bill
Clinton will be to blame. That ranks down there with
Michelle Malkin's recent claim that Latino immigrants
are responsible for the current banking crisis!

Maybe you should stick to discussing things for which you
have first hand knowledge...

I am not sure what you mean, ScottW. I read the Malkin
column. Surely, that is first-hand knowledge of what she
wrote? However, I think she is incorrect, both because of
my own discussions with senior managers at various
Wall Street institutions who happen to be personal friends
and becasue it goes against my experience of my own
Latino (by marriage) relatives. I read your claim about
Clinton, but i have also read extensively reports on the
Clinton Administration's policy toward North Korea as
well as interviews with John Bolton where he discussed
his own actions regarding North Korea. I conclude from
all this that your statement that Clinton will ultimately be
found responsible if there is a North Korean nuclear disaster
is unlikely to be correct.

My 2 cents. Feel free to ignore it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iul, 01:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

Jefferson must have sold it to him

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message
Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted
Stevens, senior Senator from Alaska, has been taking
bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty money very
well.

We've had a lot of political entertainment at the expense of one Kwami
Kilpatrick. A current political ad points out that he has been indicted for
9 different felonies ranging from perjury to obstruction of justice to
bribery.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ion/index.html

There is a related unsolved murder that periodically gets brought up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmA2SObc_-U

Kwami's mother is beginning to feel the heat for the antics of her son.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS06/807270560

Yes, both Kwami and his mother are...

Democrats.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

SlasherBorg said:

There is a related unsolved murder that periodically gets brought up.

Arnii, a word of advice: If you don't want to get caught by the cops, quit
bringing up the crimes you think you've gotten away with.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was successful.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 31, 9:40*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was successful.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of
converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132140.shtml

Of course then there was this little lack of follow through by
Clinton.

"The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals ‹ with the United States
providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons
against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial
commitment ‹ neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)

No one, save perhaps a few loony leftists, believes North Korea
dismantled everything and complied with the Clinton agreement for 6
years and then restarted and produced a nuke from scratch in 6 years.

Thanks for proving my point. 2003, that was Bush dropping the ball.
Congress, Republican-controlled, yes?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:22*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:40*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was successful.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of
converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132140.shtml

Of course then there was this little lack of follow through by
Clinton.

"The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals Ð with the United States
providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons
against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial
commitment Ð neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)

No one, save perhaps a few loony leftists, *believes North Korea
dismantled everything and complied with the Clinton agreement for 6
years and then restarted and produced a nuke from scratch in 6 years.

Thanks for proving my point. 2003, that was Bush dropping the ball.

It was Bush that pointed out that N. Korea was not abiding by the
agreement Clinton established.
Under Clintons watch N. Korea continued nuclear development.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...15753C1A9649C8
B63

The Bush administration has decided to scrap the 1994 arms control
accord with North Korea that has provided Western energy aid in return
for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons,
senior administration officials said today.

North Korea admitted two weeks ago that it was pursuing a covert
nuclear weapons program, and accused the United States of taking steps
that forced Pyongyang to nullify the accord. The White House has since
debated whether to end the accord, with some aides warning such a step
could lead North Korea to even greater nuclear violations.

That's arguable: North Korea lived up to the plutonium part of the
agreement.

Congress, Republican-controlled, yes?

Congress is responsible for foreign nuclear treaty monitoring?
Pelosi? We're doomed.

Pelosi was Speaker during Clinton's terms? No, the Republican-led
Congress didn't fund US obligations, as you cited. I see you are still
unwilling to deal with questions when you don't like the answers.

Your only help is that having your head planted in the sand
offers some protection.

I take it you didn't read the 'Blame Bush' link I posted, so you might
check your ears for sand.

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 31, 12:28 pm, ScottW wrote:
I see you still won't address the one thing you do have first
knowledge of, gross and willful misinterpretation of DBT data.

In your opinion, ScottW. And as I have repeatedly said,
I don't see why I have to argue with your opinion. I have
had my say (back in 1989); you have had your say; other
than noting that your mindreading claims my motives
and behavior are uninformed conjecture, I would have
thought that would be the end of the matter.

I am not surprised.

Oh dear.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:56*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:22*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:40*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton
made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was successful.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of
converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132140.shtml

Of course then there was this little lack of follow through by
Clinton.

"The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals Ð with the United States
providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons
against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial
commitment Ð neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)

No one, save perhaps a few loony leftists, *believes North Korea
dismantled everything and complied with the Clinton agreement for 6
years and then restarted and produced a nuke from scratch in 6 years.

Thanks for proving my point. 2003, that was Bush dropping the ball.

It was Bush that pointed out that N. Korea was not abiding by the
agreement Clinton established.
Under Clintons watch N. Korea continued nuclear development.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1E3DF933A15753...
B63

The Bush administration has decided to scrap the 1994 arms control
accord with North Korea that has provided Western energy aid in return
for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons,
senior administration officials said today.

North Korea admitted two weeks ago that it was pursuing a covert
nuclear weapons program, and accused the United States of taking steps
that forced Pyongyang to nullify the accord. The White House has since
debated whether to end the accord, with some aides warning such a step
could lead North Korea to even greater nuclear violations.

That's arguable: North Korea lived up to the plutonium part of the
agreement.

What exactly is the "plutonium part of the agreement"?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...asp?sport=MLB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't even see plutonium mentioned and now with the benefit of
hindsight it is clear that North Korea continued to develop
reprocessing
capability.

Addressed in the mahablog article I linked.

Wasn't that part of the "plutonium part"?

No. Plutonium doesn't require that kind of reprocessing.

Congress, Republican-controlled, yes?

Congress is responsible for foreign nuclear treaty monitoring?
Pelosi? *We're doomed.

Pelosi was Speaker during Clinton's terms? No, the Republican-led
Congress didn't fund US obligations, as you cited.

You mean they didn't pay the bribe Clinton agreed to while
N. Korea was refusing to comply with it's part.

Yes, there's a continual renegotiation with such agreements. The
question is whether we're getting what we need out of it.

In the end, is the Bush agreement better, worse, or as is Boltons
view,
deals with a liar doomed to fail?

The current agreement has promise. Bolton's view is warmongering.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...asp?sport=MLB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't see how a fantasy baseball page supports your argument.

Stephen

[Signal[_2_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...asp?sport=MLB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't see how a fantasy baseball page supports your argument.

BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA............






--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 30, 6:51*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:30*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:

Yes, I think he was contrasting the relatively credible NYT to the
slaverings of Right Blogistan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ.../election_2008...
esidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_o bama_*win

"A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of
American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The
paper¹s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines,
with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives."

Are they implying that only 24% of America is liberal enough to have a
favorable opinion of the NYTs?

That would assume no conservatives have a favorable opinion, so no. Is
that a trick math question or something?

Many liberals have unfavorable views of the NYT, especially of the op-ed
page.

This is a result of the "echo-chamber".

If you look at it, "unbiased" information in a "black-or-white" world
would leave 50% unhappy no matter what. If an article came out that
was not favorable to McCain, 50% would 'think' it was pro-Obama. The
reverse would be true regarding an unfavorable report on Obama.

Since 2pid is the only one on RAO who isn't bright enough to see
shades of gray, it follows that he would look at a poll like this as
evidence of a dastardly liberal media.

As it turns out, 2pid is simply swallowing whole a load of "liberal
media" propaganda crap that not even William Kristol buys, and he was
one of the early main planters of that load.

An interesting read:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

Let 2pid wallow in his Pit of Ignorance.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 31, 11:28*am, ScottW wrote:

*There are clear correlations in foreclosure rates with
immigrant concentrations. *I put the fault on the banks.

While there is an equally-clear correlation between foreclosure rates
and the annual amount of snowfall. I put the fault on the weather.

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 30, 10:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 30 Iul, 01:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

Jefferson must have sold it to him

Perhaps.

I would say (as I did above) that there are obviously some Dems that
have broken rules. The evidence is clear that far more republicans
have. Does this mean that the Dems who broke rules are "better" than
the republicans who did?

No, it just means that there is evidence that far more of these
'moral' and 'honest' republicans who are the ones bringing up
"integrity" all of the time are far worse. Foley, Cunningham, Stevens,
the DOJ, Craig, and on and on.

I also find that distorting entire branches of government, such as the
DOJ, far more alarming than even the systemic gay hypocrisy shown by
the right or instances of individual corruption on either side.

As a famous philosopher once said, "Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 31, 2:30 pm, ScottW wrote:
What exactly was your "say" back in '89?
Have a link?
Did you retract your ridiculous claim?
What were your motives?

So many questions, so little time...

And I fail to comprehend why you are asking me
for the link to a 1989 article in Stereophile, ScottW,
when you already provided it in an earlier message.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jul 30, 6:51*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:30*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:

Yes, I think he was contrasting the relatively credible NYT to the
slaverings of Right Blogistan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ.../election_2008...
esidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_o bama
_*win

"A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of
American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The
paper¹s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines,
with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives."

Are they implying that only 24% of America is liberal enough to have a
favorable opinion of the NYTs?

That would assume no conservatives have a favorable opinion, so no. Is
that a trick math question or something?

Many liberals have unfavorable views of the NYT, especially of the op-ed
page.

This is a result of the "echo-chamber".

If you look at it, "unbiased" information in a "black-or-white" world
would leave 50% unhappy no matter what. If an article came out that
was not favorable to McCain, 50% would 'think' it was pro-Obama. The
reverse would be true regarding an unfavorable report on Obama.

And if everyone hates it, it's pure gold.

Since 2pid is the only one on RAO who isn't bright enough to see
shades of gray, it follows that he would look at a poll like this as
evidence of a dastardly liberal media.

As it turns out, 2pid is simply swallowing whole a load of "liberal
media" propaganda crap that not even William Kristol buys, and he was
one of the early main planters of that load.

An interesting read:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

Later released in book form.

Let 2pid wallow in his Pit of Ignorance.

Should he seek more enlightenment, here's his fave, MediaMatters,
tracking the latest anti-Obama faux outrage:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807300011

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Iul, 15:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:28*am, ScottW wrote:

*There are clear correlations in foreclosure rates with
immigrant concentrations. *I put the fault on the banks.

While there is an equally-clear correlation between foreclosure rates
and the annual amount of snowfall. I put the fault on the weather.

Imbecile

Foreclosure rates are higher in higher growth rate areas
Stable areas have less housing turnover, mortgages are older,
there are more of the newer mortgages in the growth areas. these are
the ones that are foreclosing..
Higher growth rate areas attract an influx of immigrants,
among all the other new residents fueling the growth

DUH!!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Iul, 16:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iul, 01:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

Jefferson must have sold it to him

Perhaps.

I would say (as I did above) that there are obviously some Dems that
have broken rules. The evidence is clear that far more republicans
have. Does this mean that the Dems who broke rules are "better" than
the republicans who did?


Well, maybe they are just better at
not getting caught.But that's a good thing, because
it indicates competency.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 31, 4:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Iul, 15:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:28*am, ScottW wrote:

*There are clear correlations in foreclosure rates with
immigrant concentrations. *I put the fault on the banks.

While there is an equally-clear correlation between foreclosure rates
and the annual amount of snowfall. I put the fault on the weather.

Imbecile

Foreclosure rates are higher in higher growth rate areas
Stable areas have less housing turnover, mortgages are older,
there are more of the newer mortgages in the growth areas. these are
the ones that are foreclosing..
Higher growth rate areas attract an influx of immigrants,
among all the other new residents fueling the growth

2pid was attemptin to equate a correlation with causation. Anybody
with a brain knows that doesn't work. My blaming the weather was
equally valid.

DUH!!!!!!

2pid soesn't like it when you point out how stupid he is. Besides,
he's *your* friend.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 31, 4:43*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Iul, 16:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 30 Iul, 01:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

Jefferson must have sold it to him

Perhaps.

I would say (as I did above) that there are obviously some Dems that
have broken rules. The evidence is clear that far more republicans
have. Does this mean that the Dems who broke rules are "better" than
the republicans who did?

Well, maybe they are just better at
not getting caught.But that's a good thing, because
it indicates competency.

You may be on to the next conservative propaganda campign:

"Well, there are actually *more* Democrats who are corrupt. We just
aren't as good at it, hence we get caught more often!"

In a year or two that will be the Gospel according to 2pid.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Iul, 18:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:43*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 31 Iul, 16:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 30 Iul, 01:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Iul, 14:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Another crooked Republican got indicted today. Ted Stevens, senior Senator
from Alaska, has been taking bribes and, apparently, not hiding the dirty
money very well.



With all those bribes, he can't afford a freezer?

The freezer was confiscated in Cunningham's boat.

republicans 147, Dems 1.

Jefferson must have sold it to him

Perhaps.

I would say (as I did above) that there are obviously some Dems that
have broken rules. The evidence is clear that far more republicans
have. Does this mean that the Dems who broke rules are "better" than
the republicans who did?

Well, maybe they are just better at
not getting caught.But that's a good thing, because
it indicates competency.

You may be on to the next conservative propaganda campign:

"Well, there are actually *more* Democrats who are corrupt. We just
aren't as good at it, hence we get caught more often!"

In a year or two that will be the Gospel according to 2pid.-

Hmmm, do I want competent crooks or incompetent crooks
running the country?

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Iul, 22:31, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

...
On 31 Iul, 15:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:28 am, ScottW wrote:

There are clear correlations in foreclosure rates with
immigrant concentrations. I put the fault on the banks.



Foreclosure rates are higher in higher growth rate areas
Stable areas have less housing turnover, mortgages are older,
there are more of the newer mortgages in the growth areas. these are
the ones that are foreclosing..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
If you look at it as percent of homes purchased in recent years
it tells a different story.
Reality, hispanics in So-Cal widely employed risky variable
rate mortgages to buy houses they could not otherwise afford.


not necessarily and not specified as being "immigrants

http://www.californiahousingforecast...ty/post/225019

"He estimated that 90 percent of black buyers and 80 percent of Hispanic buyers
took out ARMs, and projected that 19.8 percent of recent African-American buyers
and 17.6 percent of Hispanic buyers would probably face foreclosure. About 44
percent of white buyers took out ARMs, he said, and 8.8 percent could be in
foreclosure."


not specificlly identified as "immigrants'
most African Maericans are not immigrants, SURPRISE!!!!
Many hispanics are not "immigrants".

Numbers not unique to San Diego.http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbc...20060808/NEWS/...


not related to "immigrants"

Even Hispanics recognize the fact.http://www.hispanictips.com/2007/11/...ures-hits-lati...



not specified as relating to "immigrants'.
More data on subprime borrowers.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/ny...5subprime.html

The highest foreclosure rate in San Diego is in east county,
where new home prices were lowest.
The most expensive homes on the coast have the lowest
number of defaults.

It's simple math, the mortgage industry opened the door of
home ownership to people who could not afford them.
People most likely not able to afford and not care were low
income.


Most of them not "immigrants"

I took your original post at face value,
when you said "immigrant concentrations".
I apologize for my "mistake".

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

It's simple math, the mortgage industry opened the door of
home ownership to people who could not afford them.
People most likely not able to afford and not care were low
income.

Thank you, Greenwald and Gramm.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:56 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:22 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

ScottW wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:40 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article

,

ScottW wrote:
But, that aside, it is clear that under the agreement Clinton
made,
the North Koreans successfully accomplished their objective of
a
nuclear
bomb which is exactly what the agreement was supposed to
prevent.

The agreement you refer to was about plutonium and was
successful.

October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed
all
8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of
converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132140.shtml

Of course then there was this little lack of follow through by
Clinton.

"The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install
ambassadors in each other's capitals Ð with the United States
providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons
against North Korea.

(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the
financial
commitment Ð neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors
were
never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never
taken.)

No one, save perhaps a few loony leftists, believes North Korea
dismantled everything and complied with the Clinton agreement for
6
years and then restarted and produced a nuke from scratch in 6
years.

Thanks for proving my point. 2003, that was Bush dropping the ball.

It was Bush that pointed out that N. Korea was not abiding by the
agreement Clinton established.
Under Clintons watch N. Korea continued nuclear development.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1E3DF933A15753...
B63

The Bush administration has decided to scrap the 1994 arms control
accord with North Korea that has provided Western energy aid in return
for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons,
senior administration officials said today.

North Korea admitted two weeks ago that it was pursuing a covert
nuclear weapons program, and accused the United States of taking steps
that forced Pyongyang to nullify the accord. The White House has since
debated whether to end the accord, with some aides warning such a step
could lead North Korea to even greater nuclear violations.

That's arguable: North Korea lived up to the plutonium part of the
agreement.

What exactly is the "plutonium part of the agreement"?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...ws.asp?sport=M
LB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't even see plutonium mentioned and now with the benefit of
hindsight it is clear that North Korea continued to develop
reprocessing
capability.

Addressed in the mahablog article I linked.

A blog? OMG.

If you can quote newsmax without holding your nose,

Anyway, I don't see the link in this thread.

I don't see it, either, Here it is:

http://www.mahablog.com/oldsite/id34.html

I don't stand by some of the name-calling, but I agree with it in
general.

Here's a more recent update in a slightly more formal setting:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48658/

Another view, from a print-source:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...05.kaplan.html

Wasn't that part of the "plutonium part"?

No. Plutonium doesn't require that kind of reprocessing.

Congress, Republican-controlled, yes?

Congress is responsible for foreign nuclear treaty monitoring?
Pelosi? We're doomed.

Pelosi was Speaker during Clinton's terms? No, the Republican-led
Congress didn't fund US obligations, as you cited.

You mean they didn't pay the bribe Clinton agreed to while
N. Korea was refusing to comply with it's part.

Yes, there's a continual renegotiation with such agreements. The
question is whether we're getting what we need out of it.

In the end, is the Bush agreement better, worse, or as is Boltons
view,
deals with a liar doomed to fail?

The current agreement has promise. Bolton's view is warmongering.

Boltons view is that North Korea has proven one thing, they will not abide
by any agreement which is not thoroghly and rigorously enforced.

How would the US act differently if this weren't so?

Stephen

[Signal[_2_]]

"ScottW" wrote:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...asp?sport=MLB&
id=3772&line=245507&spln=1

I don't see how a fantasy baseball page supports your argument.

dated clipboard.

Have you told your wife?





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 31, 10:10 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 2:30 pm, ScottW wrote:
What exactly was your "say" back in '89?
Have a link?

I fail to comprehend why you are asking me
for the link to a 1989 article in Stereophile, ScottW,
when you already provided it in an earlier message.

Hard for me to tell what article and what comment
you're referring to.

So lets examine your comments in thatarticle.
http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/index10.html

As I said, I fail to comprehend why you asked me for
the link tot he 1989 article when you already knew
what it was, ScottW.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Vinylanach]

On Jul 30, 2:35�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Vinylanach said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. �George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. �Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree. Their news reporting is as factual as any paper's. Also, FYI, the
Times carries blogs by several of their reporters and editors, and they're
clearly labeled as blogs. You know you're getting a mix of news, opinion,
and observation in them.

No, my comments are made out of respect for the NY Times. In other
words, you aren't using a piece of **** blog from some unknown asshole
to start an off-topic post.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Aug 1, 9:30�am, Vinylanach wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Vinylanach said:

I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. George, a liberal,
used the NY Times. Nice touch.

If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal" politics, I
disagree. Their news reporting is as factual as any paper's. Also, FYI, the
Times carries blogs by several of their reporters and editors, and they're
clearly labeled as blogs. You know you're getting a mix of news, opinion,
and observation in them.

No, my comments are made out of respect for the NY Times. In other
words, you aren't using a piece of **** blog from some unknown asshole
to start an off-topic post.

Boon

BTW, I do see where you could have interpreted otherwise. Sorry. It
was just my way of saying that only a neocon would use another neocon
as a "trusted" news source, and that your standards were a "bit"
higher.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 31, 11:13*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:

*"ScottW" wrote:

*A blog? *OMG.

If you can quote newsmax without holding your nose,

I really liked the fact that as "supporting evidence" of this author's
claims he quoted another Newsmax article.

LOL!