Some things for you to consider...

Under Reagan's watch we had Beirut embassy and Marine
barrack bombings, Lockerbie, and Achille Lauro. He
subsequently invaded Grenada.

WTC attack #1 came 38 days into the Clinton presidency. Was
this Clinton's fault or was Bush I to blame?

WTC #1 perps -- Ramzi Yousef, et. al. -- were captured,
tried, and convicted under Clinton admin. Yousef and friends
had plenty of other dramatic plans -- blowing up GW Bridge,
Lincoln and Holland tunnels -- which were thwarted.

Clinton triple counterterrorism (CT) budget for FBI, doubled
CT funding overall. Created CT national security post.

When Clinton requested additional CT funding in '96, repubs
demurred.

Repubs rejected wiretap expansion, too.

After embassy bombings, Clinton OK'd bin Laden
assassination. Was roundly criticized by Repubs for going
against Reagan's band on political assassinations.

After USS Cole, appointed Richard Clarke CT Coordinator.
Clarke formulated multi-pronged plan to destroy al Qaeda,
including covert action in Afghanistan, Special Forces,
strengthened Northern Alliance.

Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger briefed Condoleeza Rice on
al Qaeda after Bush took office. Rice asked Clarke to remain
on board as CT chief. Cheney thought Clinton team had become
too obsessed with terrorism and Rumsfeld wanted to spend the
wad on a missile defense program.

Clarke has gone on record as saying he was in utter
disbelief that nobody would listen to his warnings or his plan.

In Feb 2001, final Hart-Rudman report comes out. Warns of
mass casualties from terror in US, urged creation of
Homeland Security. Urges that terror threats should be
treated as the number one issue in national security.

Bush, Cheney, et. al. decide not to implement Hart-Rudman
recommendations. In May 2001, they decide to appoint CT task
force led by Cheney, Bush will periodically review progress.
Meanwhile, Clarke is frantically pushing his original plan,
trying to get an audience with the higher-ups.

In May 2001, Clarke presents his plan to Wolfowitz, Lewis
Libby, and Richard Armitage. The plan stalls there, with
Wolfowitz, et. al. promising to meet with Clarke again.

In July 2001, FBI memo flight schools is ignored. On a
related note, "chatter" reaches an all-time high and George
Tenet and Clarke brief Condi Rice that a major attack is
imminent.

In July 2001, Clarke's plan is approved by Wolfowitz, et.
al., and will be sent on to Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rummy
before moving on to Bush. It is impossible to get Cheney and
pals together for a meeting -- they were going on vacation
and wouldn't come back until early September.

Aug 6, 2001 Tenet delivers a report to Bush telling him bin
Laden is determined to strike the US, possibly using
hijacked airplanes.

Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested on Aug 16. Arresting agent
notes he's "the type of person who could fly something into
the WTC."

On Spetember 4, 2001, Clarke finally gets meeting with
Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld. They agree to advise
Bush to adopt Clarke's plan, phasing it in slowly.

September 9 -- Congress proposes $600 million for CT plans,
funding it with money diverted from missile defense plan.
Rummy threatens Bush will veto plan.

Also on Sep 9, Ashcroft sends Justice budget to Bush. It
asks for increased spending in close to 70 programs. Zero of
them have to do with terrorism.

Acting FBI Director TJ Pickard met with Ashcroft to request
$60 million from Justice to beef up FBI's ability to detect
terror threats. On Sep. 10th, Ashcroft says no, not a penny
more.

We all know what happens the next day.

So, while this doesn't particularly show that Clinton was
tough on terrorism, it does show some unconscionable lapses
on Bush's part. While they may be playing tough NOW, they
certainly didn't play tough until they absolutely HAD to.

I won't even get into far more bothersome details on how the
Bushies handled the events of 9/11 as they unfolded or the
conspiracy theories regarding what they knew in advance or
how 9/11 may have been foretold by Brzezinski and beneficial
to an agenda put forth by the luminaries at PNAC.

Food for thought.

Add a few other items into the history channel.

In May of '93 Clinton hands control of U.S. mission and forces
in Somalia over to U.N. control. On June 5, '93 24 Pakistani
peacekeepers were killed by soldiers under the control of
Aidid. 2 months later, 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 84
wounded attempting to arrest Aidid. 3 days later Clinton
ordered a full withdrawal.

Then we have this little story of the Clinton administration
refusing a Sudanese offer to extradite Bin Laden in '96.

http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml


I think there is plenty of blame to go around
with the benefit of hind sight.

BTW, If North Korea pops out an ICBM
in the next 10 years, we may well be wishing
Rumsfeld had his way on missile defense.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

I think there is plenty of blame to go around
with the benefit of hind sight.

BINGO!!!!

I wish everybody would quit trying to make GWB look like a
beleaguered, prescient, committed enemy of terrorism who
would have been so much more prepared for 9/11 had he not
been so busy digging out from the morass Clinton left for
him. Bush and company ****ed up early and often. Admit it
and move on.

BTW, If North Korea pops out an ICBM
in the next 10 years, we may well be wishing
Rumsfeld had his way on missile defense.

Scott, Scott, Scott. You work in a large engineering
organization. And I've actually worked under the missile
defense and SDI funding umbrellas during a previous life.
What do *you* think are the odds of us shooting down every
piece of a MIRV, or even a single warhead, launched
god-knows-when from god-knows-where? NASA drove a Mars rover
off the edge of a cliff because of a metric/USCS ambiguity.
Frankly, it's amazing *anything* ever works. I don't think
we're remotely capable of building something like this,
given all the myriad opportunities for massive failure.

GZ

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Some things for you to consider...

Under Reagan's watch we had Beirut embassy and Marine
barrack bombings, Lockerbie, and Achille Lauro. He
subsequently invaded Grenada.

And therefore what?

WTC attack #1 came 38 days into the Clinton presidency. Was
this Clinton's fault or was Bush I to blame?

Bin Ladin was to blame.

WTC #1 perps -- Ramzi Yousef, et. al. -- were captured,
tried, and convicted under Clinton admin. Yousef and friends
had plenty of other dramatic plans -- blowing up GW Bridge,
Lincoln and Holland tunnels -- which were thwarted.


Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Clinton triple counterterrorism (CT) budget for FBI, doubled
CT funding overall. Created CT national security post.

When Clinton requested additional CT funding in '96, repubs
demurred.

Meaningless without knowing what else might have been attached to the bill.

Repubs rejected wiretap expansion, too.

After embassy bombings, Clinton OK'd bin Laden
assassination. Was roundly criticized by Repubs for going
against Reagan's band on political assassinations.

It would have violated international law IIRC.

After USS Cole, appointed Richard Clarke CT Coordinator.
Clarke formulated multi-pronged plan to destroy al Qaeda,
including covert action in Afghanistan, Special Forces,
strengthened Northern Alliance.

Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger briefed Condoleeza Rice on
al Qaeda after Bush took office. Rice asked Clarke to remain
on board as CT chief.

Not Berger though, why do you suppose that is? Inept?

Cheney thought Clinton team had become
too obsessed with terrorism and Rumsfeld wanted to spend the
wad on a missile defense program.

Documentation?

Clarke has gone on record as saying he was in utter
disbelief that nobody would listen to his warnings or his plan.

Wouldn't you be, given the lack of focus the Clinton administration had
terrorism?

In Feb 2001, final Hart-Rudman report comes out. Warns of
mass casualties from terror in US, urged creation of
Homeland Security. Urges that terror threats should be
treated as the number one issue in national security.

Bush, Cheney, et. al. decide not to implement Hart-Rudman
recommendations. In May 2001, they decide to appoint CT task
force led by Cheney, Bush will periodically review progress.
Meanwhile, Clarke is frantically pushing his original plan,
trying to get an audience with the higher-ups.

In May 2001, Clarke presents his plan to Wolfowitz, Lewis
Libby, and Richard Armitage. The plan stalls there, with
Wolfowitz, et. al. promising to meet with Clarke again.

In July 2001, FBI memo flight schools is ignored. On a
related note, "chatter" reaches an all-time high and George
Tenet and Clarke brief Condi Rice that a major attack is
imminent.

In July 2001, Clarke's plan is approved by Wolfowitz, et.
al., and will be sent on to Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rummy
before moving on to Bush. It is impossible to get Cheney and
pals together for a meeting -- they were going on vacation
and wouldn't come back until early September.

Aug 6, 2001 Tenet delivers a report to Bush telling him bin
Laden is determined to strike the US, possibly using
hijacked airplanes.

Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested on Aug 16. Arresting agent
notes he's "the type of person who could fly something into
the WTC."

On Spetember 4, 2001, Clarke finally gets meeting with
Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld. They agree to advise
Bush to adopt Clarke's plan, phasing it in slowly.

September 9 -- Congress proposes $600 million for CT plans,
funding it with money diverted from missile defense plan.
Rummy threatens Bush will veto plan.

Also on Sep 9, Ashcroft sends Justice budget to Bush. It
asks for increased spending in close to 70 programs. Zero of
them have to do with terrorism.


Everybody knows by now that there were failures to connect the dots. Now
they've done it and you don't like that either.

Acting FBI Director TJ Pickard met with Ashcroft to request
$60 million from Justice to beef up FBI's ability to detect
terror threats. On Sep. 10th, Ashcroft says no, not a penny
more.

Perhaps knowing that there will be a lack of funds due to the recession?

We all know what happens the next day.

So, while this doesn't particularly show that Clinton was
tough on terrorism, it does show some unconscionable lapses
on Bush's part.

There is no doubt that there were hints of what was coming and more could
ahve been done. There is also no doubt that the Bush administration got a
late start and was scrambling to catch up. There is also no doubt that
Clinton dropped the ball on terrorism and on Bin Ladin.



While they may be playing tough NOW, they
certainly didn't play tough until they absolutely HAD to.

And Clinton never played tough at all. We could have had Bin Ladin for
Christ's sake. Dick Morris says that Clinton couldn't give a **** about
terrorism.

I won't even get into far more bothersome details on how the
Bushies handled the events of 9/11 as they unfolded or the
conspiracy theories regarding what they knew in advance or
how 9/11 may have been foretold by Brzezinski and beneficial
to an agenda put forth by the luminaries at PNAC.

Food for thought.


If you say so.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

I think there is plenty of blame to go around
with the benefit of hind sight.

BINGO!!!!

I wish everybody would quit trying to make GWB look like a
beleaguered, prescient, committed enemy of terrorism who
would have been so much more prepared for 9/11 had he not
been so busy digging out from the morass Clinton left for
him. Bush and company ****ed up early and often. Admit it
and move on.

That may be, but now that they are doing the right things you still don't
like it.

BTW, If North Korea pops out an ICBM
in the next 10 years, we may well be wishing
Rumsfeld had his way on missile defense.

Scott, Scott, Scott. You work in a large engineering
organization. And I've actually worked under the missile
defense and SDI funding umbrellas during a previous life.
What do *you* think are the odds of us shooting down every
piece of a MIRV, or even a single warhead, launched
god-knows-when from god-knows-where? NASA drove a Mars rover
off the edge of a cliff because of a metric/USCS ambiguity.
Frankly, it's amazing *anything* ever works. I don't think
we're remotely capable of building something like this,
given all the myriad opportunities for massive failure.

The odds go up if research is actually done. Saying it's impossible is no
solution at all.

GZ

George M. Middius wrote:





PD said to the Bug Eater:

Have you ever experienced a head injury, if it's not a personal
question?

Yes, Mikey, tell us about the electroshock.











They lied! They told him:

(1) He would be receiving an EEG (electroencephalogram) and/or get EEG
biofeedback training.

or

(2) He would be talking a polygraph test.




Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message

I was trying to demonstrate that BushCo weren't interested
in terrorism until it happened. Quit shifting the target,
please.

Funny, I thought you were trying to redeem the Clinton administration.

Not really, but your response illustrates what I've been
trying to show: that your autonomic trashing of anyone who
besmirches your hero GW Bush is fueled by your hatred of
anything you perceive as "liberal" or "progressive." Your
myopic political worldview has caused you to conflate
anything anti-Bush as pro-Clinton.

You've all but confessed that you've never exposed yourself
to anything left of NPR's "All Things Considered" so your
familiarity with any serious liberal or progressive ideology
is, shall we say, lacking. And it's quite obvious that you
get the bulk of your "news" from sources like Fox and Clear
Channel. Furthermore, given your admitted fondness for the
muddle-headed babblings of that great "philosopher" Ayn
Rand, it's high time I recognized the futility of having a
serious discussion with you.

If you could get over the hard-on you have for Clinton and
do some real studying, I'm sure you'd find you have much
more in common with Progressives (of which Clinton most
certainly was *not*) than with the *******s who are robbing
you blind right now. Oops -- scratch that. Progressives
don't despise the poor.

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Glenn Z

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message

I was trying to demonstrate that BushCo weren't interested
in terrorism until it happened. Quit shifting the target,
please.

Funny, I thought you were trying to redeem the Clinton administration.

Not really, but your response illustrates what I've been
trying to show: that your autonomic trashing of anyone who
besmirches your hero GW Bush is fueled by your hatred of
anything you perceive as "liberal" or "progressive."

Bush is not my hero. I do have disdain for anything YOU and the rest of the
leftists consider liberal or progressive because it harms people and reduces
personal responsability.

Your
myopic political worldview has caused you to conflate
anything anti-Bush as pro-Clinton.

Now who's making autonomic responses?

You've all but confessed that you've never exposed yourself
to anything left of NPR's "All Things Considered" so your
familiarity with any serious liberal or progressive ideology
is, shall we say, lacking.

You could say that, but it woldn't make it true. I'm old enough to have
seen, heard, expierienced, and learned what liberal ideology means and does.
I reject it on all grounds. It is very simple, it means more taxation, more
regulation and less freedom.

And it's quite obvious that you
get the bulk of your "news" from sources like Fox and Clear
Channel. Furthermore, given your admitted fondness for the
muddle-headed babblings of that great "philosopher" Ayn
Rand, it's high time I recognized the futility of having a
serious discussion with you.

Your description of Rand is your own and you are free to hold it. Millions
of people disagree with you. Maybe her time will come when people finally
give up on the liberal socialists and the conservative socialists, i.e. the
GOP and the Dems, I don't know, but I can hope. Freedom and personal
responsability work.

If you could get over the hard-on you have for Clinton and
do some real studying, I'm sure you'd find you have much
more in common with Progressives (of which Clinton most
certainly was *not*) than with the *******s who are robbing
you blind right now. Oops -- scratch that. Progressives
don't despise the poor.

Another autonomic response? Conservatives don't despise the poor, they just
figure the best way to deal with them is to provide an atmosphere where they
can achieve on their own. When you figure out that the Liberal vison of
help is a permanent addiction to the government handouts you might have a
chance.

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

Glenn Z

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:07 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said to duh-Mikey:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Did duh say that fundamentalist christians are all Rand followers?

No, but apparently all of his problems *do* stem from his mother.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:01:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

Lack of proof noted.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:07 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said to duh-Mikey:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Did duh say that fundamentalist christians are all Rand followers?

No, but apparently all of his problems *do* stem from his mother.

At least I know who mine was.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:01:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

Lack of proof noted.

That's the point, you have no proof.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:01:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

Lack of proof noted.

That's the point, you have no proof.

It's the same proof Weil offered in the thread about jet fighters. If Weil
says something is true, then it's true.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following to this
day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:37:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

It was no more blank than *your* assertion, you know. And yet, given
the lack of influence that Objectivism has on world politics, I'd say
that *my* assertion is closer to the truth than yours.

Hell, I'll bet that there are more Scientologists than Objectivists.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:38:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:07 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said to duh-Mikey:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Did duh say that fundamentalist christians are all Rand followers?

No, but apparently all of his problems *do* stem from his mother.

At least I know who mine was.

And it didn't stop you from painting her as a slacker-ner-do-well mom
either, now did it? You might as well have called her "trailer trash".

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:39:15 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:01:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

Lack of proof noted.

That's the point, you have no proof.

Neither do the two of you. So what? You didn't have proof of *your*
original "blank assertion".

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:42:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:01:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

Immature is as immature writes.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Just more proof of how out-of-it you are, Weil.

Lack of proof noted.

That's the point, you have no proof.

It's the same proof Weil offered in the thread about jet fighters. If Weil
says something is true, then it's true.

Well, it's certainly my opinion.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:44:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following

In English please.

to this day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.

Prove it. prove that there are millions of "Rand followers".

On 20 Feb 2004 08:45:19 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

We are a nation who can't be trusted beyond the next
election.

You've hit on two important points. The first is that this is
*exactly* how a lot of the rest of the world see us.

The second is that this is *exactly* the reason why it's so dicey for
a democratic republic to take on the role of the world's policeman.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:38:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:07 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said to duh-Mikey:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Did duh say that fundamentalist christians are all Rand followers?

No, but apparently all of his problems *do* stem from his mother.

At least I know who mine was.

And it didn't stop you from painting her as a slacker-ner-do-well mom
either, now did it? You might as well have called her "trailer trash".

I'm so glad you can read people's thoughts. I said only that welfare made
her stop trying to find work or get trained.

Back to your cesspool.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:44:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following

In English please.

to this day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of
course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.

Prove it. prove that there are millions of "Rand followers".

I never said she had millions of "followers," so let's start by debunking
that strawman of yours.

I said:
Your description of Rand is your own and you are free to hold it. Millions
of people disagree with you. Maybe her time will come when people finally
give up on the liberal socialists and the conservative socialists, i.e. the
GOP and the Dems, I don't know, but I can hope. Freedom and personal
responsibility work.

I based this on the my knowledge of her book sales, which continue to sell
very well and have not been out of print since first published.

GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following to this
day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.


The real world? I'm sure he sees it on MTV. (s******)

Michael McKelvy wrote:


GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

Mike, precocious twelve-year olds have brief dalliances with
Rand's work. They grow out of it by the age of fourteen.
You'd be better off reading Hubbard's "Dianetics."
Objectivism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

GZ

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:37:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand followers,
you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

It was no more blank than *your* assertion, you know.

No, yours was a strawman, that you created. It wasn't even a response to
anything I said.

And yet, given
the lack of influence that Objectivism has on world politics, I'd say
that *my* assertion is closer to the truth than yours.

If that makes you comfortable, be my guest. I would however, recomend
youcheck the figures on her book sales.

Are you aware that one of Alan Greenspan's mentors was Ayn Rand?

A partial list of her students would include:

David R. Henderson-Reagan Advisor
Robert Bleiberg-Barron's
Henery Mark Holzer-Brooklyn Law School
Anne Wortham-Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
Peter Beckmann-Uof Co. Prof. Emeritus and Author of the Health Hazards of
NOT Going Nuclear
Billie Jean King
John Hospers-Philosopher
Murray Rothbard-Ludwig Von Mises Institute
Ed Clark-Libertarian candidate for President 1980
Professor Robert Nozick of Harvard said she was an interesting thinker,
worthy of attention, even though he disagreed with her.
Simon Lebon
Mr. Spock from Star Trek was inspired by Rand

She wrote 13 books and they continue to sell very well.
I'd say there are millions of people who have found her to be something much
greater than Muddle-Headed.





Hell, I'll bet that there are more Scientologists than Objectivists.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

Mike, precocious twelve-year olds have brief dalliances with
Rand's work. They grow out of it by the age of fourteen.
You'd be better off reading Hubbard's "Dianetics."
Objectivism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

GZ

An opinion you get to have.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message

Michael McKelvy wrote:


GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

Mike, precocious twelve-year olds have brief dalliances with
Rand's work. They grow out of it by the age of fourteen.
You'd be better off reading Hubbard's "Dianetics."
Objectivism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

...and subjectivism is oh, so perfect!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

dave weil said:

Hell, I'll bet that there are more Scientologists than Objectivists.

I'd certainly rather live next door to one of the former than one of
the latter.

Scientologists might put rattlesnakes in your mailbox, while horror of
horrors, an objectivist might teach you how to think. I see why you feel as
you do!

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:
The dollar amounts are kind of mind boggling.
Meanwhile a mere 15B$ bond will save California from bankruptcy.
I'm voting for bankruptcy.

Doesn't the Govinator have that kind of change lying around?

I read he already recouped his personal investment in his campaign
and has raised more money than his predecessor but is spending a
good chunk in support of a proposition for a $15B bond.
There is also a proposition to require balanced budgets
which is somehow linked to the bond. One can't pass without
the othere. Not sure how that legal slight of hand works.

Are you aware of the role that Enron had in the California
energy crisis, BTW?

I read some of their trading tactics and the impact on
spot market prices. Problem with that scandel
was everyone in the whole power industry was involved
from the producers (including a couple municipal ones)
to the natural gas pipeline (El Paso).
Damn FERC should be indicted for dereliction of
duty.

ScottW

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:07:40 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I said only that welfare made
her stop trying to find work or get trained

What do you think the phrase "slacker ner-do-well mom" means,
especially when used such a person is used as an argument to snatch
life-sapping welfare away from the needy?

ScottW wrote:

Damn FERC should be indicted for dereliction of
duty.

Bingo again!

GZ

Arny Krueger wrote:


Scientologists might put rattlesnakes in your mailbox, while horror of
horrors, an objectivist might teach you how to think. I see why you feel as
you do!

Without running to Google to look it up, can you describe
the kind of objectivism (a la Rand) we're talking about?

GZ

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:15:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:44:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following

In English please.

to this day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of
course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.

Prove it. prove that there are millions of "Rand followers".

I never said she had millions of "followers," so let's start by debunking
that strawman of yours.

I said:
Your description of Rand is your own and you are free to hold it. Millions
of people disagree with you. Maybe her time will come when people finally
give up on the liberal socialists and the conservative socialists, i.e. the
GOP and the Dems, I don't know, but I can hope. Freedom and personal
responsibility work.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your intent. I can see now that you
actually meant something different than I interpreted.

I based this on the my knowledge of her book sales, which continue to sell
very well and have not been out of print since first published.

I've owned two copies of Atlas Shrugged, a copy of The Fountainhead
and a copy of We The Living in my lifetime. That's four copies from
someone who doesn't buy into her philosophy. I don't think you can
necessarily use book sales as a barometer in this case.

GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

I agree that she's not muddle-headed. Just dogmatic.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:16:30 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:01:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

We're done. I'll let you have the last word.

Surrender noted.

You're a *real* piece of ****, you know.

BTW, if you really think that "millions of people" are Rand
followers, you're COMPLETELY deluded.

Blank assertion noted.

There's no doubt that Rand's ideas have a considerably following to this
day, particularly among secular political conservatives. Of course now
we're in a place where Weil never actually goes.


The real world? I'm sure he sees it on MTV. (s******)

Never seen it (the MTV show). Sorry.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:25:29 -0500, Glenn Zelniker
wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote:


GZ said she was muddle-headed. That is clearly bull****.
Agree with her or not, nobody can claim she was muddle-headed.

Mike, precocious twelve-year olds have brief dalliances with
Rand's work. They grow out of it by the age of fourteen.
You'd be better off reading Hubbard's "Dianetics."
Objectivism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

It might be flawed, but I have to agree with Mike that she isn't
muddle-headed. I had my Rand phase for about a week in my late teens.
I guess I was a late bloomer.

Still, I've been meaning to reread The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged
(I think I reread them in my mid-twenties as well) because I remember
liking some of the overheated polemics.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:42:37 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

If that makes you comfortable, be my guest. I would however, recomend
you check the figures on her book sales.

Are you aware that one of Alan Greenspan's mentors was Ayn Rand?

A partial list of her students would include:

Billie Jean King

Damn, I stand corrected. she was far more influential than I ever
thought.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Scientologists might put rattlesnakes in your mailbox, while horror
of horrors, an objectivist might teach you how to think. I see why
you feel as you do!

Without running to Google to look it up, can you describe
the kind of objectivism (a la Rand) we're talking about?

You answered your own question.