| Author | Message | ||
| Kevin Butler (Challenge)
Junior Member Username: Challenge Post Number: 211 Registered: 9-2002 |
Jon, Vince Foster also had his finger still in the pitol's trigger guard (usually blows the pistol 6 ft from the body), no car keys on him (despite his car being in the parking lot), and no blood on the leaves surrounding the scene. This may look to some as "planted." See you at Summit. Email me if you get time. Kevin | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 577 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art - you were in Nam, right? That was a poor job. We grabbed Afghanistan from the Taliban in 6 weeks. Lost minimal lives. Gained control of the country. Are the taliban still around? Yeah, but sh!t man, a poor job? Gimme a break. WTF do you want? Bush to wave a magic wand that immediately destroys all our enemies without our troops leaving home? Get a grip, man. This is real life, and wars are not pretty. We did a great job there, and it ain't out fault that the taliban still exists. Blame it on the relgious leaders of middle eastern nations who continue to promote the taliban message. Nothin' but sh!t to say, REGARDLESS of the topic. You must live a really bleak and dreary life, Art. Sometimes I almost feel sorry for you. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2675 Registered: 6-2001 |
Both of you seem to have forgotten that we didn't take out the Taliban. It still exits and their still killing people. We did a poor job there, and we didn't finish the job. Art | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1098 Registered: 8-2001 |
Just out the door with the kids. Thomas I don't for a minute believe that most of the people on the list were killed by Clinton however two individuals that died I believe he did have something to do with and one of those isn't on the list. The Vince Foster death has been debated here in the DC area to death (pardon the pun). On all the talk shows, all the newspapers (Wash Times and Wash Post) and such. The issue at question was the entry angle of the bullet into his head and the appearance that the bullet did not enter his skull from close range (i.e. holding a gun to your head inches away). Even the examiner that did the final report on the autopsy said he was very reluctant to deem it suicide since he hadn't seen this type of gun shot wound on any suicide in his 52 years at his job. There was also a women who was to testify against Clinton about his unwanted sexual advances who was found mauled to death at the Washington Zoo by a Tiger. This never made national headlines and was hushed up fairly quickly. Nothing but conjecture on my part for both these people but it seems a lot of people died around him. Even more baffling to me was the complete silence of the McDougals (SP?). Why on earth wouldn't they talk. Why would they be willing to go to prison for many years just to save Clinton. James McDougal nearly died in prison and his wife spent many years in prison. I think for some reason they were scarred of Clinton and what he might do. Anyway, will get back to the other issues later. Regards, Jon | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 472 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jon, I made a similar error by posting the Clinton Dead List here without checking snopes.com | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 574 Registered: 11-2002 |
"Well in my opinion he only did half the job. He ignored Saudi Arabia because of the oil issue, and ignored Pakistan because he bargained with Musharif, believing that a moderate Muslim terrorist is ok to kiss up to but a radical Muslim terrorist (those in Pakistan who seek to overthrow him) isn�t. So we are treading lightly into Pakistan and letting them handle getting Bin Laden, which of course they will never do. Even if they found him, turning him over to us would ensure that Musharif get toppled by his own people. No arguing that we wouldn�t or shouldn�t have a budget deficit from fighting the war on terror just questioning where it�s being directed and what is the bang for the buck we are getting." The main differences between Iraq and Saudi/Pakistan is military. Iraq had, at one point, one of the largest militaries in the world. Even after 10 years of sanctions, Saddam was still armed to the teeth, albeit with aging and out-dated equipment. Compared to the armies of Saudi (I could be wrong on that) and Pakistan, Iraq was pretty powerful. I feel that by attacking Iraq, it sent a clear message to those nations who harbor ill-wil towards us a clear message: look what we did to the big dogs. You're next unless you step in line. Now, I could be wrong about the Saudi army, but regardless, I think that by defanging one of the most dangerous nations in that region, we sent a clear and unmistakable message. "Time will tell. Are you implying that had we not attacked Iraq we would have likely faced another attack since 9/11? Not sure I agree. Removing the Taliban was the right thing to do but I am not convinced on Iraq at all." Well, it's hard to say, but I think yes. Here's how I think: we take out Afganistan and the Taliban, the safe-harbor for terror. Of course, there are still terrorists, but they need to find a new place to hide. That leave a bunch of nations, including Saudi, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc etc. But we've sent a clear message to the terrorists. Next, we attack the leader of a nation that, regardless of any evidence, we know roots for terrorists against america. All else aside, only a fool would claim that Saddam didn't support terrorism in one way or another. He may not have given them room and board before, and he may not have funded them, but that's because they had Afghanistan to do it. Who knows what Iraq would have looked like in 5 years had we not taken it out? For all we know, Saddam would have welcomed them with open arms. So we take him out. And that tells Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, etc etc that we are not playing games. This strikes fear in their hearts, and they make more of an effort to get rid of the terrorists in their borders, not because they love the US, but because they fear a US invasion. Smart move, as far as I'm concerned. Are terrorists still around? Sure. Are they still plotting against the US? Of course. But the job is not nearly as easy as it was 3 years ago. Just about every country has the fear of Allah struck into them that they will be invaded if they don't push the terrorists out, and the terror groups have to continually move. Makes planning a 9/11 pretty hard. I don't know if I typed that well, or if it came out making sense. I hope it did. Regarding fiscal conservatism, I agree! I think you and I could EASILY find a few hundred billion to get rid of. But you and I don't have a voter base to rely upon. As much as I dislike a lot of wasteful programs, you gotta keep the people happy, and each program you mentioned, while you and I think it should go, there are voters who want it there. Such is politics, I guess. As for your economic arguments, I concede. I really have no knowledge in that arena. Same goes for Bush's economic advisors. Your arguments not only crushed mine, but educated me. Thanks! All in all, you and I think a lot alike, I beleive. I like Bush because of how he's handled the terror situation. No, we haven't found Osama or Saddam, but we've crush their organizations. We've sent a clear message to the world. No longer will we sit on the sidelines and allow our buildings to be bombed, or embassies attacked, and our naval ships damaged. We're sick and tired of tiny little rag-tag bands of wacko-fundamentalist muslims pushing us around. I think Bush was the right man for the job. He may not be perfect in all arenas, but no president has been. I think the majority of our economic woes are due to the explosion of a fantasy market and the war of terror. the fact that the US is still an economic power after a three year recession AND two major campaigns shows that things may not be as bad as they could. Imagine where we'd be if there was no 9/11! As for the subjects I didn't touch, I intentionally left them alone because eitre your arguments have changed my views, or because I am WAAAAY out of my league. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6873 Registered: 8-2002 |
Mike, please... This is a family forum, try to keep that stuff to yourself...  | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1097 Registered: 8-2001 |
Mike B, I have noted all your defenses and have them ready for use if Nebula gets out of line. Nebula, Get a cup of coffee it's a long one! The US had had 6 years of seris prosperity, mostly fueled by the dot.com bubble. That�s debatable. Growth, or GDP, is basically a measure of the value of goods and services produced in the US. I think it was more a case of the dot.com�s benefiting from the growth and not the other way around. Money was floating around in large quantities with nowhere to go. Think of all the millions of dot.com firms that had no product, no customers, no revenue and in some cases no business plan. There was so much excess wealth floating around that IPO managers and venture capitalists stopped requesting business plans. They operated under the assumption that if only one of the lame ass ideas being put forth succeeded, it would more than make up for the other 9 hair brained ideas that failed. For a while it worked when companies like Etoys, TheGlobe.com and others rose 500% in one day. All funny money. Hell the most viable business, Amazon.com didn�t earn a freakin penny for nearly 7 years and people still threw billions in cash at the company. But the growth numbers (GDP) where mainly bricks and mortar company�s expanding output with higher productivity and expanding markets overseas. I would say that the dot.com mania was a result of rapid growth not the other way around (that the dot.com�s were a cause of rapid growth) As for the deficit, keep in mind that we were attacked and lost 3000+ civilians. This resulted in a dynamic change in foreign policy, which was now directed to rooting out organizations who's sole purpose was to undermine the US. Regardless of who was in office, the same deficit would have resulted, unless he was a pu$$ and decided to ignore the attacks. Well in my opinion he only did half the job. He ignored Saudi Arabia because of the oil issue, and ignored Pakistan because he bargained with Musharif, believing that a moderate Muslim terrorist is ok to kiss up to but a radical Muslim terrorist (those in Pakistan who seek to overthrow him) isn�t. So we are treading lightly into Pakistan and letting them handle getting Bin Laden, which of course they will never do. Even if they found him, turning him over to us would ensure that Musharif get toppled by his own people. No arguing that we wouldn�t or shouldn�t have a budget deficit from fighting the war on terror just questioning where it�s being directed and what is the bang for the buck we are getting. And by doing that, he sent a clear message to the rest of the terrorist world - "Slap us, and we'll fuk you back in the a$$, real hard." As far as I can tell, that strategy worked. Time will tell. Are you implying that had we not attacked Iraq we would have likely faced another attack since 9/11? Not sure I agree. Removing the Taliban was the right thing to do but I am not convinced on Iraq at all. as far as I know, he's enacted tax cuts, which is the main goal of the republican party. Like it or not, keep in minds that the 50% of repubs in this country like it. It's their goal, and it was realized. I am never one to argue against any tax cuts but at the same time he needs to cut spending or we run into the same problem Reagan did. As I noted supply side economics has worked great when deficits are falling or surpluses exist, it has never worked when we had large deficits. This time is no different. I also think the capital gains tax should be entirely done away with. Why should we tax the efficient use of capital? Why the hell don�t we tax people who spend all their wealth on vacation homes Monte Carlo instead of Joe Schmoe small investor who decides to invest in Intel? Makes no sense. Ahhhh....so Rice, a Stanford Prof; Colin Powell,a decocated 4* General; Rumsfeld, a politician with 30 years experience, all of it good; these are idiots? Explain it to me, please, how they are idiots. Well if you ask Rumsfield his response would be less than positive about Powell and vice versa. They both hate each other and it was frequently reported in the news that Powell even considered resigning over Rumsfeld. Powell is no dummy and he absolutely hates taking advice from what he considers a civilian subordinate. While I don�t think either in really an idiot it�s clear that Rumsfeld didn�t have a good exit strategy and was somewhat stupid for not listening to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who wanted another 50,000 troops. As for Rice, I have lost a lot of respect for her in recent weeks, especially with her non chalant dismissal of the leak on a CIA operative. This is the same type of •••• the Clinton�s did only in their case it wasn�t a case of leaking damaging information it was case of eliminating the problems. Isn�t a bit odd that so many people that had the goods on Clinton ended up dead (Foster, McDougal, and about 20 other people) see the list here: http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/feb99/msg00219.html I am sure that about 70-80% of the people on that list died of causes that had nothing to do with Clinton but that still leaves about a half dozen people dead connected to him. What happened in the Bush administration this week is the same political bullshit? Someone tries to wag the dog�s tail and the dog wags back. I know damn well that Carl Rowe took care of this. He probably didn�t specifically tell Bush what he was going to do but I am sure Bush called him in and said, �..look he�s becoming a huge problem, I don�t what to know how you do it, but take care of him..� Rice�s smug smile on Meet the Press where she says it�s no cause for concern these types of Justice Department investigations are routine matters. Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is NOT ROUTINE BUSINESS. Show links to articles showing direct quotes from these people saying they quit cause Bush was an idiot. My guess is that they quit because they realized that nothing can fix a natural dip in the economy except time. Well actually one quit under severe pressure. Harvey Pitt had to resign after the Enron accounting scandal and the fact that he represented half the big accounting firms and didn�t seem to have any will power to hand down some badly needed reforms on the accounting industry. It was viewed that his background would lead to conflicts of interest and weak enforcement under his lead. This impression was brought to fruition early in his tenure when he called for a �kindler and gentler SEC.� People were left scratching their heads. It didn�t help that Enron and then later Wcom would blow up in his face. Paul O�Neil, as I referenced in the other post, had huge problems with his post as Treasury Secretary one because he had little economic training and two because he was constantly being told by Bush and his advisors to say contradictory things. One week Bush would have him say something that pointed to a willingness to accept a lower dollar (which usually co-incided with Bush meeting with some exporters), and then he would be told to re0iterate Clinton�s policy of a strong dollar (usually at the time Bush had to meet with pro union businesses who feared overseas competition). Combining Bush�s flip flop policy on the dollar and O Neil�s limited ability to communicate with the currency market made for some violent swings in the US dollar. O�Neill has the dubious distinction of causing Brazil�s currency to decline by 13% in one day after a comment he made about providing financial aid to Latin America. Larry Lindsey, a very noted economist was asked to resign after successive job loss reports forced him out. In addition he found it hard to work with Bush because he thought Bush was focusing too much on the war on terror and not enough on the domestic economy. Lindsey felt that Bush needed even bigger tax cuts along with big spending cuts but Bush only instituted half the plan. Lastly read the following story on how Bush was frequently add odds with his own economic advisors. I can tell you first hand from several of my former econ professors who work and consult with the CEA. Read: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030213.html Fiscal conservativism goes out the door when America is at war with a world of terrorists. Doesn�t need to be this way at all. Putting aside the debate over how much and on whom we should be directing these �anti-terrorist� funds, why can�t we save $2 billion a year by axing the Department of Education, cutting the Energy Department in half, cutting thousands of loop holes in farm aid, foreign aid, subsidies to domestic industries (milk/dairy and sugar for example) cutting more trade agreements with other countries, and stop trying to send billions in aid across the globe. The Heritage Foundation For the first time since the earliest days of the Great Society in the 1960s, discretionary spending is growing even faster than entitlement programs ex-military and Homeland Security spending. Under Bush subsidies to mining, ranching and the Timber industry increased 20% to over $1 billion. Do you realize that we have over 400 military bands that offer absolutely no benefit to the defense of our country? Active military personnel that go into these bands stay there permanently and it�s estimated that the cost to US taxpayers is about $100,000,000. How bout� $6 billion estimated waste, fraud, or abuse on expenditures of $60 billion spent on Medicare Part B benefits which cover physicians, supplier, and other outpatient services. The list goes on and on and on����. None of these programs have anything to do with homeland security or the war on terrorists. Why not cut some of them. He hasn�t cut a single program and every budget (ex-military spending) has been bigger than the last. Hell he ever increased the freakin Postal budget. It�s bad enough they can�t cover their costs even after raising stamp rates four times in the past few years. As for your idea of forming a moderate party...I am afraid most people wouldn�t view me as moderate about anything. I have been called many things, including a radical nut case, an an-archist, and some other derogatory political labels but MODERATE isn�t one of them. I am basically a Libertarian and support some things that most people will never accept regardless of their merit. The only difference between Dems and Repubs is that one party wants to regulate the crap out of my morals and the other wants to regulate the crap out of my business life. I want a party that doesn�t regulate either. Back at you! Jon | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 349 Registered: 12-2002 |
Guys, for your upcoming debate, let me provide some phrases that have served me well when debating heavily with a well armed opponent. "Hamster brain! Hamster brain!" "Yeah well I slept with your wife!" "I'll kick your ass!!!!!!" "I'm better looking than you" (can substitute richer, bigger pecker, nicer car, hotter wife, bigger house, etc) "Shut up" "Oh my god! Look over there! An Elephant!" (then run away) And finally, you can pull a Lemus and demand your opponent provide proof or back away sniveling. Feel free to use any of that in your upcoming debate. That's my A-list material, so use it sparingly. It's the secret toolbox of a masterdebater like me. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1096 Registered: 8-2001 |
Nebula, I am off to bed (1:30 am) and will be out of town in the morning. This will be a good debate! Will try to respond tomorrow morning or evening at the lastest. Good night! Regards, Jon | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 554 Registered: 11-2002 |
I didn't want the last thread to get hijacked. Here goes: "You've got to be joking. We have 3 million people unemployed, growth has slowed to a crawl, we went from a surplus to a $480 billion deficit, we attacked the wrong damn country and the perpetrators of 9/11 (Saudi Arabia) are getting a free ride from this adminstration. We've lost nearly 3 TRILLION in stock market wealth....thats TRILLION !!!" Now, Jon, you and I both know that Bush was elected a tthe precipice of an economic crash. The US had had 6 years of seris prosperity, mostly fueled by the dot.com bubble. That happened to burst at around the same time Bush took office. This was NOT his fault. Literally hundreds of companies with hundreds of employess went completely under, loosing lobs. In addition, there were hundreds of jobs that didn't go under, butwere forced to cut jobs. These two facts had nothing to do with Bush. It had to do with an unrealistic stock market tanking after three years of ignorant bliss. As for the deficit, keep in mind that we were attacked and lost 3000+ civilians. This resulted in a dynamic change in foreign policy, which was now directed to rooting out organizations who's sole putpose was to undermine the US. Regardless of who was in office, the same deficit would have resulted, unless he was a pu$$ and decided to ignore the attacks. "We are embarrassingly groveling to Third World dictators running the UN and asking the French and the Germans for help!" The only reason we are doing that is because weak-suck Americans are scared and wantingto run from an uncompleted job. This is Bush's only strategy at this point - assuming the people of this nation sttod by him, we wouldn't have to grovel. "And you think he's done a good job. The only thing that nitwit did right was how he handled the aftermath of 9/11 and attacking Afgahnistan and removing the Taliban." And by doing that, he sent a clear message to the rest of the terrorist world - "Slap us, and we'll fuk you back in the a$$, real hard." As far as I can tell, that strategy worked. "Since those days he hasn't done ����! His economic team couldn't pass a freshman econ 101 exam. His first Treasury Secretary was shuch a lame brained idiot our currency traders had an easier time understanding the Japanese treasury secretary and he's speaking in JAPANESE!!!!" as far as I know, he's enacted tax cuts, which is the main goal of the republican party. Like it or not, keep in minds that the 50% of repubs in this country like it. It's their goal, and it was realized. "Then he replaces that lame brained idiot with an even bigger idiot, John Snow, who also had no economic experience and is an even bigger idiot than O'Neil. First he says the value of the dollar is determined in the currency market, then he says he doesn't mind a weak dollar, than he says nothings changed and the US and the Bush administration supports a strong dollar, then he talks the dollar down.......... No one can understand what the hell he is trying to say." I'm not versed on this issue, so I guess I'll let it stand. "Rule number one in business or politics if your an idiot surround yourself with smart people. Apparently Bush is unaware of this. While I pretty much hated Clinton at least he deferred on matters he knew nothing about to smarter people, like Robert Rubin and a bunch of other people who at least had an economics degree." Ahhhh....so Rice, a Stanford Prof; Colin Powell,a decocated 4* General; Rumsfeld, a politician with 30 years experience, all of it good; these are idiots? Explain it to me, please, how they are idiots. "Bush has gone through 4 economic advisors in three years. They all end up quiting because he doesn't have a clue about domestic policy and how to get the economy going." Show links to articles showing direct quotes from these people saying they quit cause Bush was an idiot. My guess is that they quit because they realized that nothing can fix a natural dip in the economy except time. "Hell even Alan Greenspan, a life long Republican and conservative, won't support Bush's economic plan." So Bush is an idiot because he employs people who have differing opnions? I find that smart -it allows for different thought. "The only solace Republicans can take in Bush's performance is that if AL GORE had won, we have a 1 TRILLION DEFICIT, the Taliban would still be in power and negotiating with us as we offered them everything but our kitchen sink, and the attackers of 9/11 would be turning the US into downtown Jerusalem with daily fireworks." Agreed! 100%! This is why I love you Jon... "Why can't any of you on the right and the left be any more objective. We got Al Franken's fans on one side (along with a zillion other Democrats/Socialists/Communists whatever you want to call them) and then there's Ann Coulter's folks, the Republicans who seem to have forgotten the term FISCAL CONSERVATIVE and seem hell bent on passing all these stupid laws on gay marriages and such." Fiscal conservativism goes out the door when America is at war with a world of terrorists. "It seems that neither side can see any fault with their position at all. The Dems say the war is a total failure the Republicans say it's a rousing success and we are all safe now." I see fault....I'm a very moderate guy. I don't like the right's religious stance, gay stance, drug stance. I don't like the left's social stance, economic stance, or education stance. "NO MIDDLE GROUND FROM EITHER SIDE! and no objectivity." That's the problem...no middle ground. It's either "right" or "left". Jon, you and I need to start a new political party. A moderate party. Let's do it! |