| Author | Message | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 309 Registered: 8-2001 |
Art, I guess since I am a not really affiliated with either party it's a bit easier to be objective. In economic matters Clinton did a decent job, but again the ability of one President or Congress to influence the economy is somewhat limited. When things go wrong with the economy it is rarely something the President can control, yet the oppostion party takes full advantage of this (Bush senior lost the election this way). The same is true when things go well. Clinton did some good things and refrained from doing some stupid things but I would say the Federal Reserve had more impact that Clinton. The same can be said of the current economic mess in that Bush really didn't cause this (on the other hand he hasn't done anything to help either) and that the Fed's mishandling of the economy in early 2000 had more negative impact (not saying they caused this but they made matters worse in my opinion). I did not vote for Clinton but think he did a fair job in his limited capacity to impact the economy. He surrounded himself with smart people and defered to them. I did vote for Bush (could not bring myself to vote for Al) and think he's done a decent job handling the terror crisis but in economic matters he is a clone of his father. He has surrounded himself with complete idiots when it comes to economic matters. I am a former currency trader and marvel at all the stupid statements Paul O'Neil makes. Currency traders hate his guts because he has no idea how to communicate his thoughts about the dollar. Everytime he opens his mouth traders get confused and the value of the dollar goes into turmoil for a few hours until someone at the White House issues a statment that O'Neil's quote have been misinterpreted. Most of Bush's other economic advisers have little or no fincial training or economic experience with the exception of Larry Lindsy. Clinton more that anyone learned that "...it's the economy stupid...." What concerns voters most is jobs, jobs, jobs, and this is what sunk Bush senior and prompted (in my opinion) all this non-sense on Iraq by Bush junior. He didn't want to focus on jobs or the economy so he focuses on Iraq. Let's face it we only suspect that Iraq has nuclear weapons, we damn well know for sure that North Korea has them (since they have admitted this) and we don't think they are a threat but Iraq is?? Bush senior also understood the jobs issue and was furious at Greenspan for not lowering rates in the six months before the election. The Bush senior team knew the economy was turning around but also knew that the good news would likely not make it out to the voter in time for the election. He put huge pressure on Greenspan to help him win the election but Greenspan did the right thing and didn't allow politics to influence the board's monetary policy. Bush senior hates Greenspan and junior doesn't like him either. Clinton, Rubin and Gore should also be commended (I know I am going to regret this from all my conservative friends) for leaving the Fed alone and not making any comments on the Fed's policy. Bush junior's idiot economic team wasted no time questioning the Fed's monetary policy only two weeks into his term. I voted for Bush and agree with most of his international policies (until this Iraq thing popped up) but in terms of domestic policy and helping the economy in whatever limited capacity he has, he is a dismal failure like his father. I will never forget when the camera crews were following Bush senior around in some supermarket store and he commented to Barbara, "...gee look at that Barb they can somehow scan the groceries with that laser beam..that's neat..when did they come up with that idea?" I knew the minute that got out to the media his second term was sunk. The only solace I have in voting for Bush is that had Al Gore become president we would not only be in a severe recession/depression but we would most likey still be under attack and be debating what to do about 9/11 and what to do with the Taliban. I was up until about 6 am this morning. Our International fund's fiscal year ends today (Friday) and we had to square away some of our European positions so I had some spare time waiting for the European Markets to open. Regards, Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 813 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jon: Well said. While I'm just a lawyer, and although I'm not a democrat (the're far to conservative for my tastes), I do support some of their policies. Clinton did do some things which helped the economy, and the right always tries to minimize his accomplishments, I suspect because he is a disguished liberal republican, and took away some of their thunder. I've stayed away from the religious argument here, causes too much acrimony. What in the world were you doing up at such an early hour when you wrote this? Art | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 308 Registered: 8-2001 |
Art, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but as you have seen from previous posts tend to favor Republican polices in areas of economics. President Clinton and Chairman Greenspan certainly can take some credit for the economic success of Clinton's term in office. Greenspan's monetary policy and Clinton's deficit reduction can be partly attributed to this. Many feel that Clinton's 1993 budget contributed to the economy's performance over his term along with careful monetary policy by the Fed. The case for this, while circumstantial, is compelling. The administration argued that its 1993 budget would do three basic things to help the economy. First, as the federal government borrowed less money to finance its deficits, more savings would be available for private investment. Second, tighter fiscal policy would allow the Federal Reserve to keep short-term interest rates low. Third, a tighter budget would change the psychology of the bond market, lowering long-term interest rates. All these factors, in combination, would increase business investment and, hence, boost corporate productivity and economic growth. However that being said the tax increase played no part in this and may have actually hurt the cause. Clinton's higher taxes on the wealthy (33% to 39%) produced negative growth rates in the highest income bracket in terms of income earned. The middle portion (or middle class) did see a slight rise in their income levels but even this was not anywhere near what Clinton's budget projected. The idea among Clinton and his economic advisors was that by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% the treasury would collect more tax revenue, lowering the deficit, spuring growth, and generating growth in income for the wealthiest taxpayers but this simply did not happen. The wealthiest taxpayers saw their income fall. Had Clinton studied history or taken a basic economics course he would have seen that factual evidence show that rasing and lowering the marginal tax rates does little to change the treasuries perecntage of taxes collected as a percentage of GDP. For the past 20 years, federal tax revenues have remained roughly constant as a percent of national income. In 1974 receipts were 18.8 percent of GDP; in 1994 they were 19 percent. By contrast, spending has increased from 19.2 percent of GDP in 1974 to 22 percent in 1994. Thus all of the increase in the deficit can be accounted for by higher spending, not lower taxes. The wealthy generally have great flexibility in how much taxable income they earn in a year. The lower tax rates were an incentive to earn more taxable income instead of buying tax-free bonds, investing in exotic tax shelters, taking their income in the form of tax-free benefits or simply working less. The incentive worked. After remaining stable for many years, the number of taxpayers reporting an income of more than $200,000 increased dramatically following the Reagan tax cuts. the opposite happend after Clinton and Bush Sr.'s tax hikes with the number falling for people earning income of more than $200,000 History (at least the last 60 years) shows that the percentage of taxes relative to GDP collected has remained fairly constant (between 18.1 and 19.3%). Even when Kennedy (the REAL inventor of supply side economics) cut marginal tax rates in half the percentage of GDP collected in taxes remained nearly the same. When taxes go up the wealthy find it beneficial to hire the best tax accountants/attorneys money can buy and as a result exploit all the loopholes available to avoid paying taxes (some legal and some not so legal). When taxes drop the wealthy actually have more incentive to pay taxes legally and not waste precious money on tax accountants. If you think the amount of resources spent avoiding paying taxes is small you would be surprised. this welfare cost is huge. I am no fan of Clinton in most matters but I am not a "blinded" partisian to his successful efforts to reduce the deficit and the positive effects it had on the economy. He surrounded himself with very smart people (Robert Rubin) and re-elected Alan Greenspan, even though Greenspan was a Republican and in the face of huge opposition from the Democrats who wanted a Liberal chairman (Alan Blinder of Princeton). Clinton's willingness to forge cooperation with Greenspan and his willingness to drop Democratic economic policies (read Keynesian) of using government spending to boost the economy certainly helped, but the TAX hike didn't have any positive effect on this. Rebuplicans and Democrats alike love to pick periods of history where a particular policy did or didn't work. The Democrats love to tout the failure of supply side economics during the Reagan years (at least interms of the budget deficit) and frequently use this period to state that supply side economics doesn't work. Well in terms of the budget defict brought on by huge defense spending it was a failure. But supply side economics should not be called "Reagan-nomics". John F. Kennedy invented supply side economics and it worked for him because he cut the deficit by lowering taxes and this spured economic growth. Supply side economics does not work when deficits are rising, but does work when deficits are falling. Just look at the effect of Bush's tax cut on our economy with rising budget deficits. OK Econ class is over. Now you all can get back to your debate on religion (I am not gonna touch that one). regards, Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 808 Registered: 6-2001 |
Whart: Maybe you're right, but with all the spin going on, people ultimately make their own luck and should be held accountable. Bush shouldn't get a free ride. Because of the difficulty in defining fault, we have to go by their record. As of today, Bush's isn't so good. Art | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 596 Registered: 12-2001 |
Art: i guess my point, and that of some others (perhaps) is that you can't fault Bush for what the world has become. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 806 Registered: 6-2001 |
Whart: You may be right about Clinton's morals. So what? It has been a long tradition for exiting Presidents to pardon people that they wouldn't have dared pardon while they still held office, how else did they pay for their retirement? Bush senior did it, Reagan did it, even Jimmy Carter did it. We have a spoils system here. Spend 20m or more to get the job, and you've got to get a rate on your return. However, the way I guage the president is the old Reagan way: are you better off now or were you better off under the previous president. No opinion, bs, or other excuses. On that scale Clinton wins hands down. That may be the reason that his opposition is so looney about him: he was successful, and all the bs in the world won't and can't change that. Bottom line with Scrub, we'll either be better off when he's gone or we won't. I'd like it to be the former, but I think I'm already seeing the latter. Bush has put into effect laws which, in my opinion, will upltimately affect our freedoms: In fact, that ex-felon (I don't care what the appeals court says about his conviction) Poindexter is in charge of some goofy plan for the feds to obtain information on our purchases, etc., in an attempt to analyze us for security purposes (sounds like 1984 to me). We are gong to get a very different world than what we had pre Bush. I hope you like, I don't think that I will though. Art | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 594 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hey Art: I'm willing to give Clinton credit for the economic good times as long as we also recognize that during his tenure he did virtually nothing to combat terrorism. I don't fault Bush for the economy that he stepped into, since it was already in decline. And, if we are going to fault anybody on military strategy, how 'bout Tommy Franks? Marc Rich pardon, anybody? The guy was a scumbag, and his wife is worse. I'm not ashamed of Bush, no matter what you think he's to blame for; Clinton & Co. were a reflection of the times, which was (and for them, still is) "me first"! | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 128 Registered: 5-2002 |
Greenspan? Sheesh, the guy is pushin� 80. I wouldn�t put a lot in what he has to say. The biggest reason for the economic boon of the 90s was the blind eye turned towards all the �book cooking�, lies and corruption on Wall Street. We�re paying for it now. The Bell Curve? What an insightful prediction of Mr. Murray. I got the same feeling from watching �It�s a Wonderful Life� with Jimmy Stewart. Class intolerance or envy, whichever you care to call it, has been around for centuries. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 805 Registered: 6-2001 |
Brett & Scott: Clinton had a bit to do with our economics. Have either of your read Greenspan's book Maestro? I suggest you both might wish to read it, because Greenspan believes that Clinton's agreement to the tax increase made it easier to reduce the interest rate, increase funds, and those factors lead to the long economic boom. Not my opinion, but Greenspan's opinion. I'd put his knowledge as something in excess of ours, wouldn't you? As to Brett's comments about the government's involvement: I do recall the 60s, and the great social unrest that occured as a result of the inequities that existed then. Our country wasn't a pleasant place to live, there were areas where people wouldn't go, there were upset people of color causing problems. Our government involvement solved a goodly portion of that injustice, and we are reaping the benefits of those programs. Make no bones about it, we still live in a society that punishes people for their color, religion, etc. This is a forum made up of generally educated people, and look at some of the posts against the Arabs, Muslins, etc. Brett remember it isn't the percentage, it's the net. Where else are you going to get the bottom line any better in this world? Maybe the tax rate is what got you the end result. In Britian in the 60s the top rate was 95%. Remember the Beattle's song the taxman? Our rates are lower, and still leave us with more than enough to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Just remember that famous comment "let them eat cake" and the consequences of that sort of attitude brought to the lady who made the comment. Sure the government could do better. The reforms to welfare were long overdue. Welfare could still be made better. Remember that most welfare receiptiants are young woman with children. Some of whom never married, some of whom their husbands either have left them, or became unemployed. You might want to read Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve (1989) for his analysis of how we got where we are in that regard. Although I don't agree with his comments regarding race and intelligence, I do agree with his comments that the upper classes will become less and less tolerant of the lower classes, what he has predicted some 13 years ago, has certainly come to pass. If we really wished to reduce our taxes we should cut the major portion of government spending, social security and Medicad. Why not let everyone fend for themselves? Just imagine the chaos that would result from that little cost cutting procedure. Discresionary spending for the federal government is something under 20% of their budget. We could start with the Military, again not a good idea. These are just my thoughts in this area. Art | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2947 Registered: 2-2001 |
btw Art, that rant about taxes of mine down there is in no way directed at you so I hope you don't take it that way at all. Just a rant about the gov't, not at anyone in particular. I just don't want it to sound like I'm going off on you or anyone else here on FC. Tim it's true you have a drastically reduced rate as a student...on the first like 5 grand you make a year. Last year after paying all my taxes as a student I wound up owing the gov't around a $1000 when my dad's accountant did my taxes. I can understand the rationale behind not allowing students to make an unlimited amount at a reduced rate (my dad could claim almost all his money as being made by me and use a student tax rate instead of his rate because construction isn't the most regulated of businesses) but it's essentially ridiculous. What family can live off of the $10-15K I can make in a summer? Ridiculous once again, getting screwed by Uncle Sam. If the cut off was like $30G then alright I can see, but it's way too low as of now. As you guys can tell, I'm a big fan of the government having their hands in everything. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Intermediate Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 1659 Registered: 6-2001 |
you guys may all pay 40+% but im a student. i pay ~20% and i get most of it back when tax retirn checks come in the mail  . | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2944 Registered: 2-2001 |
No private school for me, I used to be really into school, got straight A's through one of the best highschools in NJ and all, I'm so into mechanical things now though that I like going to a public school where it isn't as difficult and I have more time for car stuff, sports, etc. You hit the nail on the head with overtaxation. If you add up all the b.s. state taxes, purchase taxes, death taxes, federal taxes, etc you are working half the year for the government like you said. That's nothing short of f_ckin bullsh_t IMO. In 1950 a person paid 1 out of 50 dollars in TOTAL taxes, 2% compared to the 50% now. And what do we really have nowadays that is so much better. They had almost exactly the same transportation systems; private medical services; federal, state, and local police; the most powerful military in the world, etc. For the 48% increase in taxes we got a load of bullsh_t programs like welfare and the likely to go bankrupt social security. What a deal, we really made out there... If you had essentially twice as much money in your pocket at the end of the week, don't you think it would be easier to save up for retirement? Wouldn't saving up for putting your kid through school be a little easier? Oh yes, this would require people to return to using their own heads, bringing back common sense, and eliminating the working fool we have nowadays, a person who simply diddles along like a robot his whole life for big business and the government, ignorantly. Now not only did we create all these stupid programs, but to further that we made the government the most inefficient business in the United States. But of course there is no consequences for them being inept, all the consequences for their screwups fall on you, the citizen. What a great system it's grown into. You could go on forever in how F_ed up the country has become based on the waste of tax money to essentially buy votes, but I wont, I'll say just one more thing. They plaster all this sh_t about problematic kids shooting up schools, etc and it is absolutely because of the lack of good parenting, bringing someone up with good morals and confidence. BUT the lack of parenting is increasingly because of overwhelming taxes. Realistically speaking a family must have two incomes nowadays to live an average American life, the same life that in 1950 could be maintained with one income, and that is simply a direct result of overtaxation. If the one income was doubled the other income would no longer be necessary for the same lifestyle, and one parent would be able to stay home to take care of the children. Children are the largest investment made in this country from a financial sense, you would think they might use a little common sense in their investment as well. That said, the United States is still hands down the best place in the world to live, so although things have to be checked and continuing strive for a better life are to be expected, I still wouldn't live anywhere else. | ||
| j scott leonard (Jscott)
Junior Member Username: Jscott Post Number: 210 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art: Spoken like a true trial lawyer! Man, I must be a nightmare, an armed, conservative, evangelical Christian. How is it that I still like reading your posts? Maybe because I like people with a mind and a willingness to speak it. Well thought out debate and constructive disagreement is a cornerstone of our republic. Remember, the Republican controlled congress had more to do with the economy than the President. It's still will today. By the way, I have met the President, he isn't any dummy. A Harvard MBA isn't easy for a conservative to attain regardless who your daddy is. I know, I went there for a while and my brother is a professor in the medical school. You really need to be pretty sharp to make it at such a liberal school. As someone who pays about 50% in taxes, give me tax cuts or give me death! Maybe Patrick Henry would agree. Bret: Pretty sharp for a college student, are you at Harvard? Your ball Art. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2942 Registered: 2-2001 |
If you honestly believe that the booming economy was a product of Clinton than you really have to start researching economics. Let me guess, the booming 20s were a product of the Republicans that ruled office from 1860 to FDR in 1932. I thought by now it was common knowledge that the economy works in cycles. A stronger case could be made for a political business cycle reflecting negatively against Clinton for allowing Greenspan to raise interest rates at a ridiculous pace prior to his leaving office, and hence sealing that soon after the economy would start to decline, obviously the rate of the decline was unforseen at the time. Blaming the economy on nearly any president is ridiculous for the most part, especially today in the modern U.S. economy. Ignorance is bliss though... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 803 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ed: Bush will be looking for bin Ladden for a long time: he's too stupid to figure it out. We could have caught him, had we used our heads. Clinton is long gone, Bush has no one to blame but himself. Remember, Clinton had plans to deal with him put in front of Bush et al, and they were too smart to use those plans. Seems like some of the same things in that plan are what they are doing now. Bottom line: idiot has 4 years to produce, my money is that he won't, he can't, and all the bs in the world won't change those facts. Articulate incompetents are the bane of business, and government, and guess what: we've got them in office. Time will tell, Bush will either get the job done or he won't. Calling Clinton names won't change that. The best economic times this country ever saw were under Clinton, bet they won't come back until these buffons are long gone. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 562 Registered: 1-2002 |
All I can say is that I am damned glad that Algore isn't president now. he'd still be debating whether attacking the Taliban would be disrespectful of their culture & sovereignty. And I agree with Ed Gault's last post This is for Slick Willie, whose motto was: "I didn't know 'harass' was one word!"  | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 127 Registered: 5-2002 |
Didn't Clinton pressure the Israelis to release Mohammad Atta � the lead terrorist in the 9/11 attacks? | ||
| Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member Username: Irfgt Post Number: 2281 Registered: 2-2001 |
At least George is looking for the SOB. It is easy to armchair QB. Clintons reactions for all the assaults against us was to pardon criminals and get his next BJ, oh and let's don't forget the defense fund this multimillionare set up. Good Grief! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 801 Registered: 6-2001 |
Obsfuciate all you want Ed, the facts are what they are: we didn't get him, we didn't destroy his organization. A smarter man would have. We'll all pay the price for that. Art | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 126 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Bill Clinton could have arranged a mass orgy instead of a war." Sure, but have somebody else find the women. That guy couldn't get a good looking babe if he were...well, if he were President of the United States. | ||
| Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member Username: Irfgt Post Number: 2280 Registered: 2-2001 |
Bill Clinton could have arranged a mass orgy instead of a war. | ||
| Amar Inam (Amar360)
New member Username: Amar360 Post Number: 18 Registered: 10-2002 |
Chuck, Thanks for your reply; decent people discussing issues respectfully and undertanding each other usually works. It is when people - eg. extremist groups - rush to judge and accuse others, often based on incomplete knowledge, that causes trouble and terrorists are a prime example of that. After all they have formed a view of America and Americans that those of us who know the country do not recognise; then they make it worse by deciding all Americans are the devil and therefore all are fair targets. Indeed I am neither a practicing Muslim nor a practicing Hindu (my mother's religion), but that is not my point. Even if I were practicing I would have been disgusted by 9/11 which is an affront to all decent people who abhor such violence, regardless of who are the perpetrators and who are the victims. My father's mother was a practicing Muslim and she used to feed a community of about 50 poor people twice a year as her way of serving her God: not a bad way for anyone - Muslim or Jew or Christian - to practice their beliefs! Were she alive she would have been equally disgusted by the killing of people. Anyway, time to go home and make dinner for my fiancee... I haven't cooked for a week and if she doesn't see dinner on the table I think she might terrorise me! Take care, Amar | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 798 Registered: 6-2001 |
The anger that people have towards what occurred is reasonable. However, George Bush has made a mess of this alleged war. He struck out like a child, and screwed it up. We should have put our troops on the ground, put our troops between Bin Laden and Pakistan, put our troops in southern Afganstan. We didn't because those in charge didn't think their way through the problem. Now the entire management of el qaeda is still functioning and still planning more ••••. They still have their money, they still have their people. All we did was to make them move. All this commentary about religion is just a sign showing the prejudice of those making the statements. There are over 6 million Muslims in the US. Maybe there are maybe 500 (maybe even double that, so what) terrorists who also happen to be Muslims. I thought we learned from the second world war, when we locked up the Japanese without any good cause. Hate knows no boundaries. When we are talking about religions, remember the Inquision, the witch burnings, the violent behavior in Bosnia between the Christens and the Muslims, remember the radical jewish behavior in Israel. What this means is that it isn't the religion. It's the idiots who take the religion to justify their own behavior or hate. It's too bad we don't have smarter people in power, we might not be where we are today. Art | ||
| Manu (Manu)
Member Username: Manu Post Number: 546 Registered: 2-2002 |
That's the thing Chuck - I'm not actually a Muslim but I am in a position to say that there is no element of the Qu'ran that condones or encourages this kind of extremist behaviour... That is what I was hoping to convey in my earlier post... these terrorist guys are not Muslims... they are absuing the religion and desecrating to further essentially political needs. What I am trying to say is that Osama is in NO way a Muslim.... neither are those that work for him or support him.... do you see how? | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 125 Registered: 5-2002 |
Amar, while I don�t agree with your analogies that is an excellent reply. Having stated that you have never been in a Mosque would it be correct to assume you are not a �practicing� Muslim? No matter, if the �label� comment was directed towards me, then I would consider you an American. | ||
| Amar Inam (Amar360)
New member Username: Amar360 Post Number: 17 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi, I may regret adding to this since opinion seems emotionally charged - on a website I joined to share the worldwide passion for a great car together with Americans and other nationalities. But the topic involves me and here goes... I am American by upbringing and citizenship (currently living in London). My father was born into a Muslim family in India and would be considered Muslim, as would I, by people who like to label others. Neither he nor I have ever been to a mosque and we both love great wines - lot's of them! My school friends in Bethesda MD and Washington DC were mostly Jewish or Protestant; friends in Europe are mostly British, Italian and Spanish. So, having never lived in an ethnic ghetto or known many Muslims, I don't know any "murderous brethren" to turn in. I was disgusted by 9/11 because it was an attack on America, the peaceful and mostly tolerant West, and most people in this world who wish nothing but good for others. That day a friend lost his wife and I couldn't stop my tears, overwhelmed by deep sadness and anger. Whether it is 0.1% or 5% or x% of "Muslims" who sympathise with the terrorists, is it useful to put millions of people into one bucket by religion or nationality or colour and ascribe collective characteristics? I happen to believe that globally moderate Muslim leadership must be far more determined to condemn and distance itself from all terrorism, and explain why it is an affront to Islam. But how does this burden fall on all Muslims, anymore than it should on all Germans for Hitler or all militias for Oklahoma City? America is a great country and I am proud to be American. Unfortunately what makes it great, and made it the world's most powerful country with the ability to influence others, also makes it a target for frustrated and destructive groups. Many of these groups try to glorify their miserable political causes by using the cloak of religion. It has been easy to hijack Islam because the Arab world - a standard-bearer - is in turmoil, does not provide democratic outlets for people's frustrations, and is ineffective in fighting fundamentalism. Take care, Amar | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 585 Registered: 12-2001 |
I do suspect, though, that alot of Arabs/Muslims may not directly support terrorists, but may silently be rooting for those who have issues with the US; while i'm sure few people would respond affirmatively to the question, "Do you support murder of innocent civilians as a means to a political end," i'm also confident that not all such acts are viewed either as murder or terrorism. As to choosing sides, the japanese interment program in WWII looks, from hindsight, to be a civil and moral disgrace. At the same time, rounding up all Iraqis in the US will, in my estimation, do little to thwart acts of terrorism. When i lived in Brooklyn Heights for 20 years, the Atlantic Ave. neighborhood was largely Arabic/Muslim. We shopped in the "Oriental" delicacy stores, patronized the restaurants and bakeries and were generally kind to the denizens. Turned out that the blind sheik was preaching down the corner, and that many supporters of the Afghani "liberation" fighters, including businesses like a travel agency, were operating conspiciously, and without interference. I am sure that real bad guys, with a view toward killing Americans, have been in and out of that neighborhood over the years, including the bozos that attempted the 1st WTC bombing. Will locking up the entire neighborhood do any good? Doubtful. Would effective intelligence, and stealth in ferreting out the bad guys make me feel more comfortable? Absolutely. The Muslim/Arab community here gets bad press for not "cooperating" more with the authorities. If any of them were dropping the dime on their brethren, i'm not sure we'd know about it anyway... Don't read me as some namby-pamby liberal. I'd be the first to annihilate any country, region or city that proved a legitimate target. Cause none of us are "civilians" in this war, where we are all targets. | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2002 |
�That is, bar none the most pompous, arrogrant statement I have ever read on this forum. If you had bothered to escape your coccon of ignorance, you would realize that 99.9% of the Muslim/Arab American population are law abiding, respectful, proud Americans. To just lump them and the terrorists together is just plain STUPID! I would BET you that if you walked up to any Muslim or Arab American, they would be the first to say ���� Osama, or any Terrorist.� Oh yeah, there it is, the standard reply to Muslim criticisms. 99.9%? Are you sure it isn�t 99.8%? Which ass are you pulling that number from? Here are some facts for you. 19 murderers on 9/11, one who missed the plane, six arrested in Buffalo, shoe bomber, two snipers. How many involved in the first WTC bombing??? Gee, I wonder why I feel the way I do about Muslims. Yep, it�s my �coccon� of ignorance? How profound. Yeah, 99.9%. Sure. Start listing all the Muslim pro-America charities, activities and organizations. Tell me about all the positive acts the Muslim community has been doing since 9/11. Talk is cheap, sway my feelings with actions and fact. BTW, I have talked to Muslims. They always want me to understand WHY the murderers did what they did. They aren�t the first to say •••• Osama. | ||
| Omar Hameed Butt (Auraraptor)
New member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 27 Registered: 9-2002 |
Jeez some people should chill out. I agree that these people should be eliminated, but dont think that we are all bad. As for harboring terrorists...if I knew one, I would be the first to have him/her turned in. Think about it. This guy/gal is a MAJOR pain in my A$$. What would you do to a guy that kills your neigbors, bad mouths your religion, and does it all while praising him/herself! He/she is out to eliminate what he/she beleives is the "American life sytle." it just so happens that this "American life sytle" is unique to each American; and these forgeiner SOBs have no right in attempting to define it, let alone killing the practioners for it. BTW how would I be any less American if I am Muslim? Which side do I choose? They one that lets me live the way I want to in freedom, not the oppressive one that looks to hinder me where ever I go, make me follow what they want or die. Thank God (who is the same God BTW as the one of the other two "People of the Book") America is still the land of the free. All those who want to change this reality should either leave us alone, but if they want trouble... ..btw I hope America stays the land of the free and I dont become a second class citizen where all the wonderful things that define America (and make it great) are lost for me. Would that be fair? The funny thing is that since this is the only "home" or "land" I know, I would still try to stick it out and hope that things get better! If you think that it is fair, I would love to know how you are not a racist. | ||
| James Dixon (Omnadren250)
Member Username: Omnadren250 Post Number: 366 Registered: 7-2001 |
I agree with Ryan, that comment was one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on any internet chat forum. Pretty sad when you consider one of the forums I frequent is inhabited by young, un-educated, slack-jawed punks. Oh well, I guess the saying "ignorance is bliss" applies here....or should that be "ignorance breeds ignorance"?? | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 398 Registered: 4-2002 |
I think many of us feel that the Muslim community is not doing all it could do to help the authorities ferret out the extremists among them. We are not in a cocoon of ignorance. The Muslims who are not revealing their suspicions are the ones in the cocoon of ignorance. | ||
| Ryanab (Ryanab)
Junior Member Username: Ryanab Post Number: 154 Registered: 3-2002 |
"The American Muslim community needs to decide if they want to be American or side with their murderous brethren." That is, bar none the most pompous, arrogrant statement I have ever read on this forum. If you had bothered to escape your coccon of ignorance, you would realize that 99.9% of the Muslim/Arab American population are law abiding, respectful, proud Americans. To just lump them and the terrorists together is just plain STUPID! I would BET you that if you walked up to any Muslim or Arab American, they would be the first to say •••• Osama, or any Terrorist. Disgusting that this thinking still exists.. PS.. George Bush should be concentrating on the REAL THREAT, Al qaeda. Last time I checked, Osama and Mullah Omar were still in their Countryside estate in buttf***, Afghanistan. Was not that the goal of the "War on Terrorism"?. Bushie should pursue Al qaeda and let the weapons inspectors do their thing in Iraq (Only if Iraq f***s with the inspectors, America can go in) instead of diverting the attention from the Countrys economy, etc.. RK | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Intermediate Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 1613 Registered: 6-2001 |
i am starting to doubt all religions, ALL religions. I dont fully disagree with them though. I'm not sure wether im an agnostic nihilist or nihilistic agnostic. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1563 Registered: 2-2001 |
As a student of religion I must agree that bin laden & his crew are extremists they are not true muslims. They are like a violent version of the moral majority, which is really an immoral minority I have read the Q'ran & it states that Jews & Christians & muslims all have the same God so let us all live in peace Seems BL forgot that part of the Q'ran | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 475 Registered: 9-2001 |
Remember the good ol' days when America was the world? Now we are just another part of the world. Nothing suprises me anymore, but I'm not living in fear. | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2002 |
Agree with you Jim. I heard we only get 10% of our oil from the Middle East. No matter, if the world ran out of oil today there would be something else to use by Monday morning. Probably hydro. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 454 Registered: 7-2002 |
Terrorists remind me of the mob of old days. Everyone in the community knows who they are, but won't rat them out for fear of retribution. All the Taliban soldiers that weren't really Taliban, but only cooperated out of fear....what a joke. I am so sick of people not taking responsibility for their actions or standing up for what they believe in. I guarantee if some jerk marched in to my town and told me to join or die I would join, then as soon as they handed me a weapon I would shoot him in the back of the head. These dipshits better be carefull or we will just take over Iraq, Iran, Afgha and then where will they be. Who cares what Saudi Arabia says, if we don't use their oil they are just owners of a big sandbox. We CAN develop alternate fuel sources adn it would be cheaper than the lost money of the oil companies. If I was pres and supreme ruler I would just say..."alright, nobody gets any more money period from the USA until this crap stops!" All labor would come back to US, who cares if a factory closes in Korea, tough •••• figure it out on your own. | ||
| Chuck Babel (Chuck_98_rt10)
Junior Member Username: Chuck_98_rt10 Post Number: 120 Registered: 5-2002 |
In fact, they ARE Muslims/Islamic and they ARE committing these murders for the greater good of their God. Excerpt from Bin Laden latest message 11/02 referring to 9/11 and the other murders they committed� �These actions were carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defense of their religion and in response to the order of their God and prophet.� Read more at� http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70139,00.html The Muslim �religion� needs to do more than just espouse non-committal rhetoric like �They�re not all bad.� Actions speak louder than words. They know who the terrorist are so start turning them in. The American Muslim community needs to decide if they want to be American or side with their murderous brethren. | ||
| joe saldana (Ironjoe)
Junior Member Username: Ironjoe Post Number: 115 Registered: 12-2001 |
Sounds crazy, but not if, when.this will be from 150 billion dollar war to 1.25 trillon now D.C dosent want that.but when the shooting starts evrybody starts buying.thinking good investment,BUT being the SCUMBAG saddam n u-day are they all-ready know a good investment is $2500.00 a head for a ground kill.. $1500.00 for air which he dosent have (make exception for a few loaded Anthrax Kamakazis),like $1000.00 for nuke,DOWN TO $2.50 for biological which I believe he has stashed .I hope to GOD a coo goes down he must be eliminated because I believe it will be over here and a landmark very traumatically... | ||
| Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member Username: Irfgt Post Number: 2251 Registered: 2-2001 |
Not Muslims? That is the first time I have ever heard that. Whatever they are and whatever group they represent, when the most powerful and generous Country in the world reaches the breaking point, they better be waving an American flag instead of burning it.  | ||
| Manu Sachdeva (Manu)
Member Username: Manu Post Number: 539 Registered: 2-2002 |
guys - these extremists are NOT muslims... they have nothing to do with the religion - even in the eyes of the God they worship... - They are EXTREMISTS - bottom line. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 450 Registered: 7-2002 |
well there lies the rub lawrence. where do you draw the line? at age 10 or age 65? a dark skinned muslim or a white guy who converted? and is it even muslims? most muslims I know are just like you and me. they live peaceful lives. it is these extremists that are causing problems. My knee jerk reaction is to just kick everyone out of the US. I know we are all foreigners if you go back far enough, but current immigration bothers me. open door policy, take what you want, act how you want and we don't do anything because we are affraid of hurting somebody's feelings. I am so tired of the minority making decisions or causing decisions to be made that affect the majority. there is no simple answer. | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 389 Registered: 4-2002 |
Racist thinking....hmmmmmmmmmmm. Suppose you have a linebacker mugged and beaten up. Footprints indicate one person did the mugging and the beating. Must we interrogate 70 year old American females just so we are not discriminating? I don't think so. Looking at young males would be the prudent thing to do. If it looks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. | ||
| Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member Username: Irfgt Post Number: 2247 Registered: 2-2001 |
I believe if this terrorism continues, there will be a big problem with ALL Muslems and there could be some severe backlash against them. It seems to me to be a very fine line between the average and radical Muslem and also a fine line between a docile American and one that is fed up. I am sitting on the fence. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1562 Registered: 2-2001 |
I dont think Romsfeld, Chennney, & Bushh r going to put up with any more nonsense from these Camel humpers. If Al Quedaa thinks our taking over Afghanistan & dropping 16,000 # daisy cutters on their heads was bad they havent seen anything yet. Bushh Sr told So Dam Insane that if he used Bio or Chem weapons in the Gulf War that the US would go Nuclear on his buttocks | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Intermediate Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 1603 Registered: 6-2001 |
"Lastly, I wonder what will happen when/if things like this start to happen. Will we become Extreme Racists and treat all the good foreigners poorly, kick them out, POW camps or will we just learn to live with it like they do in Isreal? hopefully we will never have to worry about it. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 1781 Registered: 9-2001 |
I hear ya, scary | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 442 Registered: 7-2002 |
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/terror.warning/index.html Just read this on cnn.com. Just wondering what you all think they can/will do? Sometimes I think Al Qaeda would have already done some terrorist acts if they had people here to carry them out. Other times I think they are just being patient and will catch us off guard. What I don't get is how complicated they make some of the attacks...the WTC, bombing military boats, establishments etc. I hate to say this as I don't want to promote any acts, but I doubt I will say anything new. But, if I were a terrorist I would blow up a grade school, a mall, a movie theater or rent/buy a cessna and fly it into a college football game loaded with bombs or gasoline etc. Things like this would stop us and our economy in our tracks. When they bomb a military establishment it doesn't affect the common citizen. I am never on a military base and they guys who are are supposed to be ready for things like that "in theory". Lastly, I wonder what will happen when/if things like this start to happen. Will we become Extreme Racists and treat all the good foreigners poorly, kick them out, POW camps or will we just learn to live with it like they do in Isreal? |