PDA

View Full Version : Another political question


so.cal.fan
01-23-2004, 11:13 AM
Does anyone know why Michael Moore is supporting Gen. Wes. Clark?
I find this odd. Clark is not even a liberal, is he?
Michael Moore is very left of center, what did I miss here?

chrisg
01-23-2004, 01:35 PM
Quick internet search & I found this; should be what you want-

http://www.clark04.com/moore/

so.cal.fan
01-23-2004, 02:27 PM
Wait a minuet! I watched CNN during the Iraq war and heard Gen. Clark's comments.........while it's true the "embedded "Generals and other high rank officers on Fox News and MSNBC were a little more pro-war/Bush policy, Clark didn't sound anti-war to me, perhaps I just didn't get it?


Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that.

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 04:13 PM
Moore and Madonna.........I bet the old General is happy about that.

Clark has flipped on almost every issue. The scary part is at a high level military conference several of his old Military buddies were asked if they endorse him. One came right out and said"he won't be getting my vote" and the others all refused to answer Clark guestions..........the stuff I hear is he was run out of the Army after embarrassing us in Bosnia. Generals don't get run out of the Military though. They get crappier and crappier assignments until they get the picture. Then they decide to retire. It is kind of like an executive stops getting the important emails or invited to the top level meetings. Eventually he gets the point.

Now Clark gets the Michael Moore vote.......yahoo! That ought to bring a bunch..........

Isn't Clark the one who started the "oh my god, we are in over our heads" stuff on day two of the Iraq invasion. then 3 days later looked like the biggest fool on Televison?

Secretariat
01-23-2004, 04:15 PM
You can read Moore's own words for endorsing Clark on this link:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-14

And you can read Moore's reaction to his mention during last night' s debate at this link.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Both are interesting to read.

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 05:07 PM
This morning on the Imus show they referred to the Bush Awol story as "an absurd allegation" that is without merit..........and they chastised Clark for his involvement in continuing the ruse. I can't remember who they were talking to on the phone, but it was a national reporter who agreed.........

so you can link to the allegation all you want........most people think it's a dead story..............I understand............with a year to go, you gotta start dredging up everything you can......... this is just the start of this crap..........

Oh yeah...BTW.......Clark holds a rally with Ted Danson tonight.

This is the Clinton wing of the party pulling the strings and if you can't see that, you are missing something.............

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 05:36 PM
Dean is after the Cheryl Crow endorsement

http://www.justralph.com/dean_blues.jpg

chrisg
01-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph
The scary part is at a high level military conference several of his old Military buddies were asked if they endorse him. One came right out and said"he won't be getting my vote" and the others all refused to answer Clark guestions..........the stuff I hear is he was run out of the Army after embarrassing us in Bosnia. Generals don't get run out of the Military though.

It's cracks like that that tend to keep me away from the off topic board.

One, there's a difference between those you work with & those that are your buddies. Two, ever heard of jealousy?

Three, HOW IN THE HELL DID HE EMBARRASS US WHEN HE PREVENTED ANY CASUALTIES ON OUR SIDE?

I'm not trying to pick on you Ralph, because this stuff goes on here at this board all the time.

But
A) People ought to get the facts straight.
B)SoCalFan should have started another thread instead of masking her political agenda behind a request for information.

ljb
01-23-2004, 05:49 PM
As a political observer i would like to post my opinion as to why Clark accepted Moore's support.
Clark is down in the polls and can get a boost if he shows more animosity towards Bush. Reluctant to do so himself he uses Moore's outrageous statement that Bush is a deserter.
While it is accepted fact that Bush did go AWOL during his last year in the Air National Guard, he is not a deserter. Desertion takes place during times of war. Bush went AWOL during peace time. AWOL is a punishable offense of course, unless you have friends in high places.

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by chrisg
[COLOR=blue]It's cracks like that that tend to keep me away from the off topic board.

I'm not trying to pick on you Ralph, because this stuff goes on here at this board all the time. But
A) People ought to get the facts straight.
B)SoCalFan should have started another thread instead of masking her political agenda behind a request for information.

It was just fun with Dean..... the pic was some fun......Clark is a different story

Chris: try this pic......it was one step toward Clarks down fall
These are facts Chris.............


Generals don't talk bad about each other. It is common knowledge though that Clark was removed for refusing to follow orders. It is the General officers Corp version of going off the deep end. These guys can launch missiles and attacks on a whim if they are "off the reservation" so to speak, it can be real scary.


http://realpolitik.us/03image/clark_mladic.jpg


Why, that looks an awful lot like Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic. Check out his mug on his cool "Wanted by Interpol" page.
http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1995/54/1995_47754.asp

Still too vague? The following should shed some light on General Shelton's "vague" comments:

On August 27, 1994, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a fact-finding mission to Bosnia, Clark "ignored State Department warnings not to meet with Serb officials suspected of ordering deaths of civilians in a campaign known as ethnic cleansing" and paid a courtesy call on Serbian army commander Ratko Mladic. Mladic was already the subject of multiple U.S. war-crimes charges: "artillery attacks on civilians in Sarajevo" and the "razing of Muslim towns and villages," along with random acts of "mass murder." According to a contemporaneous Washington Post report: "On Friday [August 26, 1994] and again on Saturday, State Department officials said, they instructed [Clark] not to go, but he went anyway." The meeting "occurred as the Clinton administration is trying to isolate the Serbs in advance of possible military action against them."

chrisg
01-23-2004, 06:21 PM
Thanks for not answering my question Ralph. I'll try to make this my last visit to the off topic board as I can see I was just a sucker/tool for more political posturing.

I should have known better.

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 06:44 PM
I thought I answered with the photo and article........

this photo was displayed all over the world........it embarrassed the U.S.

Larry Hamilton
01-23-2004, 07:18 PM
Geez, how can you deny the story the picture tells. How can you deny that his one and only superior officer replied "I will not vote for him"

If you want to get in a huff, get in a huff about he came from Arkansas and was promoted over many fellow officers by you know who. He was a political appointee, thats no secret, at that level ALL generals are.

These aren't opinions, they are facts. We may come to different conclusions, but THEY ARE FACTS.

Thanks Ralph

Derek2U
01-23-2004, 07:37 PM
It must b tuff but then again if ur gonna b pres get use 2 tuff.
Last night I dint like any of the DEMS' showing except Lieberman,
but since he isn't even a possibility (thank Budha) -- what diff did
ThaT make? They GrandStand 2 much and they don't know basics: hehe peter jennings laid traps. Like how many peeps
rellie know what's fiscal policy vs monetary policy? hehe ..
Sharpton certainly didnt. And Clark & that deserter remark by
Moore.... yikes, what a Lame Remark about our President. That
was sooo NO NO NO Clark's OUT 100% 4 me. And, Kerry, when
will YOU learn 2 just Keep SHut & not go over by more then 39
minutes after the bell? Edwards looked whipped like he had
2 many orgys after Iowa ... hehe happy but not focused. I woulda told him 2 play low & light (much like Lieberman did).
And that vegan ohio dood, MulchNik (the 1 who looks other-planetary) hehe .... i dunno he's says some cool ideas but #43
+ cheney would b laffin all year if He was the opposition. Neways
all i can tell U is the obvious, today at work this all came up & I
can tell u the obvious: wall st says 43=44 hehe . Is it a 2:5?
Neways, good night guys, i gotta go dancin 2night like its 1999!!

JustMissed
01-23-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by chrisg
Thanks for not answering my question Ralph. I'll try to make this my last visit to the off topic board as I can see I was just a sucker/tool for more political posturing.

I should have known better.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave in a huff!

JustMissed

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 11:20 PM
I think Eleanor Clift is an idiot, but even she goes after Clark
From the MSNBC Website

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4042995/today...........



Post-Iowa Politics
Dean fumbles, Kerry rumbles. How it affects the race for the Oval OfficeWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 5:50 p.m. ET Jan. 23, 2004Jan. 23 - Nothing happened in last night's Democratic debate to change the dynamics of the race, except that Wesley Clark may have joined Howard Dean in the penalty box when he declined to distance himself from supporter Michael Moore's characterization of President Bush as a "deserter." A more nimble politician wouldn't have made that mistake.

Newly anointed front runner John Kerry wasn't a target the way Dean was when he had the lead. With negative attacks backfiring in Iowa, everybody was on his best behavior. "Nice try," Joe Lieberman replied amiably as ABC's Peter Jennings pressed him to critique his rivals on their ability to push back against the GOP on values issues.
Along with an air of exhaustion, there was a sense the candidates didn't quite know what to do now that they didn't have Dean to kick around any more. Dean’s poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, followed by a primal-scream concession speech, fueled the notion that the former Vermont governor is not presidential material.

"Don't be too hard on yourself," the Rev. Al Sharpton told Dean. "If I spent the money you did in Iowa and got 18 percent, I'd still be hooting and hollering." All Dean could muster in his defense was, "I am not a perfect person," a preview of what viewers would see later in the evening when Dean and his wife sat for an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer.

Dean told Sawyer that he was "a little sheepish" about his "I Have a Scream" speech, but he was not apologizing. He and his physician wife, Dr. Judy Steinberg Dean, came across as down to earth and utterly normal, the kind of people the country would be lucky to have serve but who are out of their element in the gotcha game of presidential politics. It's one thing to lose, it's another to become an object of ridicule. Dean's hog-calling yelp, played over and over on cable stations, crystallized in people's minds what they found worrisome about him.

I was in the Des Moines hall Monday night when Dean was trying to cheer up his demoralized supporters, and his passionate cry to fight on seemed appropriate. It seemed to work in the hall, but was way too hot for television. By the next morning, the consensus was that Dean had howled his way out of contention. Dean's prickly personality didn't wear well. That's one reason we have campaigns—to test people's mettle.

ELEANOR CLIFT | More
• CLIFT: POST-IOWA POLITICS
Dean fumbles, Kerry rumbles. How it affects the race for the Oval Office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Clift: Bush's Military Problem



The voters are making a discerning choice about who could be president, and it's not Dean. "Memo to Democrats: don't let Al Gore darken your campaign," cracked one Senate aide. Gore's early endorsement of Dean set up a dynamic where stopping Dean took on a new urgency. He had an unprecedented amount of stuff thrown at him while the other candidates got a free ride. He didn't handle it well, and doubts about his electability mushroomed.

The Iowa results also upended Wesley Clark, who thought he would be the anti-Dean in a two-man race. Now he's in a competitive four-way contest, and he's not the only decorated veteran. Clark made a serious misstep by calling into question Kerry's credentials and pulling rank on him. Anything is possible, but it's hard to develop a scenario for Clark going the distance unless he finishes close to Kerry in New Hampshire.

The Republican attack machine is gearing up. The plan is to "Dukakisize" Kerry, turning him into a clone of the wonkish former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis who lost to Bush's father in 1988. If John Edwards is the nominee, the GOP will portray him as "The Breck Girl," turning his good looks against him and portraying him as lightweight. "I believe the White House would least like to run against Edwards," says a Republican strategist. As the son of a mill worker, Edwards is best able to mount an attack on Bush's Achilles heel: the perception that he's on the side of corporate interests against the little guy. Assailing Edwards as a sleazy trial lawyer won't work, the strategist believes: "Look at all the lawyer shows on television. People like guys suing the big guys, and he knows how to play to a jury."

Advertisement



Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling
by Eleanor Clift




The other line of attack on Edwards, just as dicey, would be painting him as a lightweight, then asking voters: in a time of terror, do you trust someone who just got involved in politics? It's the strategy that was used against Bush in 2000, and it didn't work, says the GOP strategist. "They'll paint Edwards as light, that he lacks gravitas, but when Edwards shows up for the debate, he's not going to be a lightweight."

Kerry is easier to demonize. He has a long record of conventionally liberal votes. His campaign was rescued by the Kennedy machine. "He's Kennedy's Mini-Me," says the GOP strategist. Details from his time as leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971 will be spread around in a way to make him appear duplicitous. Early on, when Kerry first appeared to be the front runner, Republicans salivated at the prospect of running a cultural war against him. One GOP operative was quoted saying, "He looks French."

Bush's State of the Union address, delivered the night after the Iowa vote, offered a taste of what we're in for during the coming months. It was a speech for the Republican base: steroid use among athletes, defense of marriage as a union between a man and woman, pie-in-the-sky re-entry programs for prisoners, with very little about the economy and no mention of the more than 500 dead and thousands more injured in Iraq. It was an in-your-face political argument written with Dean in mind but adaptable to any of the Democrats.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

JustRalph
01-23-2004, 11:49 PM
If anybody missed John Stossel's report on 20/20 tonight, you missed one of the best pieces that show has ever put out. Here is the link to the web version......the original video version on the show was excellent. The web version leaves out some great facts that shoot holes in several crazy idea's that have been sold to the American Public over the years. The best part is where he shows how the absurd environmental position against the use of DDT in the last 15 years has caused the death of close to 50 million children overseas. Directly related deaths. Not just implied connections........but directly responsible deaths due to the environmental movement and their smear of the product. Very interesting show.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-1.html

kenwoodallpromos
01-23-2004, 11:57 PM
Dean's self-appointed running mate, Clark, bombed the Chinese embassy "by mistake" in Belgrade. The next day I saw the embassy properly listed with the current (at that time) address on the Yugoslavia official website! The CIA and Clark must not be online!!LOL!!

JustRalph
01-24-2004, 12:06 AM
http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

this probably falls under.....the proverbial dead horse

the page is a little overboard....but this page was up before Clark started his run for pres. The part about almost starting WWIII is interesting

Tom
01-24-2004, 08:58 AM
I have new-found respect for.....Howard Dean!
His rebel yell just might scare Al Qeda back to Babylon!

EeeeeeeeYaaaaaaa!

so.cal.fan
01-24-2004, 11:06 AM
According to a couple of former political campaign managers, both Democrats, all the Dems will run out of funds except Kerry and Dean, and then will be out spent by millions by Bush.
Even Kerry could be in trouble with funding. So.........I guess it's already a done deal, if we are to believe in the money talks theory.

Secretariat
01-25-2004, 10:53 AM
I don't like to bring this up, but since SCal asked about Moore's endorsement of Clark, and Jennings question challenging Clark, here is what led to those questions about GW's AWOL status which have never really been addressed by a release of GW's military records:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

Tom
01-25-2004, 11:12 AM
Obviously, Moore has been hired to be the pitt bull for Clark, who either wants to appear to take the high road or just doesn't have the guts to do his own dirty work. Moore is loud-mouth bully type who is without integrity.
Now Clarky, he is a differnet animal. Watching him on Beat the Press today, he shows the calm and presence of mind that when confronted wiht his own lies, allows him to immediately change the spin, dodge the question, and never show a sign that he was outed. He is a professional liar - obviously to me that he has been doing it for quite a while.
His use of Moore is right out of Billy-Bob-Joe-Don Clintons dirt trick manual.
I often suspect that Moore posts here under one or two handles:confused:
In fact when read some posts here, I visualize Moore and Al Frankenstein to put a face to the words.

JustRalph
01-25-2004, 11:51 AM
Clark looked bad on Meet The Press. Even Tom Brokaw called him on it. In the round table segment he said that he dodged the questions and seemed insincere.

ljb
01-25-2004, 12:54 PM
Notice both Tom and Jr attacking Clark this morning. Fear?

PaceAdvantage
01-25-2004, 01:16 PM
Notice LJB hoping to make an argument out of everything? Jollies?

Tom
01-25-2004, 02:19 PM
Notice PA's left hand hold his right index finger back. Closing? :eek:

ljb
01-25-2004, 02:29 PM
Notice PA trying to keep board in line with his thoughts!

ljb
01-25-2004, 02:30 PM
Notice Tom nodding his head in compliance.:rolleyes:

ljb
01-25-2004, 02:33 PM
Now that i've cleared that up!
All i did was ask a question. Do Tom and JR have a fear of Clarks potential ? If this is too stressful, i'll withdraw the question.
Sorry bout ruffling some feathers here.

PaceAdvantage
01-25-2004, 02:46 PM
Did they state they have any fear?

Secretariat
01-25-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Tom
Obviously, Moore has been hired to be the pitt bull for Clark, who either wants to appear to take the high road or just doesn't have the guts to do his own dirty work. Moore is loud-mouth bully type who is without integrity.
Now Clarky, he is a differnet animal. Watching him on Beat the Press today, he shows the calm and presence of mind that when confronted wiht his own lies, allows him to immediately change the spin, dodge the question, and never show a sign that he was outed. He is a professional liar - obviously to me that he has been doing it for quite a while.
His use of Moore is right out of Billy-Bob-Joe-Don Clintons dirt trick manual.
I often suspect that Moore posts here under one or two handles:confused:
In fact when read some posts here, I visualize Moore and Al Frankenstein to put a face to the words.

lbj,

Notice the name calling in the above, and the diversion from the fact that Moore took his information from an investigative article in the Boston Globe. As Clark said during Jennings question, "We don't know the answer to whether Bush went AWOL" as GW refuses to open his military record up as McCain asked him to in the 2000 election.

I'll put the Boston Globe article link up again. Michael Moore didn't invent this stuff.

Truth be told though, I really don't care that much about this crap though as it fails to get to the real issues of this campaign, but when someone like Jennings makes it an issue publicly at a debate (Clark didn't bring it up at the debate), and then Moore ends up being attacked because he simply referenced a Boston Globe investigative piece, then it begs to have the issue examined.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

ljb
01-25-2004, 05:06 PM
Pa,
No they did not state they had any fear! That is the reason I asked the question. If you check my post the word fear was followed by a question mark not an exclamation point Maybe from now on i will send you a pm with any posts i wish to enter. I will not enter them unless i get prior approval from you!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tom
01-25-2004, 06:19 PM
I have a sure-fire, can't miss, iron clad lock on how the libs can defeat Bush this fall. Probably the only way. It is so simple, I don't how I didn't see it before.

Hire Michael Moore to campaign for Bush. That's it. No way Bush could survive that tactic. Look at what he did for Clark-bar....cut his margin in half in just 7 days. From 21% to 10%.
:D

Guess I was wrong about a lot of democrates....they are a lot smarter than I thought - saw right through putting that foul mouthed bozo out htere to do your dirty work.
Maybe there is hope for bi-partisanship yet. :rolleyes:

ljb
01-25-2004, 07:55 PM
Tom,
Funny.
I haven't cleared this response with PA so if it offends anyone i apologise in advance.
I don't think Moore had that much affect on Clark's downfall in the polls. I think it was his own doing in the debate and as you mentioned on tv this morning. Clark is sort of a one trick pony. Retired General with a good understanding of war and such but, he is lacking in domestic skills. This of course doesn't mean i don't think he would be a better President then Bush. Just my opinion as to why he is sinking in the polls.
The Dems want someone with a better chance of beating Bush.
Read in the Arizona Republic today, "The two people with the best chance of beating Bush aren't running, Hillary and Gore."
So then again i ask why all the ranting and raving about Clark and Moore? They are no threat to you or Bush.

PaceAdvantage
01-25-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by ljb
Pa,
No they did not state they had any fear! That is the reason I asked the question. If you check my post the word fear was followed by a question mark not an exclamation point Maybe from now on i will send you a pm with any posts i wish to enter. I will not enter them unless i get prior approval from you!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Don't worry, there isn't a force alive that can keep your posting in check, not even little 'ol me. Nor do I have the desire to put a muzzle on you, as long as you abide by the rules of the message board set forth when you first registered.

BUT, don't try and put a muzzle on ME. This is America, and even though I am the moderator, I still reserve the right to add my .02 into the mix. It's always been like that with me, NO MATTER THE TOPIC.

So stop making it like I'm picking on you exclusively. There are many I pick on around here, in and out of the off-topic political realm!! LOL

Carry on.

lsbets
01-25-2004, 08:18 PM
LJB -

You are right - how dare PA offer his own opinion on a board that he created and runs with his own time, effort, and I would assume money. The arrogance of the man to speak his mind! He should be ashamed of himself.

PA apparently you do not have the same rights as other Americans to speak your mind, unless of course you agree with LJB, then I would assume he would be okay with it. I mean, its not like you give these guys a forum to speak their minds or anything.

Secretariat
01-25-2004, 09:22 PM
Isbets,

As you're going to Iraq what is your take on this article by the Associated Press. I realize you are being told one thing, but some of these articles seem to make a lot of us wonder, what the heck is really going on? For example, this article states in its last paragraph that all soldiers in Iraq will not be equipped fully with body armor until the end of March now. Aren't a lot supposed to be coming home in July?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040120/pl_afp/iraq_us_reserves_040120234830

This isn't meant as a political comment, but as a clarification on this article. I hear Congressman Larson has introduced a bill for parents of soldiers who bought body armor for soldiers in Iraq to to be reimbursed.

lsbets
01-25-2004, 09:54 PM
Secretariat,

Here is what I can tell you: The rotation is scheduled around March and April, that has been well publicized in the press. So, Helmy's statement about everyone having the body armor by then would match what I said earlier about everyone going over there now getting it. I have actually had great success so far in requesting items for my unit that we are not authorized and getting them.

That being said, I do have one issue that bugs the hell out of me and always has, under R and D Presidents. Simple, inexpensive items that help a unit succeed are not routinely provided because some bean counter who sits behind a desk for his whole career and goes to the field for 3 days a year yet still has the temerity to call himself a soldier deems them unneccesary. What am I talking about? Garmin E-trex Legend GPS with World Map Base Software, a good pair of 7-21 power binoculars, a Gerber utility tool, a good pair of goggles, and a hand held range finder. Not a lot of money, about 500-600 dollars for the whole package, but they are items that are necessary for key leaders in my unit. I am lucky, I can afford them without a problem, I call it X-Mas in Iraq, but some of my soldiers might be stretching their budgets to buy them. The problem is, they need them, so they need to find a way to get them. Don't you think we could build one less Seawolf submarine and send the acquisition guys to Bass Pro Shop to get the gear that the soldiers really need? Like I said, this happenned all through the 90s too, military guys tend to go way out of pocket to get the job done, just as many teachers do to outfit their classrooms. I don't think this is a Bush issue, I think it is a pork issue, and the Congress won't kill unneeded items from the budget to free up funds for practical stuff.

On the retention front, that is expected to be a problem. There are a lot of people who joined the reserves and never thought they would have to go anywhere. Personally, this is my 3rd deployment in 8 years, the first two were when I was on active duty. I do have a number of soldiers who came back in for the purpose of deploying. But, I wonder what the effect on retention will be. For me, it doesn't really matter much. As an officer, I have to request a resignation of my commission to get out, and I know several people who have had their requests denied. I'm being pretty fatalistic about this and figure I am in until I get either too old or too fat. What I have heard from people who have decided to get out is that they feel the mission is worthwhile and they are proud of what they have done, but they do not want to do it again. Who can argue with that? I figure you have to be a little insane to go once, pretty insane to go twice, and totally insane to go three times. If I decide to resign, it will not be because of any lack of love for the Army or the job, but because of deployments effect on my son. Since I left, he has been waking up every night screaming "Dada". It breaks my heart and my wife's heart, but hopefully he will adjust.

Not sure if I hit on everythig Sec, I started rambling a bit, but I tried to be open, honest, and non political.

Secretariat
01-25-2004, 10:05 PM
Appreciate that. Interesting stuff and thanks for the info. Best to you and your troops going over there. I don't think any R or D would wish otherwise.

While we disagree on the overall policy of this war, we certainly agree if we're in it, let's equip our men the best they can possibly be equipped, and not quibble with the small amount you refer to.

ljb
01-25-2004, 10:15 PM
lsbets,
If you would take the time to look back in this thread you would see that PA's first post was not a comment/opinion/question regarding the topic. It was in fact an acusation of me trying to cause trouble. When in fact all I did was post a query to a couple previous posters.
I have absolutley no problem with anyone posting their opinions on these boards however, when the board moderator/creator/owner posts a reply making an accusation, I will respond.
And it should be well known PA does have an aversion to posts put out by those he disagrees with. If you remember he listed me and another poster as being rabble rousers or something of that ilk.
To paraphrase "this was a nice board until ****** and ljb began causing trouble."
This is not an exact quote.
So lighten up a bit lsbets

Tom
01-25-2004, 10:18 PM
That is all I hear theses days-who can we run that will beat Bush?
Whatever happened to who can run that will do a good job of running the country? Personally, I would seriously consider a legit candidate that offered me an alternative, butr what do I get?
Bush on the one side and an idiot to named later on the other side. God help us all if Bush is the best the republican have to offer. But looking at the Gang of 7, he sure looks presidential.
Fer crying out loud, I am writing in a vote for Dave Schwartz! The others are all below par, but he has good pars! :rolleyes:

Secretariat
01-26-2004, 12:47 AM
Think I'm going with John Kerrey. He seems the most balanced of the other. Former Vet, good environmental record, pretty good speaker, and Newsweek shows he'll beat Bush today in a poll. I think he has the best chance of winning for the Dems. That said my guess is Edwards will win the South, and take the whole Dem nom.

PaceAdvantage
01-26-2004, 02:12 AM
I hate posting this, because I've unfortunately been wrongly painted into the "Bush Lover, Ultra Right Wing" corner by Amazin and LJB simply because I don't agree with them on most everything they post.

However, with that said, I don't think Bush would lose to Kerry if the election were held today. There is simply too much riding on the current administration to bail on them now, and I think the American people appreciate this. The American people and the Bush administration suffered through 09/11 together, fought against terrorism together, toppled Hussein together, and now are rebuilding Iraq together.

It's not like America to turn its back on a President in this kind of situation. Unless the economy suddenly takes a major turn for the worse, or we are attacked again in some catastrophic way, I just don't see Bush losing this election.

I'd be surprised that after all America has been through these past 4 years, they'd look to switch gears at this point. Bush is really going to have to screw things up to lose this one.

That's not to say everything is rosy at this point. I still firmly believe the economy is on VERY shaky ground, and is at a crossroads. We could easily swan dive , and if we do, it will be harsh and it will hurt, and it will hurt Bush badly.

Iraq is also a very dicey situation as well, as any war would be to any administration. Things could turn on a dime one way or the other on any given day.

So, with all these questions hanging in the air, why would America add to the turmoil by switching adminstrations in "midstream" if you will? It doesn't make much sense, unless of course things really turn ugly between now and November....

JustRalph
01-26-2004, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Secretariat
Think I'm going with John Kerrey. He seems the most balanced of the other. Former Vet, good environmental record, pretty good speaker, and Newsweek shows he'll beat Bush today in a poll. I think he has the best chance of winning for the Dems. That said my guess is Edwards will win the South, and take the whole Dem nom.

You forget to mention his voting record is "highly liberal"

and he has been in Ted Kennedy's shadow for years. Not to mentino M. Dukakis when Kerry was his Lt. Governor.

Secretariat
01-26-2004, 09:02 AM
Of course Kerry has a liberal record. He's a Democrat and from New England. What's wrong with that? He fought for his country, got two purple hearts.

As to the associations of Kennedy and DuK, frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. Because Bush is close friends with Kenneth Lay does that mean he's Kenneth Lay?

Let's judge the man.

JustRalph
01-26-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Secretariat
Of course Kerry has a liberal record. He's a Democrat and from New England. What's wrong with that? He fought for his country, got two purple hearts.

As to the associations of Kennedy and DuK, frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. Because Bush is close friends with Kenneth Lay does that mean he's Kenneth Lay?

Let's judge the man.

Ok...I judged.....too Liberal......thanks for playing......

Tom
01-26-2004, 05:17 PM
A constitution for Afghanistan was passed today. This is a step towards freeodm for a nation that only about a year ago was attending public hangings in the soccer stadium, tortured innocent people, degraded women and harbored terror camps.
Long way to go, yes, but had we not gone in........

doophus
01-26-2004, 09:33 PM
The following is from an email I received today.

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election: population of counties won by Gore=127 million, Bush=143 million; square miles of land won by Gore=580,000, Bush=22,427,000; states won by Gore=19, Bush=29; murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore=13.2, Bush=2.1.

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

Secretariat
01-26-2004, 09:48 PM
Did Professor Olson mention there may have been something called the Pelleponnessian War with Sparta that may have contributed to the fall of Athens, or did he put it in such simplistic terms?

Secretariat
01-26-2004, 09:58 PM
By the way there is one thing that Professor Olson missed in her 2000 statistics. GW Bush Jr. actual votes=50,456,002 and Al Gore=50,999,897. About half a million more PEOPLE, not land area, not

The concept of democracy is based on people voting and well generally the one with the most votes wins. And since that didn't happen here, well, kinda shoots the 200 year democracy theory. We are a representative republic, not a true democracy.

ljb
01-26-2004, 11:26 PM
We appear to be heading in the direction of bondage.

PaceAdvantage
01-27-2004, 12:52 AM
Where were you BEFORE the election? I didn't hear any of you screaming "DOWN WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE" before the election!!

Now you are complaining about our democratic process after your guy loses!!!

If it had been the other way around, would you still be complaining about a candidate who loses the popular vote but still is elected president? Doubtful....

If Kerry beats Bush in the electoral college but loses the popular election, are you going to be first on this board to void the election as you have done with the 2000 results? Again, very doubtful....

Get over it already....

hcap
01-27-2004, 08:44 AM
PA

The 2000 presidential election divided this country. We may argue from both sides about "the count", but I think this sort of sums it up

Paul Krugman---

"The disputed election of 2000 left a lasting scar on the nation's psyche. A recent Zogby poll found that even in red states, which voted for George W. Bush, 32 percent of the public believes that the election was stolen. In blue states, the fraction is 44 percent."

If there was a clear acceptance of the results, even the red should be in the single digits. 32% is extraordinary.


My strong feeling at this point is that Preznit bush will loose this one.

About Bush--
ED GILLESPIE, Repub chair says: Most voters share his views on critical issues involving our national security, creation of jobs, and who shares their values.

The latest CBS/Newsday poll shows otherwise--

Only 41% think he shares their priorities – and that measure has declined quite a bit since early 2002. And fewer than four in ten have confidence in his economic decisions, down from 47% a year ago.

Only 30% say he is more interested in protecting the interests of ordinary Americans than in protecting the interests of large corporations. Just 39% -- fewer than before -- have confidence in his ability to make the right economic decisions.
And-
52% of whom now say they do not want Bush elected!!

Also the preznit appears to be loosing some support from his base.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/27/cpac/index.html

"The conservatives are outraged -- about Bush."
At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, foot soldiers of the right rail against the big-government, free-spending ways of the White House."

"Yet all the fervent vituperation couldn't hide the widespread feeling of disillusionment. At last year's CPAC, worship for the president was almost cultlike -- people festooned themselves with T-shirts and buttons bearing his face and bought up George Bush mouse pads, mugs and handbags. The same merchandise was for sale this year, but it wasn't moving as swiftly. By Saturday, Bush baseball caps had been marked down from $15 to $3."

Veteran anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, ---

"Schlafly, whose denunciation of the downward pressure on wages caused by globalization won standing ovations. "It's a terrible betrayal of American workers to make us compete with cheap labor from the rest of the world," she cried while the crowd cheered. Suddenly, the lower-middle-class rage that Republicans have so effectively deflected toward supercilious elites and parasitic minorities was turning back on the GOP."

"Later, at a panel called "Previewing the 2004 Elections," Jeff Bell, a lobbyist who pushed for Bush's 2001 tax cuts and his faith-based initiatives, acknowledged that the upcoming election was going to be a rough fight. "Democrats are wising up," he said. "They're not going to be the sitting ducks that Max Cleland and others were in 2002," referring to the former Georgia Democratic senator who lost three limbs in Vietnam but was nonetheless tarred as a traitor by Republicans."

And what will I think really spell the end for the neocons is the issue of Iraq, and ESPECIALLY 9/11

Cheney and other masterminds of empire building have made the wrong enemies--the intelligence community.

The diehards in this administration are trying to wiggle out of pre-war exagerations, trying to shift blame to the guys that supplied the info.
Not a good idea. As the election approaches the Dems will track this story down and begin to destroy any credibility remaining. And he failures of 9/11 mayl become THE major focus, as courage returns, and the smell of blood is fresh

Heres what I mean

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/27/cheney/index.html

Jan. 27, 2004 | Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that a magazine article, based on leaked and unevaluated intelligence, definitively proved links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has triggered a new round in the Bush administration's conflict with the intelligence community.

"It's disgusting," said Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA chief of counter-terrorism. "It's bullshit," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who served in the agency's Near East division.

Cheney's touting of the leak was also condemned by Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, who demanded an internal White House investigation into whether Cheney violated national security laws by appearing to confirm the contents of the article, which reprinted classified information.

The conservative Weekly Standard published its article on the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, "Case Closed," by Stephen Hayes, in its Nov. 24, 2003, issue. The piece, released on Nov. 14, was instantly promoted as providing proof for the Bush administration's assertion that Saddam was long involved with Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization. Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes trumpeted the article on Fox News. "These are hard facts, and I'd like to see [skeptics] refute any one of them," he said.

But the Department of Defense did just that. On Nov. 15, the next day, the Pentagon issued an extraordinary statement calling the story "inaccurate" and explaining it was based on raw intelligence (or a "classified annex") that had not been evaluated.

"The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."
see: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/27/cheney/index.html

Bye bye bush

ljb
01-27-2004, 08:58 AM
I have heard Republicans call out "Class Warfare" many times. It appears Professor Olson is a master of creating "Class Warfare"
To paraphrase:
The landed gentry voted for Bush while, the serfs voted for Gore.

As far as the people asking the government for handouts, we cannot blame that on one political party, just look at the handouts distributed by the current party in power. In the form of pork and deficit spending.

hcap
01-27-2004, 09:43 AM
Tom what number should "It was the oil stupid" be.

Maybe 1 ?

I am not sure if oil was THE reason but I would certainly include it right after Empire building, and crony capitalism. So let's make it 3 or 4.

In the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, US oil companies doubled their imports of Iraqi oil. According to government figures, US imports of Iraqi oil, which increased steadily following the November 2002 elections, almost tripled from November 2002 (9.57 million barrels) to February 2003 (25.78 million barrels). Iraqi oil imports almost doubled in the weeks following December 2002.

In March 2003, the month US troops invaded Iraq, US petroleum companies imported 22.9 million barrels of Iraqi oil. For yearly and monthly US imports, see http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/press.html#prior

Since we were at war with Iraq by the last half of March, that entire month's usual amount of imports, nearly doubled, had to have been shipped from Iraq during the first half of March. In other words, our oil companies’ imports from Iraq effectively quadrupled during the first half of March.

In January, but much more likely in November or December of 2002. Just lining up the extra tankers that would be required for doubling their imports must have been a time-consuming job for the oil companies, particularly if they had to hire some of those tankers and consider what jobs were already scheduled for them. No doubt they had to pay a premium in order to have them at an Iraqi port on the date they would be required (maybe that's why our gas prices shot up).

How did the oil companies know they had to move that much oil in half a month? I guess it was just a prudent buisness decision? I mean back in nov. and dec., even the preznit said something like "war is NOT inevitable". Maybe some of the oil CEOs had advanced copies of O'Neills book?

In April 2003, US imports of Iraqi oil totaled at least 18.8 million barrels, and some estimates give 21 million barrels. Yes, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, with US troops given the mission of controlling Iraq, somebody was pumping millions of gallons of Iraqi crude out of the country. Evidently somebody felt that to the victors belong the spoils.

While Iraq itself, in need of basic supplies, its most valuable resource was being shipped out of the country as fast as possible -as the coalition of the willing (cough, cough) was pleading inability to restore even household electricity in Baghdad.

It seems moving oil out of Iraq was planned well before we invaded.
And since oil companies are multi-national I'm sure it just wasn't the US end of the multi-nationals that profited.

Too bad our miscalculations about the situation AFTER the war destroyed the planner's plans.
With the pipelines hit by repeated sabotage and other resistance acts, US imports of Iraqi oil dropped to only three million barrels in May, and collapsed to a trickle in June. Of course if the "occupation" was a cakewalk like planned, maybe bush would be smiling instead of smirking


--and then there's Haliburton

JustRalph
01-27-2004, 09:49 AM
That sure was a lot of typing to say the same old sh#$


The convervatives and all the Red states can be pissed at Bush.....but they sure as hell are not going to vote for a Democrat. That puts an end to all your points. If you voted for Bush in the last election......for whatever reason.......you can be as pissed as you want to be.......you are not going to vote for a Dem now. The Dems are just not a better choice. I always say it is the least dangerous of the two that the heartland votes for, on many fronts. And those red states see the Dems as the party of Late Term Abortion, Gun control, Higher Taxes. I can be pretty pissed......but I won't vote for those three issues no matter how pissed I get.

ljb
01-27-2004, 10:08 AM
Well Jr,
We agree on another point. Abortion i am against abortion also.
However gun control is another issue.
On taxes i would ask you how do we pay the bills?

hcap
01-27-2004, 10:12 AM
Ralph

If this election is as close as 2000, independants, ex-Naderites and I suspect some old fashioned Republicans and Conservatives-not neocon subscribing fox watching republicans, will choose Kerry or some other Dem. Already the stats I listed from the CBS poll are showing that possibility.
Only a few who now switch their vote to blue instead of red, are needed to turn it around.
The article about loss of SOME republican support, is NOT "the same old sh#$"

"By Saturday, Bush baseball caps had been marked down from $15 to $3."

Neither is the growing dispute in the intelligence community. "the same old sh#$"
Rather, it is rapidly growing sh#$ !!

Don't expect any Democrats to defect to bush. Feelings are just too anti-bush.

And the scandals brewing, will bubble to the surface as the election approaches.
Karl Rove is smart, but he will have to run interference on too many questionable plays

Lefty
01-27-2004, 11:41 AM
ljb, asks without taxes how do we paythe bills? Well, lesser taxes lead to a better economy and a better economy leads to more money being landed in the govt's lap. When Reagan cut taxes dble the money landed in the govt coffers. That's why it's disingenous when the Dems keep asking how can we afford tax cuts? Tax cuts don't cost they add to the coffers.

ljb
01-27-2004, 12:36 PM
Hate to burst your bubble Lefty but both Reagan and Bush senior raised taxes. Reagan in his second term, Senior in his only term.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 12:53 PM
lbj, bubble not burst. reagan lowered the effective tax rate thereby lowering taxes. Coffers doubled. He raised taxes second term because the lying dems promised a spending reduction. The lying Dems reneged on that promise. G H. Bush railroaded by Dems into raising taxes because they threatened to shut dn the govt and blame it on republicans. They did this during Clinton's adm. These ain't the same old dems mom and dad voted for. The days of Truman are gone.

ljb
01-27-2004, 01:03 PM
Lefty said
" He raised taxes second term......"
Thanks for clarifying my point.
Senior raise taxes in his only term, point conceded by Lefty.
Then Clinton raised taxes again, then Economic Prosperity for ALL.
nuff said;)

hcap
01-27-2004, 01:48 PM
Triclenomics ?

"if the horse has better hay to eat, the birds will eat better"- it being understood that birds eat manure.
First of all not everything was so rosy.

And since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy.
Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.
Hey Lefty should I remind you?
As Ross Perot would say---
DA CHART

http://www.bushwatch.com/deficit.jpg

Former House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, commented: "Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes.' They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, user fees' and revenue-enhancers.'

Even poppy bush had called supply-side trickle down stuff "voodoo economics
Too bad junior didn't listen to senior
In fact George W. Bush sounds like an echo of 1981's reagonomics, particularly the military spending---

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/reich-r.html

"By the administration's own admission, these initiatives will generate $1 trillion in total deficits over the next five years. That's not counting the cost of going to war, occupying Iraq and defending the homeland from further terrorist attacks"

Today, a large percent of the U.S. economy consist of imported goods.
The rich would still spend their money for goods and services, but much of it would end up to pay wages of foreign labor that made these goods.
There are few products sold in the U.S. today that are American made or contain all American made parts.
Money spent by the rich is no long distributed among American workers, but are now shared by workers in foreign countries. Many Americans that used to have jobs in these sectors are no longer employed.

This a global economy.
This situation is not unique to the U.S. worker alone. It is happening to workers in Germany, Britain, France, even Japan.

The globalilized capitalist is free to buy in one part of the world, produce in another and sell in a third. Lack of wealth forces the isolated consumer to sell his labour and buy his needs in one locality. This is economic asymmetry.

A North European worker enjoys a much higher standard of living for his labour than does a worker in the Third World.

A pound of beans grown in Somalia and sold in the USA costs far less to the buyer as a proportion of his total income, than does an identical pound of beans grown in the USA and bought in Somalia. Yet beans are beans. Wherever they are grown and wherever they are sold, they still provide exactly the same proportion of the protein and energy needs of the human body. They have the same value, but not the same ECONOMIC value!!

Since the President took office:

2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost, the worst performance for any President in over 50 years.

an additional 2.8 million people have become unemployed. Long-term unemployment (jobless for six months or longer) has tripled.

real GDP has inched up at only a 1.5 percent annual rate, the worst record for any Administration in over 50 years.

real business investment has fallen 11.8 percent, the worst record for any administration in over 50 years.

industrial production has fallen by 2.7 percent.

the value of the stock market has plunged by $4.6 trillion.

the Conference Board's consumer confidence index has dropped to its lowest level in a decade.

the trade deficit has swollen to a record $436 billion, a 15 percent deterioration in just two years.

If the administration wants to stimulate the economy, it can reduce taxes withheld from the paychecks of working families. This extra money will be spent almost immediately, and it will be spent in local communities where it is most needed.

Arianna Huffington--

"Over the last 20 years, Americans have been doused with regular sermons on the supposed correlation between unregulated markets and higher standards of living. In the process, the American people were demoted from citizens to consumers, and sold a bill of goods about how the almighty market was the essential foundation of democracy. Accepted notions of public protections -- of the environment, of workers, of the poor -- were scrapped, cast out as superannuated relics

It would take a while -- and the fall of Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Sam Waksal, et al. -- before the invisible hand was exposed as a pickpocket. But even after the free-market parade had to be called off on account, not of rain, but of fraud, we have begun to hear the trickle-down marching bands warming up in the distance, ready to play their familiar siren songs. It's time we resuscitated Mark Russell's definition of trickle-down as "something that benefits David Rockefeller now and Jay Rockefeller later." Or, to be a bit more current, George Herbert Walker Bush then, and George Walker Bush now."

"When the aristocrat comes, the peasant bows low and farts silently"

hcap
01-27-2004, 02:05 PM
By the way, at the rate manufacturing jobs are dissappearing, and soon the great sucking sound of India taking software jobs, the only thing left will be the 7-11's, walmart, and Abus' Quickie Mart.

And of course the laundries-- when we can no longer afford washing machines.
Now since the corner laundry also will not be able to afford washing machines, the old fashioned hand wash will return.
But who wll they employ, now that doing the wash is labour intensive? Well let me put it this way,

-- you will do my wash and I will do yours!

Hope the minimum wage is above $8.00 around 2010, so I can buy plastic xmas tree ornaments for my 8 inch plastic 2010 xmas tree.
They generally have a closeouts at walmarts

ljb
01-27-2004, 02:42 PM
Hcap,
Sorry to say this but, I just saw Bush on CNN with the President of Poland. Seems he wants to import some indentured servants from Poland so the jobs at Walmart, 7-11 and Abus Quickie mart will be taken by the immigrants. You'll just have to survive on your horse play winnings. And any tips you get from Lefty for doing his laundry :D

hcap
01-27-2004, 03:16 PM
I have a feeling Lefty will have me fold all his shirts to the right.
That's okay though, he'll have fold all of mine to the left.

Just hope the preznit who will be working in the Crawford laundry, can follow directions correctly. Ya' know the right hand, left hand stuff can be perplexing.

You think there's a "DUMMIES" book for doing the wash?

:cool: :cool:

cj
01-27-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by ljb
Hcap,
Sorry to say this but, I just saw Bush on CNN with the President of Poland. Seems he wants to import some indentured servants from Poland so the jobs at Walmart, 7-11 and Abus Quickie mart will be taken by the immigrants. You'll just have to survive on your horse play winnings. And any tips you get from Lefty for doing his laundry :D

I thought Polish jokes went out a long time ago...real nice! Classy guy!

Lefty
01-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Tax increases did not lead to prosperity. The Clinton Tax increase finally slowed the economy dn. The economy remained as strong as it did primarily because Reagan cut the tax rates. When that was done the tax money coming in to the I.R.S. DOUBLED. What part of that don't you guys understand?
You dems are full of doom and gloom. You are the party of doom and gloom.
hcap delights in showing the deficit charts. But the deficit will go away if handled right. Stand back doom and gloomers and let the optimists get their work done.

hcap
01-27-2004, 03:36 PM
Explain how
"The economy remained as strong as it did primarily because Reagan cut the tax rates. When that was done the tax money coming in to the I.R.S. DOUBLED."
When Reagan RAISED taxes in his second term"the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.Are you saying the IRS cleaned up in Reagan's first term or second? And if the second, why did poppy bush screw up the economy left so pristine by ronny?
Of course all of this occured just before Clinton came in and raised taxes and the economy boomed?

Lefty
01-27-2004, 04:02 PM
If you blve raising taxes booms the economy I can't help you. How come the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax raise and not Geo H's? Answer: It didn't. Economy boomed in SPITE of the tax raised until it became so burdened it bogged dn towards the end of the Clinton era. hcap, if you libs enjoy paying taxes so much feel free to send in as much extra as you want.

ljb
01-27-2004, 04:09 PM
cjmilkowski,
That wasn't a joke. Bush was on cnn with the president of Poland. Where's the punch line?

ljb
01-27-2004, 04:12 PM
Lefty,
Under Clinton's tax raise we finally paid off Reagans deficit and the gubmnt stopped hogging all the money. This left money for the private sector to expand etc. This stuff comes from econ 102 so it may be beyond your comprehensive abilities.

Secretariat
01-27-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Where were you BEFORE the election? I didn't hear any of you screaming "DOWN WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE" before the election!!

Now you are complaining about our democratic process after your guy loses!!!

If it had been the other way around, would you still be complaining about a candidate who loses the popular vote but still is elected president? Doubtful....

If Kerry beats Bush in the electoral college but loses the popular election, are you going to be first on this board to void the election as you have done with the 2000 results? Again, very doubtful....

Get over it already....

PA,
My complaint was the posting of Doophus’, quoting Professor Olson’s selective statistics with implications that those paying the most taxes and those owning the most land somehow should have a larger say on the destiny of our country. My posting the actual popular vote goes to the heart of what a true democracy stands for the vote of the PEOPLE, something Professor Olson ignored. Not once did I mention the electoral college in my post.

However, the origin of the electoral college is very interesting, and how it originated rather than using the popular vote. Read the link below regardless of party affiliation. It’s non-political, but historical It is a good read.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm

As to your question, if Kerry beats Bush in the electoral college but loses the popular vote issue, would I void the election? Well, first, it seems the Supreme Court makes those calls, and second I would be happy simply because I think Kerry would be a better president. But I certainly wouldn’t deceive myself into beleiving that his appointment was an act of a truly direct democracy using the popular vote.

Hope this doesn't get me kicked off the board.

PaceAdvantage
01-27-2004, 05:15 PM
"Hope this doesn't get me kicked off the board"

What an asinine comment Secretariat.

Please explain, in detail, why you think you might be in danger of getting kicked off the board. It's insulting to me to even read this, in light of the fact that I have kicked exactly ONE person off the board in the last year or two....(and HE'S BACK by the way, using almost the same exact user name no less, and I haven't kicked him off again!)

So, please tell me, where have I gotten such a reputation that you are in fear of getting kicked off??

By the way, I USED to take what you had to say seriously, but your comment at the end of your last post shows me otherwise. Thanks for showing me what you're really all about.

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph
You forget to mention his voting record is "highly liberal"

and he has been in Ted Kennedy's shadow for years. Not to mentino M. Dukakis when Kerry was his Lt. Governor.

Kerry

I have'nt been here much the last couple of days. I've been doing some standouts for Kerry on the NH/MA border Towns.

Did you know Kerry is 1/2 Jewish? Do you know he was born into a lower Middle class life? And his real name is something like kerristicstien? or something like that... His Birth name is Kerry...but he's eastern european in roots... His parents chopped it.
And that FORBES middle name isn't the Forbes Magazine Forbes,,,

They are the Cape Cod Massachusetts Forbes. Fishermen and Cranberry Farmers.


But thats reagrdless. John Kerry was President of the YALE political society. The only Junior in the History of that Society to attain the presidency.
KERRY had to Borrow his Tuition to even attend YALE.



And as the President of the YPS he was responsible for arranging speakers and debates for the Society... and as such he was in contact with Senators, Congressman, Prime Ministers and world leaders that speak at Yale every weekend... Just like they do at Harvard every weekend.

He sewed his political roots the old fashioned way... he earned them.

He drives a Harley around Boston,, and flys his own Helicopter around New England...

He flew over me the other day with a big "DONALD TRUMP" for Kerry" sign on it.


Did you happen to see the Republican who came out for Kerry in IOWA? Said he saved his life. By his own admission...

Kerry, while commanding a patrol boat.... turned up river...under Fire and pulled a wounded soldier from the water... all the while UNDER FIRE. That man is a Registered Republican from the west Coast....and he never saw or heard from John Kerry again,,,

Until he saw him running for president and HE called Kerrys Campaign and asked if he could tell the people about John Kerry.


and another over Looked fact... KERRY Volunteered for two (2) tours of Vietnam Duty.....2!


John Kerry graduated from Yale, and enlisted in the Navy. While serving as a swift boat captain, patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, Kerry was honored for his bravery and valor, earning a Silver Star, three Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star with Combat V awards. When he returned home after two tours of duty he became a cofounder of Vietnam Veterans of America. Throughout his career, as a veteran himself, Senator Kerry has been a consistent and tireless advocate for a wide range of veteran's issues, including health care, exploring the causes of Agent Orange, and creating employment opportunities for veterans.


I don't know who will win the 2004 election. But If I was starting an ARMY or a country... John Forbes Kerry would be on my team looong before that rich good ole boy from texas.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 06:19 PM
lbj, stop already i'm laughing my arse off. You really do blve tax raises lead to a better economy, don't you? Scary. Hell let's just raise em to a hundred percent and really get going.

Sec, once again, Gore was first to raise spectre of the courts. The Supreme court only got involved when the Fla court illegally interfered.
And you dems conveniently forget about a lot of military votes that didn't get counted because bags and bags of em got misplaced somewhere on a ship and then were disqualified for not arriving on time. Who do you think most of those votes would have been for?

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, stop already i'm laughing my ares off. You really do blve tax raises lead to a better economy, don't you? Scary. Hell let's just raise em to a hundred percent and really get going.

?

Lefty... whats Arnold doing in California? a 15 Billion ,,, B as in Billion... bond offering.

He's borrowing 15 Bil....

Even republicans know...

You spend into a weak economy and take from a Growing economy.

When ARNIE borrows 15 Bil.. its a Bill the kids in high school in California will pay off later. I care about that. Not whats in my pocket today. Bigger Picture.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 06:25 PM
Kerry might have done all that, but how does that qualify him to be President of the United States? His liberal voting record spks for itself. That good ole boy from Texas doing one helluva job but since he's not a Dem he must be defeated. Politics before the good of the country is the Dems mantra.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 06:26 PM
Suff, clearly the Calif's elected the wrong Republican. No argument there. And what the hell's that got to do with tax raises tax cuts or whether some damn liberal should be Pres because he saved a Republicans life?

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
Suff, clearly the Calif's elected the wrong Republican. No argument there.

Schwarzenegger's $4 million loans ruled illegal
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 Posted: 3:16 PM EST (2016 GMT)


.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED
Ruling: Camp v. Schwarzenegger (FindLaw, PDF)

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Recall

Justice and Rights

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?


SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger broke a state law during the closing weeks of the recall race when he took out $4.5 million in bank loans to help his cash-starved campaign, according to a preliminary ruling from a superior court judge.

If Monday's decision is upheld, the governor could be forced to pay back the loans out of personal funds.

"The judge has agreed with us in a strongly worded position that these loans were illegal," said attorney Lowell Finley, who filed a lawsuit in October attempting to stop Schwarzenegger from funding his campaign with bank loans that could be paid back by donors after the election

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
Kerry might have done all that, but how does that qualify him to be President of the United States? His liberal voting record spks for itself. .

Your right... he's over qualified.

He a two tour war hero
He's well educated (legitmately and earned)
He served his state in both the state congress and executive offices
He's been a senator since 1984.

What more should he have done? Owned a 2-bit sports franchise?

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:44 PM
and also... for your consideration.

John Kerry broke into Politics how?

Not as a Governer.....like Bush... Liek some stinking piece of Royalty.... as a Birth rite.

JFK won an election for an Assistant County Prosecuter. Middlesex county Massachusets. 1976.

Spent his first 2 years solving back logged raped cases and designed the first RAPE CRISIS Crime unit in our state. So as to prevent the same backlog.

JFK solved crime and prevented crime while GWB as out Drunk Driving with Arthur Ashe.


Put that in your pipe.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 06:47 PM
Suff, I pointed to his voting record and you give me a list of other stuff. I am against liberals. They raise taxes and every damn one of them including Kerry would cede our sovereignty to the UN. No thanks. Kerry voted for the war now tries to make the excuse that he really didn't. And that he voted for war as a last resort. He's not even got the guts to own up to his own vote.
And I never was for Arnold I was for McClintock, and they won't let me vote for governor of Ca anyway so why bring it up?

Lefty
01-27-2004, 06:49 PM
Birthright? Didn't the people of Texas vote for the guy?
Kerry's a liberal and I don't like their ideas.
Put that in YOUR pipe.

Suff
01-27-2004, 06:57 PM
I respect your posistion Lefty.. I really do,,

And I share the same concerns about the Democrats that you do.

I'm not a Hard core Liberal. I am mostly left leaning. I think it the best way to protect our civil Liberties and value the individual.

I can see where others disagree with me...and I respect that..

I'm going back to horses now.. Nice chatting with you...

I'll leave you with the BEST news of the day.

The SUPREME Court nixed a Portion of the PATRIOT ACT today.

Amen to that.

heres a Headline you got to love... A PERFECT WORLD>>

Today

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Justice Department investigation into possible civil rights and civil liberties abuses under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act found no abuses a report released Tuesday.

Among the 1,266 recent civil rights and civil liberties complaints received between June 14 and December 15, 2003, only 17 involved Justice employees and merited a full investigation, according to the report by Glenn A. Fine, the department's inspector general.
The report found no civil rights or civil liberties abuses specifically related to the Patriot Act, which allows more phone taps, expanded search powers and other surveillance techniques



Did'nt JETBLUE just pay a 2 million dollar fine for sharing Passenger Information that Violated our constitutional right to privacy?


But the GOVT audited itself an found it was 100% perfect. Funny stuff.

Suff
01-27-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
Birthright? Didn't the people of Texas vote for the guy?
Kerry's a liberal and I don't like their ideas.
Put that in YOUR pipe.

I was Bustin them a little Lefty. Your a good man and I respect your opinion.

ljb
01-27-2004, 07:01 PM
Lefty,
Look in the mirror, I believe your arse is still intact. I did not recommend raising taxes to 100 percent. Using your thought maybe we should just elliminate all taxes. The economy would go like heck hey!!
I knew you would not understand. I was suggesting the gubmnt stop hogging all the money. This can come in many ways including spending cuts and raising taxes.
The current administration wants to do neither. The most efficient method would probably be a combination of the two.
But then you are one that believes in borrowing from the children so you can have your instant pleasure, whatever that is.
Damn borrow and spend republicans! :eek:

Derek2U
01-27-2004, 07:07 PM
Regan years are GONE & they do not apply here. These TaxCuts
are gonna be this country's UNdoing economically. They make
ZERO sense & just shows (me) that #43 wants to unravel gov't
social programs cut by cut.

Suff
01-27-2004, 07:20 PM
money sucks period. I use it as a form of entertainment. Sometimes i have 15 grand in my checking account and sometimes I have 15 even.


I judge my life by different parameters.

What direction is my life taking?
Whats Important to me?
Who & whats important to the people around me?
How do I feel about myself?
How do others who care about me, feel about me?

Somtimes I think we belittle our American purpose when we constantly argue about our differences.

Taxs suck...all taxes are to high. And I live in a state that tax's lung movement so I know....

I thought we came across the Atlantic Ocean and formed a country based on Freedom. Individual Liberty.


Ask not.

Lefty
01-27-2004, 08:22 PM
Suff, fair enough. We'll agree to disagree. Looks like your guy will get the nomination and I look forward to two visions of the country such diverse men will bring.

Lbj, okay, I know you didn't suggest 100% but if not where would you stop? Tax raises don't help the economy, it's nonsense. Cut taxes altogether? Well did you know before 1913 there was no income tax. And then it was only 1%?
I'm in favor of a flat tax and did you know Russia bt us to it and their economy soared?

Derek, Reagan is still relevant. Those rate cuts saved the country and still contribute to a good economy. Do you remember Jimmy Carter? You show your ignorance.

Secretariat
01-27-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
"Hope this doesn't get me kicked off the board"

What an asinine comment Secretariat.

Please explain, in detail, why you think you might be in danger of getting kicked off the board. It's insulting to me to even read this, in light of the fact that I have kicked exactly ONE person off the board in the last year or two....(and HE'S BACK by the way, using almost the same exact user name no less, and I haven't kicked him off again!)

So, please tell me, where have I gotten such a reputation that you are in fear of getting kicked off??

By the way, I USED to take what you had to say seriously, but your comment at the end of your last post shows me otherwise. Thanks for showing me what you're really all about.

Sorry you took that in the wrong light. Was meant as a joke. In a different thread you joked about getting VetScratch off the board. Was just jerking your chain. I guess you took it seriously.

I explained my posting of the "official" 2000 popular vote was in response to Professor Olson's comments about more counties voted for Bush, and more landowners voted for Bush, and you brought up the issue about the electoral college, so I looked to see what made the foundign fathers set it up and posted an interesting link. I guess the last comment you refer to is the "kicking off" part.
Honestly, didn't mean to offend by the remark, but obviously touched a nerve. Sorry.

Hope people do read the link though. It's good reading.

Tom
01-27-2004, 09:59 PM
When are we going to demand a government that represent us?
the candiates target their energies to winning electoral votes, not popular votes. Once in office, they spent thier time serving their party, no tus. When it is time for re-election, they cater to the lobbyists and donators of big bucks, not us.
When the whole system falls apart and every department fails to do its jobs-and 911 happens, they pass homeland securtity crap to take away our rights to make up for thier failures.
You put Bush and the Gang of 7 together and between the 8 of them, there is less integrity, honesty, and loyalty than you would find in a cub scout den meeting. What is the piont of having the right to vote if this is the best they can put up for to choose from?
All the while I was growing up, we had the Iron currtain and the Russians to distract us from the real enemy-our government. Now the iron curtain has rusted out so we needed a new "them" to keep us in line. The arabs fit the bull nicely.
Face the facts, WE don't count. WE aren't what they care about.
This is not a governement of the people, it is a government in spite of the people. Why is it that congress cannot find a way to give us, the people, the same health care coverage THEY have?

PaceAdvantage
01-27-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Secretariat
Sorry you took that in the wrong light. Was meant as a joke. In a different thread you joked about getting VetScratch off the board. Was just jerking your chain. I guess you took it seriously.

Ahhh, it's always just a joke, isn't it?

Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. In that VetScratch thread, **I** wasn't joking!!

:eek:

doophus
01-27-2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Secretariat
Did Professor Olson mention there may have been something called the Pelleponnessian War with Sparta that may have contributed to the fall of Athens, or did he put it in such simplistic terms?
I don't think Professor Olson had anything to say about War or Sparta or even the Athenian Republic.

George

Secretariat
01-28-2004, 12:38 AM
Doophus,

I din't think so.

PA,

I don't know what to say. I can't remember ever joking on this board before, so not sure what you mean it's "always" a joke.

As to your saying you were "not joking" about VetScratch, I'm sorry to hear that because I thought you were. Too bad, I thought she brought in some excellent points.

Secretariat
01-28-2004, 12:40 AM
Tom,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Amazin
01-28-2004, 02:06 AM
Tom

Geez Louize. Lucid.

hcap
01-28-2004, 03:22 AM
Way to go Tom!
Just make sure John Ashcroft is off covering up some statues' boobs, and not tapping your phones.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

hcap
01-28-2004, 03:57 AM
I think this is real reason to be angry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TERR.html?ei=5062&en=6f6d24ae738db297&ex=1075870800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

9/11 Commission Says It Needs More Time to Complete Inquiry
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks announced on Tuesday that it was seeking an extension of its deadline to complete the investigation until at least July, raising the prospect of a public fight with the White House and a final report delivered in the heat of the presidential campaign.

The White House and Republican Congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally mandated deadline, now set for May 27, and a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension.

VetScratch
01-28-2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Ahhh, it's always just a joke, isn't it?

Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. In that VetScratch thread, **I** wasn't joking!!

:eek: Gee PA, I missed that thread. Where is it? All I have are some PMs about keeping the truth private. Is this a departure from that position?

cj
01-28-2004, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by ljb
cjmilkowski,
That wasn't a joke. Bush was on cnn with the president of Poland. Where's the punch line?

Somehow, I don't think Polish immigrants would come here for jobs at WalMart and 7-11. I happen to work with several Poles, all of whom I am sure are much more eductated than you are.

ljb
01-28-2004, 09:37 AM
cjmilkowski,
Perhaps you didn't see the interview. President Bush mentioned his plan for free passes for illeagle imigrants.
The President of Poland said this would be good for polish people that wanted to come to America the land of opportunity.
Bush's plan allows for immigrants to take any job American citizens do not want. Sounds like minimum wage at Walmart/ 7-11 etc.
The education level of our friends/co-workers shouldn't have any bearing on this topic, no matter what nationallity they are.

Lefty
01-28-2004, 09:46 PM
hacap, funny one of the guys that wants to extend is a Dem and funny when he was on the Whitewater investigation he did not want to extend. Funny how that happens, eh?
See, if they can extend to just before the election, they can pull some stuff out of context(like they did with the Knute Gingrich speech a few yrs ago)use it in political ads against the Pres. And that's the bottom line.

PaceAdvantage
01-28-2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
Gee PA, I missed that thread. Where is it? All I have are some PMs about keeping the truth private. Is this a departure from that position?


a) You never MISS anything

b) I PM'd you to keep the threads from getting cluttered with our little debate about Game Theory's program. I stated that I thought you were wrong. Whatever you are trying to imply by using the phrase "keeping the truth private" I have not a clue, but I'll set up a separate forum dedicated to posting all of the PM's that have been exchanged between you and me if that will satisfy your Woodward and Bernstein fetish.

PaceAdvantage
01-28-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Secretariat
PA,

I don't know what to say. I can't remember ever joking on this board before, so not sure what you mean it's "always" a joke.

I was speaking in a GENERAL sense, not specifically to you (although your "joke" is of course included in this GENERAL pool of "jokes"). Yours are not the only posts I read and/or respond to day in and day out.

To clarify my position further, as board moderator, I am often presented with the "just joking" line when someone gets caught with their pants down...it gets tiresome.

Secretariat
01-28-2004, 10:32 PM
Thanks Pa, and sincerely, I do apologize to yourself over any comments that bothered you. I certainly never mean to personally denigrate anyone when I post. I enjoy the back and forth banter by all; it helps me understand the other side's point of view; and though I strongly disagree with many conservative posters here, they often challenge me and make me think about my own positions. Often I go back and research something on my own, and alter my stance as a result (albeit slightly, but it is still an alteration). I think we all want to be open to that. We're never going to convince others to swing totally to our position, but simply to present board members with ideas and information out there that makes us step back and think a bit. If the forum didn't do that, I'd never post in Off Topic.

PA, I appreciate your offering this place to contact others, and although most of my horse posts are generally of the private type of post, these off topic posts help me to also meet some of the others around the stable. But I do beleive sincerely from what I've read here, if only people at the track were allowed to vote, Bush would probably win in a landslide, but then my question to him would be "what's he gonna do to reduce these damn track takes?"

Tom
01-28-2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by hcap
I think this is real reason to be angry.

The White House and Republican Congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally mandated deadline, now set for May 27, and a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension. [/B]

Interesting. The people doing the work say they need more time.
Just what justification for not allowing it to continue does the WH and RNC offer? Inquiring mind want to know.
Just remember, elephant boys......that little "you are either with us or against us" can apply to YOU too.!

Side bar. A lady discovered, during a flight, that she had inadvertantly borught a stun gun and knife onto the plane with her! Yep. We are sure a lot safer today than we were a couple of years ago. Uh huh. Gottcha.
Anyone ever conside that maybe we have not had a second 911 scale attack not because of our homeland security, but because THEY haven't launched one yet?
How many millions/billions of dollars have we spent on security, and this lady walks onto a plane with a stun gun and knife?!?!?!?

Tom
01-29-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by hcap

Just make sure John Ashcroft is off covering up some statues' boobs, and not tapping your phones.



At some point, Ashcroft will try to put a sheet over W and Chenney and that will be the end of him! :rolleyes:

Tom
01-29-2004, 12:06 AM
Ever see this movie? Clint Eastwood comes to town and kills the three gunslingers the town hired to protect them from outlaws, so they hire him. And he takes advantage of the whole town, robs them blind, humiliates them, makes them kiss his ass. They put up wiht his BS because he is the only thing available to stand up to the outlaws that are coming.
I kind of look at Bush like this. Bush is the high planes drifter. He's all we got, but maybe someone else will ride into town.
And the midget that kept ruinning around. lighting Clint's cigars, sucking up to him? Who would that be? Rummsfeld?

hcap
01-29-2004, 05:38 AM
Tom

I can pinpoint where much of my anger with bush originates--

1- the attitude of the white house towards the creation of an impartial investigative panel.
2-after the commission was created the constant obstruction and attempts to block the investigation.

From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58200-2004Jan28?language=printer

Battle Over 9/11 Panel's Deadline Intensifies
New Disclosures Complicate Administration's Decision on Election-Year Extension

" The developments represent a political problem for the Bush administration, which objects to granting the commission a later deadline and has long sought to play down criticism of the government's performance before the terrorist strikes. The administration has also not agreed to the panel's requests for direct testimony from President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that "this White House is committed to making sure the commission has all the information that they need to do their job," but that "it's important that they move forward as quickly as they can to complete their work."


Political plum for the Dems no doubt, but also the most important investigation of last 30 years. Still waiting for an explanation about the massive failure of our trillions and trillions of dollars Norad led defense, to intercept at least the pentagon plane.

Suff
01-29-2004, 05:55 AM
You don't send 500 Americans to die for one reason, and when you were wrong about the reason... Advise me to use your 2nd alternate reason...or 3rd.
I have a zero tolerance on errors resulting in 1000's of deaths.

I'm done with Bush/Cheney.

VetScratch
01-29-2004, 06:11 AM
Thanks Pa, and sincerely, I do apologize to yourself over any comments that bothered you. I certainly never mean to personally denigrate anyone when I post. I enjoy the back and forth banter by all; it helps me understand the other side's point of view; and though I strongly disagree with many posters here, they often challenge me and make me think about my own positions. Often I go back and research something on my own, and alter my stance as a result (albeit slightly, but it is still an alteration). I think we all want to be open to that. We're never going to convince others to swing totally to our position, but simply to present board members with ideas and information out there that makes us step back and think a bit. If the forum didn't do that, it would be difficult to offer this much kitty puke at your alter. Please forgive me! :) :) :) :)

ljb
01-29-2004, 10:03 AM
Thanks Pa, and sincerely, I do apologize to yourself over any comments that bothered you. I certainly never mean to personally denigrate anyone when I post. I enjoy the back and forth banter by all; it helps me understand the other side's point of view; and though I strongly disagree with many posters here, they often challenge me and make me think about my own positions. Often I go back and research something on my own, and alter my stance as a result (albeit slightly, but it is still an alteration). I think we all want to be open to that. We're never going to convince others to swing totally to our position, but simply to present board members with ideas and information out there that makes us step back and think a bit. If the forum didn't do that, it would be difficult to offer this much kitty puke at your alter. Please forgive me. :) :) :) :)
Love and kisses,
ljb ;)

JustRalph
01-29-2004, 10:58 AM
this is turning into a rough room.........

ljb
01-29-2004, 11:34 AM
Hey Ralph,
Did you go to the beauty shop recently? You're looking better.:D

JustRalph
01-29-2004, 11:36 AM
I FEEL GOOD!!!

ljb
01-29-2004, 01:15 PM
Maybe it's the hair, did you have it restyled?

Secretariat
01-29-2004, 06:01 PM
LJB and Vs,

So much for civility and courtesy.

Derek2U
01-29-2004, 06:25 PM
Most posters here don't think b4 they type. its all pre-packaged
ideas w/out reflection. just waiting 2 type ur brillance. and thats
just like society & those big mouths yappin w/out pause. it's
like Lefty's posts & that shitter BoxCar & ******* ++so many of YOU ********* who i wont name cause u would gun me down
or blade me in the nape cause in reality **** ur cowards & like
so many RighT Uber Nerds dont really think ur gonna die & then
what .... ur right conservative fiction will do U what? ur just
ugly bags of manure w/out merit. Now, of corse, as a spiritual
leader of the world, those words are NOT mine, but hey, I gotta
give the opposition their right 2 type their ideas. Im 2 4giving,
i know that, & my luv of the UniVerse is UnboundED. so now
what, just tell us how Regan + Bush41/43 are so right did U ever
ask urself what THE F they could possibly know bout this
complex world when most of U cant unraveL Track Variants?
hehe ,,,,

ljb
01-29-2004, 07:46 PM
Secretariat,
Well Excuse me. I thought this was going to be a thread where we all praised PA.
I didn't have time to post my own praise so i just cut and paste VS's.
I did however add the love and kisses. And the ;) hoping all would see my attempt at humor.
In the past some have been chastised for certain posts and then later said "it was a joke". I am trying to not have to do that.

Lefty
01-29-2004, 08:31 PM
derek, i'd like to reply but the CIA won't loan me a cryptographer to decipher your post.

Tom
01-29-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph
I FEEL GOOD!!!

I knew that you would!

VetScratch
01-29-2004, 10:07 PM
Secretariat,

If you went through all the Off-Topic posts counting denigrations, we would probably be on denigration serial number 10,000, not counting the denigrated targets, which often number in the millions by reference. After your observations about the electoral process, I can't see how your comment, "Hope this doesn't get me kicked off the board," was any more than a wry comment about usually being outnumbered in political haggling on this board.

On my part, and I assume for LJB, copying your effusive apology was meant as parody. Personally, I would like to think your original apology was meant the same way. After all, what did you do wrong in the first place that warranted such obsequious fawning?

Secretariat
01-29-2004, 10:32 PM
VS,

Perception is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Yes, my comment was meant as a wry remark to PA. He took it differently and I apologized. If you perceive that as fawning so be it. Being nasty, witty and snide ain't my thing. I figure if someone's pissed at me, he ain't listening, and then what's the point of a dialogue. Certainly, not to hear myself talk. PA graciously offers this forum. I don't see any big deal about apologizing, or any need to be uncivil or rude. But I like your posts, and you're entitled to your own opinion...hope ya didn't perceive that as fawning.

VetScratch
01-29-2004, 11:21 PM
Secretariat,

I think everyone is grateful that PA presents this board. He is unique, however, because he must wear two hats: as moderator and as participant. By definition, when he speaks as the moderator, he is neutral on issues but not on matters like obscenity and so forth. As PA, however, he interacts like anyone else... in your exchange with him, if you got his goat with your harmless humor, that's fine because it was, after all, PA and not the moderator that you were debating with. I always feel comfortable debating with PA because when he enters debates he is no longer moderating. Give PA credit for knowing which hat he is wearing!

I think your posts usually reflect reason and research as opposed to blind convictions. Carry on!

JustRalph
01-30-2004, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by VetScratch
Carry on!

Aye Aye Captain!!!

VetScratch
01-30-2004, 06:36 AM
JustRalph,

You never MISS anything! Arrogance is a signature trademark of VetScratch, and that last post was sort of like a Big Mac without the sauce... but my microwave beeped, and hence the rushed and unsatisfactory stamp of authentication (i.e., Carry On!).

I apologize for shortchanging folks!

The Pueblo Indians believed the Great Spirit uttered the truth through chosen tribal voices: some female and some male. Because the Great Spirit works in mysterious ways, I humbly accept the mission he has burdened me with... but I really can't fathom why male voices of "The Truth" always seem to be boxers or dribble a basketball for a living! Go figure! :) :) :) :)

hcap
01-31-2004, 07:25 AM
Further info on defecting republicans and independents support my contention only some enligthened conservatives need change their vote to anti-bush to dramatically alter the 2004 presidential election.

from
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1221

"Under New Hampshire law, only Democrats and independents were alowed to participate in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary. That meant that Republicans who wanted to register their opposition to Bush had to do so in their own party's primary.

One in seven Republican primary voters cast ballots for candidates other than Bush, holding the president to just 85 percent of the 62,927 ballots cast. In some parts of the state, such as southwest New Hampshire's Monadnock Region, a historic bastion of moderate Republicanism, Bush did even worse. In Swanzey, for instance, 37 percent of GOP primary voters rejected Bush. In nearby Surry, almost 29 percent of the people who took Republican ballots voted against the Republican president, while a number of other towns across the region saw anti-Bush votes of more than 20 percent in the GOP primary.

Few of the anti-Bush votes went to the 13 unknown Republicans whose names appeared on GOP ballots along with the president's. Instead, top Democratic contenders reaped write-in votes.

US Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who won the Democratic primary, came in second to Bush in the Republican contest, winning 3,009 votes. Kerry's name was written in on almost 5 percent of all GOP ballots. Who were these Republican renegades for Kerry? People like 61-year-old retired teacher David Anderson. A Vietnam veteran, Anderson told New Hampshire's Concord Monitor that he wrote in Kerry's name because the senator, also a veteran, understands the folly of carrying on a failed war. "I feel a commander, the president of the United States, ought to be a veteran," explained Anderson, who says his top priority is getting US troops out of Iraq.

Kerry wasn't the only Democrat who appealed to Republicans. In third place on the Republican side of the ledger was former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won 1,888 votes, more than 3 percent of the GOP total. Retired General Wesley Clark secured 1,467 Republican votes, while almost 2,000 additional Republican primary votes were cast for North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich and the Rev. Al Sharpton. "

bye bye bush
Welcome President Kerry

VetScratch
01-31-2004, 09:14 AM
We have launched a war on terrorism that could not have been scripted better by our enemies with respect to economic futility and damage to our foreign relationships. Our high-tech tactics seem effective until you realize how futile it is to spend $-billions per capita to kill or capture the kind of leadership targets that are truly capable of organizing a systematic threat to Americans.

The Israelis have been "capping" terrorist leaders in a much more cost-effective manner for decades without halting terrorism. Whereas the Israelis infiltrate the terrorist groups and routinely buy "human" intelligence that helps them minimize the cost of assassinations, we are spending far too extravagantly to sustain our tactics for decades. Instead of losing on economic terms favorable to terrorists, we would be better off stalemating them at costs we can actually sustain for decades.

I fear that anti-American terrorists are biding their time until the fall of 2004. Less than $60-million would fund 20 concurrent domestic terror plots aimed at influencing the outcome of our elections. This is a drop in the bucket compared to what the candidates will spend, but it might well determine election results whether or not "sensationalized" plots succeed or are thwarted.

VetScratch
01-31-2004, 09:51 AM
BTW, I hope no one missed Kay's interview with Blitzer on CNN. Kay stated that our combined intelligence agencies include LESS than 100 Arabic-speaking covert agents on the payroll.

You can't exactly expect accurate intelligence from strolling through the bazaars and market squares in the Middle East crying, "Terrorists and WMDs wanted! Quick cash for tips! Terrorists and WMDs wanted!"

JustRalph
01-31-2004, 11:22 AM
in the washington times this last week......for your perusal

Washington Times
Letter to the editor

John Kerry's war record

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned ? and I don't mean his $75 haircuts. When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress
during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an
anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall. Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C.
Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam ? an odd coincidence. As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include
the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.
The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak
province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The
Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial. As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in
Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE
Foreign Service officer and former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973

ljb
01-31-2004, 01:21 PM
Jr,
You posted this under wrong thread. Should be under Kerry:war records.

Tom
01-31-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
BTW, I hope no one missed Kay's interview with Blitzer on CNN. Kay stated that our combined intelligence agencies include LESS than 100 Arabic-speaking covert agents on the payroll.

You can't exactly expect accurate intelligence from strolling through the bazaars and market squares in the Middle East crying, "Terrorists and WMDs wanted! Quick cash for tips! Terrorists and WMDs wanted!"

Interesting. How long do you suppose it takes to build a world class intellignece network? One with sufficient resources in terms of people, equipment, technology, etc, to provide us with the level of information we need in this modern day and age?
Seems that it take more tha a year or two to put his together. So let's see, what year did Clinton begin to rebuild out clandestine department? Oh, wait, it was he who dimalntled it when he decimated the military so that we could have those peaceful years that Ljb misses. What would a strong military and solid intellignece community do during such times of peace anyways?
Why, they might have even had the gall to demand a meaningful response to the terror attacks that were the hallmark of the Bill-bob years.

VetScratch
01-31-2004, 09:18 PM
Tom,

You measure funny! Since the end of the Cold War, the United States share of global military expenditures has grown steadily, including the Clinton years and the military operations in Bosnia and Kosavo.

When global military spending declined, ours declined by a lesser percentage. When global military spending increased, we have led the way. Today, our percentage of global military spending is at an all-time high... and so are our budget deficits... and so are our trade deficits... just as our enemies would hope.

What Reagan's Star Wars program did to the Soviet economy is exactly what the anti-American terrorists have in mind for the United States... and they have too many Americans in their back pocket as dupes.

ljb
01-31-2004, 09:54 PM
Tom said
"So let's see, what year did Clinton begin to rebuild out clandestine department? Oh, wait, it was he who dimalntled it when he decimated the military so that we could have those peaceful years that Ljb misses.
Here's a quote for you Tom.
"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-----Dick Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies, August 2000

Tom
01-31-2004, 11:20 PM
So Chenney is quotable to you now?

Lefty
01-31-2004, 11:36 PM
Yes, cheers to Reagan for the massive build-up of the military. Boos to Clinton who did his best to decimate it. Cheers to Bush for once again making America a force to be reckoned with.

ljb
02-01-2004, 10:50 AM
Tom,
DUH!

ljb
02-01-2004, 10:51 AM
Lefty,
You seem to have overlooked about 8 years. Difficulty connecting the dots?

Tom
02-01-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
DUH!


So, a president is saddled with the military left to him by the previous administration, but not so with the economy?
C'mon, L.....you can't have it both ways.

ljb
02-01-2004, 11:21 AM
Tom,
Please re-read Cheney's quote. He said nothing of economy. This point of discussion is in regards to military, if you wish to debate economy perhaps you should start another thread.

Lefty
02-01-2004, 11:48 AM
lbj, I think you just don't like the dots I connect. In his 8 yras Clinton reduced defense spending mightily. Saddled with that weakoned military, Bush has done a remarkable job. Did you know about 60% of Al Queda has been arrested or killed? ole Bin is on the run. And, oh, we have Saddam. Kudos Bush.
BTW, guess in your primary you will be voting for Dean or Sharpton. They're only ones running that didn't vote for the war.

Secretariat
02-01-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by JustRalph
in the washington times this last week......for your perusal

Washington Times
Letter to the editor

John Kerry's war record

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned ? and I don't mean his $75 haircuts. When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress
during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an
anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall. Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C.
Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam ? an odd coincidence. As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include
the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.
The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak
province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The
Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial. As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in
Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE
Foreign Service officer and former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973

Oh, I love this JR. This is beautiful. I hope Bush reads this verbatim to Kerry when they debate. Equating. a soldier who won the a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts with Jane Fonda is laughable at best, and shows the desperation that Republicans will go to with their old character assassaination approaches. But this time, guess what, ..as Kerry said, "Bring it on." I'd love to see Bush challenge Kerry's patriotism. Read his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Let's rehash our justifcations for the war in Vietnam again. That'll be a great sell to the american people. Let's see- domino theory, fighting the commies there rather than our shores, but let's open up trade with the largest munitions supplier for Nort Vietnam in the interim, Red China. Oh, boy, I can't wait for the debate on this one.

Lefty
02-01-2004, 12:14 PM
sec, know you'd love to see Bush challenge Kerry's patrotism but not gonna happen, my man. Bush has never challenged anyone's patriotism and i'll bet he thanks Kerry for his service.
"as Kerry says, Bring it on"
A cheap steal of Bush's slogan and a cheapshot at best. But, don't worry it'll be "on" All the Repubs gotta do is read Kerry's voting record and it's over. And that's assuming he gets the nomination. I think even that is not a completely"done deal" at this point.
I think Dean has cght the "scent" and will be challenging Kerry's political record.

hcap
02-01-2004, 12:31 PM
John Kerry:

"When I came back from Vietnam, I led thousands of veterans, a few of them are here. We went to Washington, D.C., to tell Richard Nixon and the Congress the war wasn't working. It was wrong and had to stop, Mr. President, you sent us 8,000 miles away to sleep in the jungles of Vietnam; we've earned the right to sleep on the Mall and talk to our congressmen and senators.'

Ok, gets much of the the veteran vote, and much of the anti-war vote.
Already ahead of the preznit in a national poll, and as the neocons visibly begin to disavow almost everything, maybe bush and cheny included, looks like regime change will occur in '04

bye bye bush
:p

Tom
02-01-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
Please re-read Cheney's quote. He said nothing of economy. This point of discussion is in regards to military, if you wish to debate economy perhaps you should start another thread.

As expected, your reply was already "read" long before posted it.
44
45
46

Nice about arguing with libs is that if my internet service goes out, I will still know everything they post - it is all so predictable.
The only unknown is which one will make the post today.
If only horse racing were this predictable.\

OK,,,,,Bring it on!
:D

Lefty
02-01-2004, 12:45 PM
hcap, if Kerry told Nixon he sent them to sleep in jungles of Vietnam he got it wrong again. Nixon wasn't the guy that sent them.
Kerry voted along with almost all of the Dems to give Pres the power to go to war in Iraq. He can hem haw, use the old ploy "I only meant if... but, bottom line, he knew what he signed and if he didn't he shouldn't even be considered for Pres.
It's gonna come dn to voting records not war records.
Welcome to your 2nd Term, Pres. Bush

ljb
02-01-2004, 02:20 PM
Tom,
Are you having a bad day? Relying on coded responses shows a lack of individual thought. My suggestion to you would be:
If you have nothing to say, don't say it.

Lefty
02-01-2004, 04:14 PM
lbj, I blve Tom's coded responses shows YOUR lack of orig. thght.

ljb
02-01-2004, 04:16 PM
Lefty.\,
No telling what you're going to believe next.

Lefty
02-01-2004, 04:42 PM
here's one: I blve 50,000 people now free because of Bush. Kadafe and Iran don't want any part of Bush. N. Korea wants to talk. I blve Bush has done a great job. And I blve he will be reelected.

ljb
02-01-2004, 05:50 PM
Lefty,Just like I said "No telling what you're going to believe next."
By the by Lefty, I want to thank you for joining us in requesting an investigation of the intelligence communitys.
Bush has announced he will start one next week.
Now our only concern is to keep him from appointing some lackey that will just cover up the truth.
Keep up the good work Lefty.

Lefty
02-01-2004, 05:57 PM
lbj, no. 1, Bush won't be doing the appointing.
No. 2, they will come to same conclusions I already gave you: Over the yrs the Dems have seriously crippled the intelligence community.
Can't help it if i'm ahead of the curve.

Also saw Kay on tv today. He said, "iraq was a dangerous place and becoming more dangerous."

"Iraq was becoming a place where buyers and sellers of WMD's came to meet."

And he never faulted Pres. Bush.

Tom
02-01-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
Are you having a bad day? Relying on coded responses shows a lack of individual thought. My suggestion to you would be:
If you have nothing to say, don't say it.

Your posts are so boring and lacking in anything substantive these days, you do not deserve more than two syllables anymore.
47.

ljb
02-01-2004, 07:22 PM
Tom,
The way I read it, you have no good responses and are against the wall. No problem Tom, I can give you a couple days to come up with some responses. Perhaps you can confer with Lefty, no Lefty has no ideas either. Rush isn't on during the weekend.

Tom
02-01-2004, 11:14 PM
46

PaceAdvantage
02-02-2004, 01:35 AM
LOL

ljb
02-02-2004, 09:48 AM
Tom,
7

Tom
02-02-2004, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
7

Make 7
Up yours.

:D

ljb
02-02-2004, 11:39 PM
7

hcap
02-04-2004, 02:57 PM
Bush is going to face a tough crowd come September. That’s when the Republican National Convention hits New York City and officially nominates Bush for a second-term. This is the same New York City that Bush denied tens of billions of dollars in aid to 9/11, breaking a promise to help rebuild the city’s downtown area.
And this is the same New York City that the Environmental Protection Agency, on orders from the White House, told New Yorkers it was safe to breath when reliable information on air quality was not available.

Also just heard that with all the touble getting NYC financial aid, bush is now loaning the UN 1.2 BILLION for modernization. Go figure

"By Saturday, Bush baseball caps had been marked down from $15 to $3."

hcap
02-05-2004, 06:41 AM
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x9998.xml

In a nationwide survey, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry now leads President George W. Bush 51 – 43 percent according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today

American voters give President Bush a 48 – 45 percent approval, the first time he has dropped below 50 percent. While Kerry is the only Democrat ahead of Bush, all Democratic contenders have gained ground on the President.

Lefty
02-05-2004, 11:51 AM
And it means nothing. 3 weeks ago the polls said Kerry was dead meat and Dean would be the nominee. Now all of a sudden the polls mean something? We got a bunch of guys beatin up on the Pres every day during the primary season. It'd be surprising to me if Bush didn't drop in the polls. Blve me, when the public knows Kerry's absurd voting record on intelligence and defense and special interest money, he is dead meat for real. But keep hoping, guys.

Lefty
02-05-2004, 08:25 PM
In 1988 Dukakis was ahead of George H. Bush by 17 pts at convention time. Whatever happened to Pres. Dukakis?

Tom
02-05-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
In 1988 Dukakis was ahead of George H. Bush by 17 pts at convention time. Whatever happened to Pres. Dukakis?


He changed his name to something like, ah, Fascinating? or something like that and now spends his time posting horse racing things on a political forum:rolleyes:

Tom
02-05-2004, 08:43 PM
7

ljb
02-05-2004, 10:29 PM
Tom,
Atta boy you're getting it.

hcap
02-06-2004, 12:14 PM
Sorry Lefty your boy is goin' down to the beat of "brother can you spare a dime".

Things haven't been going so well for the preznit lately
The big thud of his recent State of the Union speech.
The Kay revelations have brought back, front and center, the sheer emptiness of the administration's case on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The violence of the Iraq occupation has exploded. January, in fact, turned out to be the second-deadliest month for U.S. troops since"major combat" operations were declared over. So much for the claim that Saddam's capture would break the back of the Iraqi resistance.

Then there's the way the economy has continued to suck
Key areas-jobs, wages.
The huge and growing budget deficit. The threatened cuts in domestic spending to make up for all the revenue lost to tax cuts.

No wonder Kerry is rising in the polls. There is a real "rebellion" happening.
Enough is enough!

Bye the way, there's a movement affoot to replace dick**** cheney with rudy giulliani. Somebody appears a little nervous.

so.cal.fan
02-06-2004, 12:19 PM
Replace Cheney with Rudy?

Bush could then draw on the 9/11 commander and cheif theme and get a lot more votes.

hcap
02-06-2004, 12:55 PM
Still speculation, but look for signs of cheneys' health problems to develop.

It seems cheney is considered a liability by some repubs close to the preznit, a "loose cannon"
Now that the neocons are losing it and the war is turning sour, baby bush is turning back to poppy bush and his entourage--remember james baker, one of poppy bushs' main men is on a mop up operation--trying to repair the damage in europe and other places. Anyway poppy who was never fond of cheney may feel rudy a clever alternative.

By Jeannette Walls with Ashley Pearson
MSNBC
Jan. 27, 2004
Will there be a Bush/Giuliani ticket in '04?. A well-placed source says that the president will “most likely” drop Dick Cheney from his re-election ticket and his first choice for a replacement is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The issue of Cheney’s health will probably be given as the reason,” says the insider.

Also:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0205-02.htm

so.cal.fan
02-06-2004, 01:04 PM
That's interesting.
I am a registered Democrat, who voted twice for Bill Clinton.
I also voted twice for Ronald Reagan.
While I am not as informed as some of you on board here, I try to listen to debates and decide for myself who is the best candidate.
I have nearly always voted for the winning presidential ticket since 1964.
This doesn't mean I am a psychic or even smart....just means have the same opinion as the majority of the voters, I guess.

I have not yet decided on who will be my choice, but I will not vote for Bush/Cheney. I may vote for Bush/Rudy ticket, I would seriously consider it, anyway.

Lefty
02-06-2004, 01:12 PM
hcap, you have some wild opinions. Desperation, I guess. Kay report said Bush did the right thing.
And we know WMD's were there, cause he used them. Big question is what happened to them. Kay report said Saddam was dangerous and getting more dangerous.
Funny, i'm listening to the radio this morn and economy best in 20 yrs and this after inheriting the Clinton recession, suffering 9-11 and being in a war on terrorism. Damn good job umder difficult circu,stances i'd say. So would most anyone not a registered Bush hater.

hcap
02-06-2004, 01:25 PM
Lefty you appear to be in a time warp or a "spatial anomaly".

Did you see "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray?. Ya know where he repeats the same day over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
That is what you are doing, your not with the program-as it develops. Your back in 2002, maybe 2003.

Kay is not a policy maker, whether he thinks baby bush did the right thing is not as important as saying "NO WMDs in Iraq. We were all wrong"

And just if you do wanna use Kay as a policy maker, he also said this--

"If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly can't have a policy of preemption, Pristine intelligence -- good, accurate intelligence -- is a fundamental bench stone of any sort of policy of preemption to even be thought about."
David Kay said on Fox News Sunday.

"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."--Lily Tomlin

hcap
02-06-2004, 01:46 PM
Hey Lefty

You wanna know where are bucks are goin'? While social programs are being cut and ordinary americans are working 2 jobs to cover basics?

Remember the “peace dividend”—all that money we were supposed to save after the Soviet Union collapsed?
Remember President Eisenhower’s 1961 warning about the military-industrial complex acquiring too much influence?
Since George W. Bush was “elected”, it no longer needs to influence the government—it is the government. Defense spending is out of control.

“A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars. --The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/18/03

“Pentagon auditors spent 1,139 hours altering their own files in order to pass an internal review, say investigators who found that the accounting sleuths engaged in just the kind of wasteful activity they are supposed to expose.”-- AP, 1/10/04 (This occurred in 2001, but was only reported recently)

A new General Accounting Office (GAO) study finds that the cost of 2,993 spare parts purchased in 1998 by the military increased by 1,000 percent or more in just one year. In most cases, defense contractors underestimated the cost of the spare parts then jacked up prices later.
--Bolt (machine) initial estimate $40; actual price $1,887;
--Hub (body) - initial estimate $35, actual price $14,529;
--Nut (self-locking) - initial estimate $2.69; actual price $2,185;
--Radio (transformer) - initial estimate $683, actual price $11,701.”
--Project on Government Oversight, 11/17/00

“And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet ‘for pennies on the dollar,’ a GAO official said.”-- The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/18/03

Tom
02-06-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Lefty
hcap, you have some wild opinions. Desperation, I guess. Kay report said Bush did the right thing.
And we know WMD's were there, cause he used them. Big question is what happened to them. Kay report said Saddam was dangerous and getting more dangerous.
Funny, i'm listening to the radio this morn and economy best in 20 yrs and this after inheriting the Clinton recession, suffering 9-11 and being in a war on terrorism. Damn good job umder difficult circu,stances i'd say. So would most anyone not a registered Bush hater.

Funny how the truth requries so many less words to express it than the spinners need to try to re-write it!
Another great post. Lefty. A tip of the old helmet to you, sir!
:)

hcap
02-07-2004, 08:30 AM
Tom what's the number for "spatial anomaly"?

Time warp is probably 99

Now I know why you started the number shorthand system, you don't have worry yourselves 'bout little annoying details like what Kay said-if you don't know the details, like in good info-"Pristine intelligence -- good, accurate intelligence" , think before you drop the 'ole bombs.
What's the number for "think"?

OOPS, I forgot, "think" is off the scale-you guys only can count using fingers and toes. The preznit uses roman numerals so no point asking him.

:p

Tom
02-07-2004, 10:38 AM
:D

ljb
02-07-2004, 12:38 PM
Tom,
:rolleyes:

:cool:

hcap
02-07-2004, 01:23 PM
From your buddies at Drudge--
2 Items

NEWSWEEK POLL: Bush's Approval Rating Slips to New Low (48; Fifty Percent of Voters Say They Don't Want to See Him Re-Elected (45% Do)... Developing...



Too bad canadians can't vote here.

http://www.drudgereport.com/bm.jpg
Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh
By Jonathon Gatehouse
Feb 6, 2004, 10:24
From
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4987.shtml

"According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President

February 9, 2004-Maybe it's that smug little smile. His penchant for fantastically expensive military photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know that "misunderestimate" isn't a word? "

Tom
02-07-2004, 02:00 PM
I think you overmisundertand his point.:eek:

hcap
02-07-2004, 02:26 PM
Misunderestimate this:
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000

More pictures from home.
Globalization and how those who are "globalized" sometimes respond.

Could be Iraq come to think of it.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/gohome.jpg

:p

Tom
02-07-2004, 02:43 PM
You question his statement yet you believe in Martians????
O-key-doakaly!:rolleyes:



(Al Gore on the far left?)

hcap
02-07-2004, 03:15 PM
Question his statements? Depends on whether or not John (boob) Ashcroft is listening.

Yes I have believed in martians ever since I saw Invasion of The Body Snatchers, the original, not the dud with Leonard Nimoy.

Proof nowadays is the "vegetative" state of the preznit. Had to be snatched a while ago. I'd say just before he became a baseball magnate. Mostly because everything after that WAS NOT a failure, unlike his earlier wildcating oil ventures.
But when the switch took place they apparently forgot some minor nerve connections between the brain and tonque. The booming industry in bushisms, commenced soon after.

No, Gore is in the "earth tones" to your right-after all it is HIS left.

The lone martian to your left-but on Gores' RIGHT is dick**** cheney holding a whip

:cool:

"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."--Lily Tomlin

hcap
02-07-2004, 03:37 PM
Lefty is that you behind the peace sign?
Right on bro.....

:p

JustRalph
02-07-2004, 03:50 PM
Why would you expect President Bush to be popular in a country that embraces many socialist programs and was against the war all along?

I saw Ed Koch on Fox last night and he made a nice case.

A Democratic with Sanity as he calls himself.....

Ed Koch

Democrats Making 'Unforgivable Mistake'
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
The Democratic candidates for president – and many in the media – are trying to make President Bush seem like a liar. In so doing, they are making an unforgivable mistake.
In his State of the Union Address to Congress on Jan. 28, 2003, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, defending himself before the House of Commons for making a similar representation, said last week that the representation was true and comes from a different source than the one that was recently discredited by the CIA.

For me, it comes down to this: If Bush actually did lie to the American public – intentionally stating as the truth that which he knew to be false – then he should be impeached and removed as president.

However, if Bush did not lie, and I do not believe that he did, then Americans of all political persuasions should defend our country's reputation for fair play by displaying their indignation at those who bear false witness.

They can do this by rejecting those candidates and political leaders who have perpetuated that charge and by turning to other TV and radio channels when the unfair and venomous attacks against the president are being aired.

I am a proud Democrat who generally supports Democratic candidates for office. I have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat for president. I believe that the Democratic Party's philosophy is overall far better for our country than the Republican Party's.

At the core of the Democratic ideology is a belief in helping the less fortunate among us. The Republican mantra, on the other hand, is "I made it on my own, and you will have to do the same."

Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better. I believe that the most important issue facing the world is international terrorism, and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for re-election.

I do not agree with him on many domestic issues, ranging from privatizing Social Security to tax reductions favoring the wealthy. However, because of his leadership and successes in the war against international terrorism, he is my current choice in 2004.

Whether intelligence reports about Iraq were accurate or not, the president had a right to rely on information from Blair, America’s most steadfast ally, and his government. If either Bush or Blair knew the reports were false and either is now engaging in a cover-up, that individual should be removed from office.

I believe Democrats and their media allies will fail to bring Bush down, because taking on Saddam Hussein was the right course of action for America.

National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, on "Face the Nation" over the weekend, cleaned the clocks of her two media interrogators and critics, CBS' Bob Schieffer and Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus, with her brilliant responses to their questions. I quote her in part:

BOB SCHIEFFER: The question I have for you this morning: who put it into the speech?

DR.RICE: Well, let's start at the very beginning, as they say. And the president of the United States – the notion that the president of the United States took the country to war because he was concerned with one sentence about whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa is purely ludicrous. And this has gotten to that proportion, that people are saying this statement is why the president took the nation to war.

The president took the nation to war to depose a bloody tyrant who had defied the world for 12 years, who was building a weapons of mass destruction program and had weapons of mass destruction, which he had used in the past, who was a threat to American interest in the Middle East and who, now that he is removed, is giving us an opportunity for [the] Middle East that might finally be at peace and that will not create an atmosphere in which you have ideologies of hatred spawning people who slam airplanes into the World Trade Center. So we do have to put this in perspective.

The president's State of the Union said something that was accurate: This is what the British government said in its reporting. The British, I might note, still stand by that statement. It was not based, they say, on a single source, but on other sources. [End of excerpt]

The lines have been drawn. Let's find out the truth. Congress should hold public hearings on this issue.

I also am in favor of public hearings conducted by an independent commission on the performance of the FBI, CIA and all other national security agencies pre- and post-9/11.

Let the chips fall where they may, and hold accountable those who were negligent in failing to prevent the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.


Edward I. Koch is the former mayor of New York City.

Tom
02-07-2004, 06:05 PM
What is all comes down to for me is this:
If (when) El Qeda attacks agian, or tries to, who do I want in the White House?
Kerry? Ha....not a chance.
Dean? Not unless he can scream like a moron and scare them away.
Clark? even without an El Qeda threat, I don't want trash like this anywhere near the WH
That SC kid? I wouldn't trust him running the local Wal Mart.

For many years, Democratic presidnets have been dismall failures when it comes to protecting our country and waging smart war.
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton....wishy washy losers on the world stage.
Reagen, Bush, Bush....men of actin and success.
Gotta throw out Nixon as a fluke, not even sure he was a human.

Libs have to make a decision....is El Qeda a threat or not,
and if they are not, the Bush has put them out of business. If they are, then we need a strong leader not afraid to take it to them to finishe the job.
I do not see any of the dems as viable Commanders-in chief.

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 06:51 PM
Tom,
I do not see any of the dems as viable Commanders-in chief.When did you serve and at what rank? You don't seem to study military history or foreign relations, but a good military record might bolster the credibility of your opinion.

Tom
02-07-2004, 07:31 PM
You talk about credibility?
Ha!
That's a good one.
I do hve to admitt, though you apparntly spelled it correctly.
As for my opinion, I have one vote to express it-same as every other citizen. The founding fathers thought enough on my opinion to allow me to make it count.
And they call republicans elitists?

12
13
14

ljb
02-07-2004, 07:34 PM
Tom,
I believe VS was reffering to the opinion you voice here, not the one you express in the election.
1
3
7

ljb
02-07-2004, 07:37 PM
Ed Koch was on Faux TV, big deal.

Derek2U
02-07-2004, 07:54 PM
Right On BabE ... tell em stuff that mixes things up. VS ur cool
& omg can i b that handsum? i could show them queer eyes what
style reallY is ... hehe i met that shows' Gay leader like 4 a min &
hehe he was bout 2 talk 2 me but thought wiser hehe. I was
wearing a very casual jacket looked like a grey gym jacket or
sumthin that i bought at a shop called Shanghai Tangs in nyc,
That store got the greatest stuff & the sales R orgasMIC.
(Shoppers its on mad ave about 70th st) i pass there a lot
and so i duck in 2 see whats up. Neways, i lookd so cool in that
oriental look, but not like gurly or even close, and my wife thinks
omg Derek ur "prettier than me" --- hehe ok, so what, ur glamour
also so we both got our styles & so urban thug goes asian.
well, consult the best kung fu movies. neways, all this politics
and whats up well for #1 thing is great that there are so many
morons in the world 2 enliven debate .. i've always thought,
Derek, U should b a world leader, but in what area? thats the
choice i suppose is undecided. i could help the world in so many
ways its kinda hard 2 narrow the field. but i digress, so whats
up with our pres? even if u adore the dolt would U think that
#43 could ever be given the status of a GREAT PRES?

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Tom
You talk about credibility?
Ha!
That's a good one.
I do hve to admitt, though you apparntly spelled it correctly.
As for my opinion, I have one vote to express it-same as every other citizen. The founding fathers thought enough on my opinion to allow me to make it count.
And they call republicans elitists?

12
13
14 Are you sure you know what the suffrage requirements were after the American Revolution or how Thomas Jefferson, for example, viewed suffrage?

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 08:33 PM
D2U,

What's your take on Kaufman's recent speculation that we are now headed for a 25% to 50% devaluation adjustment where the dollar might fall 20% in 48 hours, then decline over 4-to-6 weeks to complete the adjustment... and this was characterized as a "soft" landing scenario for the dollar.

Lefty
02-07-2004, 08:40 PM
hcap, Polls mean nothing at this point. If they did, Dukakis would have been Pres. He wasn't!
Kay said, but you leave out important stuff Kay said. How come you keep leaving out that Kay thought Saddam was a danger. How come you keep leaving out Kay said Bush did the right thing. How come?

JustRalph
02-07-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
D2U, What's your take on Kaufman's recent speculation that we are now headed for a 25% to 50% devaluation adjustment where the dollar might fall 20% in 48 hours, then decline over 4-to-6 weeks to complete the adjustment... and this was characterized as a "soft" landing scenario for the dollar.

You know how to really jazz up a Saturday Night!!!

;)

Lefty
02-07-2004, 08:45 PM
vs, last I heard(yesterday)the U.S. Dollar was driving the world economy.
lbj, Ed Koch, said he's never voted for a Republican in his life, but this time he was going to vote for Bush. lbj, that's big, buddy.

Lefty
02-07-2004, 08:47 PM
and this, a lot of Wallstreet biggos think Kerry would be bad for the economy.

Derek2U
02-07-2004, 08:47 PM
umm i dont think that scenario would or could happen. ONLY
because we would NEVER let it. there are stuff in place to
protect the market & to keep the $$ in balance. these are
special task forces hidden among us that dont advertise but
monitor these swings.

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 08:53 PM
Lefty,
vs, last I heard (yesterday) the U.S. Dollar was driving the world economy.Which way?
:)

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Derek2U
umm i dont think that scenario would or could happen. ONLY
because we would NEVER let it. there are stuff in place to
protect the market & to keep the $$ in balance. these are
special task forces hidden among us that dont advertise but
monitor these swings. I understand what you mean, but the scenario was offered as an actual managed agenda in 2006/7 when politicians will be forced to substantially raise taxes or face another crisis funding current/future domestic entitlements... both the devaluation and attendant inflation would counteract the impact of our two exploded deficits, the budget deficits and current account deficits.

Tom
02-07-2004, 10:11 PM
Careful D,
Don't you know VS knows everything?
World's smartest babe.
Yep. She is hands down the smartest troll under the bridge.
One of the drawbacks to free speech.......you have to let her runonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandon .

Hammerhead
02-07-2004, 10:32 PM
OIL drives the economy, and look at all the jackasses you elected that have oil stocks etc... Look at all the friends of oil producing nations. POLITCIANS Silverspooned Turkeys.
Most CAN NOT do a honest days work, Con Artists. Slippery then a Eel, Able to put over more scams then PT Barnum. At least they know what is best for me and you as long as it increases there wealth. Corruption reigns with all of them.
Enjoy the forum but put your energies and time to were it would do some good. Try to get honest people in Government, that includes starting locally. (Probably worst offenders.)
How many good local and state employes do you know that produce a good honest days work each and every day? Try to improve their job habits and effciance? Refuse to take there sick days etc. Show up on time every time. Able to do there job reliabley with out supervision and enjoy it?
I know you could not work for me if you at least could not handle the above. Never mind compatance truthfullness and loyalty. Being in the latter stages of life I have yet to meet a thorouly honest politcian, and no town, county or state employee that can't help but brag about all the work they do'nt have to do,
and all the time off they have accured.
So to all political debates I say shove it; more crooked then horse racing on its worst day.







:p :p :p :p

ljb
02-07-2004, 11:36 PM
Lefty,
Well let's see Bush has you and Koch, that's a start.

VetScratch
02-07-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Tom
Careful D,
Don't you know VS knows everything?
World's smartest babe.
Yep. She is hands down the smartest troll under the bridge.
One of the drawbacks to free speech.......you have to let her runonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandon . So it turns out VS guessed right... the hawk who wants to attack everything that moves... who feels qualified to select our Commander In Chief... who thinks Jefferson would have encouraged him to vote... has no military experience after all!

Lefty
02-08-2004, 12:07 AM
lbj, I guess Kerry has you and hcap, almost a start.

Lefty
02-08-2004, 12:09 AM
vs, a big so what. Clinton was a draft dodger and Kerry made speeches saying it should not be an issue. Slice that bologna.

Tom
02-08-2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by VetScratch
So it turns out VS guessed right... the hawk who wants to attack everything that moves... who feels qualified to select our Commander In Chief... who thinks Jefferson would have encouraged him to vote... has no military experience after all!

You guess wrong, again, little BS.

1. As a citizen, I AM in the only group that is qualitfied to select the commander in chief- voting citizens.
2. Stick Jefferson up you *ss, babe, YOU mentioned him, not me.
3. There has been zero data posted to base ANY assumptions about my military service or lack of it. Just your dizzy little mind trying to connect dots.

BS, with the vast amounts of intelligence you claim to posses, all the insiders funneling secret info to you, with all your so-called contacts, and even the ability to see the future, why is that no one has ever heard of you and you just another lonley bitch posting sh*t on a horse board?

Let me say those three little word you have longed to hear.....Go hang yourself!:D