More betrayus....

Post #293,902 by Simon_Jester 9/30/07 10:17:08 AM Reply	More betrayus.... <cough> If you're moveon.org....a leftist organization...you can expect to be condemned by the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES (and Presidential candidates) if you question whether or not our military generals have American's best interests at heart. But what if you're Fox News? What if someone writes [link\|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html\|"Our generals are betraying our soldiers....again"]. Why do I expect to see a difference in the outcome? One was a personal attack against a top general? I'd like to agree, but moveon.org had specific reasons ... like questioning the accounting methods for calculating the effectiveness of the surge. Now Hunt is questioning Top Brass (perhaps without mentioning them by name) with specific reasons. Yet, I suspect that no one will condemn his column. Is that the difference? Are we blasting (and expecting Presidential Candidates to blast) people because they used someone's name? (Or is this merely a case of attack the messenger and ignore the message?)
Post #293,903 by Seamus 9/30/07 10:26:09 AM Reply	Is he calling our generals traitors? Inquiring minds want to know. Seamus
Post #293,904 by boxley 9/30/07 10:33:43 AM Reply	a little long on hyperbole very short on specifics what soldiers what terrorist what generals what moveon did was chickenshit but in america chickenshit is acceptable at least we dont have huac meetings anymore, if they brought it back I would have to attend with a fuck you written accross my forehead. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #293,906 by Seamus 9/30/07 10:40:52 AM Reply	I don't usually agree with you But, you are one of the few people I believe who would actually back a statement like this up. How is the moveon.org ad chicken shit? Are you implying they wouldn't say it to his face? I think the ad was unhelpful and impolitic, but not chicken shit. Seamus
Post #293,935 by boxley 9/30/07 8:03:08 PM Reply	petraus like macnamara couldnt be bothered to look up the correct spellings, report to the CIC not congress so will do what his boss tells him. Unless of course it violates US military code. Moveon implying that petraus is betraying america is chickenshit, he carries out the duties assigned. From a military prospective more boots on the ground means more territory pacified so from that view the surge is a success. We have yet to lose a military skirmish in Iraq but that doesnt do a damn thing for the troops there or the Iraqis. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #293,951 by jb4 9/30/07 10:40:39 PM Reply	What duties are those, Box? I didn't know that one of the military's duties is to shill and lie to Congress for the current Administration. When did that become one of their marching orders? (I know the answer to that, but I'd just like to hear Box say it out loud...) jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #293,961 by Seamus 10/1/07 12:01:30 AM Reply	Talk about chicken shit Doing what you are told and coming up with facts to help distort the image of the war actually doing anything towards the long term goals of the administration is chicken shit. Defending him because he is doing his duty when others had the balls to stand up to the administration by calling his detractors chicken shit is just bull shit. Seamus
Post #293,963 by CRConrad 10/1/07 3:12:44 AM Reply	Your "will do what his boss tells him" kind of chicken... ...shit was declared invalid under US auspices. Sixty years ago, at the [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials\|Nürnberg trials]. HTH! [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #293,973 by boxley 10/1/07 9:51:41 AM Reply	so, they are loading iraqis into ovens now? Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #293,975 by CRConrad 10/1/07 10:50:04 AM Reply	No, not as far as I know. Why, does that somehow make... ..."I was only following ze Orderz!" an acceptable justification for EVERYTHING -- except loading people into ovens? If you're just pretending to be this stupid, then stop immediately: It's neither funny nor enlightening. If you really are, then just learn to STFU. That wasy, maybe people won't notice (as much). HTH! [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #293,976 by boxley 10/1/07 10:55:09 AM Reply	try reading my original post where he is required to follow orders except part. You are the one posting about nuremburg trials, trying to equate petraus with model et al thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #293,983 by CRConrad 10/1/07 3:22:57 PM Reply	SIGH...It gets more and more wrong. In this latest post you're wrong on two separate counts in stead of just one. But, WTF, I can't be arsed to correct all your misconceptions any more. Keep cheering. There was a lot of that in Germany, too. In 1932. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #293,986 by boxley 10/1/07 4:37:11 PM Reply	naw, the germans were cheering all the way thru 1941 then the little austrian bastard started losing thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,016 by CRConrad 10/2/07 2:41:43 AM Reply	Uuh... Yes. Logic much, mr Sequitur Strawman? How, exactly, does "there was a lot of cheering in 1932" mean "there wasn't a lot of cheering in 1941"? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,038 by boxley 10/2/07 10:23:31 AM Reply	were you not comparing a point in time? if not what was your point, inquiring minds want to know. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,056 by CRConrad 10/2/07 4:20:02 PM Reply	Two, actually: Germany, 1932, and USA, 2007. You're not at "1941" yet, not by a long shot, was (kind of, one of) my point(s). [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,070 by boxley 10/2/07 8:52:31 PM Reply	long as we dont invade russia in winter and keep the bloody koreans north og the 38th in winter we will muddle thru, although if hillary gets elected all bets are off thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,083 by CRConrad 10/3/07 3:59:59 AM Reply	WTF is WRONG with you? Are you stoned out of your... ...fucking mind, or why the fuck do you spew this idiocy all the time?!? ...although if hillary gets elected all bets are off Why the fuck should "all bets [be] off" if she gets elected? What, excactly, would be so freaking bad about that? She's just a fucking politician -- there is NO particular "evil"() about her that should make you become such a brainless gibbering arsehole as you do become every time someone (including yourself) mentions her. I mean, sheesh... You don't go apeshit as soon as someone mentions The Shrub, do you... And look at the mess he HAS ACTUALLY got you all in! How the FUCK does whatever imaginary bullshit you think you have to hold against Mrs Clinton come within a light-year of that?!? So cut that bullshit out, please. Thank you. (): Not outside the universe of Scaife-sponsored, wingnut-kook conspiracy theories, at least. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,089 by bepatient 10/3/07 6:57:15 AM Reply	Now THERE is a funny non-seq Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,091 by CRConrad 10/3/07 7:28:17 AM Reply	Non? Seemed to follow pretty directly, dinnit? How not?
Post #294,093 by crazy 10/3/07 7:42:58 AM Reply	Nah The devil you know vs the devil you don't. Not that shrub's sticking around (unless he declares himself emperor), but box doesn't flip out on every mention of him. And any of the likely repub shrub followups will most likely just give more of the same - or worse. "Stay the course", throw more money and lives at the bullshit, endless unwinnable war which keeps the people at home scared and pliant. I'm sure that Hillary will attempt to throw money at the masses, but it will be FAR less than what we've thrown at Iraq, and later presidents can stop it without worrying about hundreds of thousands of deaths and pushing us into an oil inspired depression. Also, the money Hillary throws will be spread far and wide, not ending up in the hands of a few selection contractor and manufacturers, which will end up benefiting far more people. So, it is a decent comparison and question. So box, just what evils will that woman attempt that could be worse than the current idiot, and what would your preferred alternative vote be?
Post #294,095 by boxley 10/3/07 9:53:19 AM Reply	the lady's penchant for petty revenge with all the powers shrub has declared the president should have. As far as Iraq goes, she would want to show power so means we would stay the course much longer than any other candidate in the race. As far as sharing the wealth, I dont have any stock in either the chinese army or tyson foods and the sultan of brunai is not a close relative so I dont see any benefit coming my way. Danreck said it best That statement being, "If there is a God that is as described in the Bible, and therefore; an anti-christ as described in Revelation, and that persona is revealed prior to the election and that persona runs against Hillary Clinton, the anti-he/she/it can count on my vote". It is really that simple... thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,097 by CRConrad 10/3/07 10:37:10 AM Reply	Nope, that still doesn't explain WHY you're so mad. Some vague unsubstantiated blather about "penchant for petty revenge" is all you have to justify why you "would rather vote for the Anti-Christ"?!? (Could you at the fucking least give some example?) And you're sure she'll give all your money to the Chinese Army, Tyson Foods (whatever that is), or the Sultan of Brunei[sic] (who hardly needs it)? Even if there were an iota of truth to that -- which, BTW, also sounds far-fetched enough to need some substantiation -- how, exactly, is that worse than giving it all to Enron, Halliburton, and the King of Saudi Arabia??? Vague unsubstantiated bullshit... And such HUMONGOUSLY _R_A_B_I_D_ feelings! Why? How the fuck can such drivel as you spew -- the likes of which could be easily said of ANY politician, be they Democratic or Repuclican (but perhaps more fittingly of the latter, AFAICS from this far horizon) -- lead to such totally disproportionate cies of "burn the evil witch!"? You still haven't explained that. Illustrated it, certainly, but not explained. It's a bit scary, really. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,098 by boxley 10/3/07 11:17:36 AM Reply	isnt isnt 28 years of clinton bush enuff? there is an entire generation of americans who have lived only under a bush/clinton regime, time for a change. I would prefer edwards, could live with thompson or obama but please if you love clintons so much, invite them to move to finland and run your shit. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,101 by Seamus 10/3/07 12:21:56 PM Reply	Re: isnt isnt 28 years of clinton bush enuff? Bill, this implies you are ready to see Sen. Clinton elected. 4 yrs of Bush + 8 yrs of Bill + 8 yrs of shrub is 20 years. You are ready for 8 more years? Or you also counting the 8 years of Reagan? As much as I would like to blame that on Bush, I don't think he much to with that. Back then, being the VP really was a useless occupation. Seamus
Post #294,120 by boxley 10/3/07 6:17:48 PM Reply	yer right, it just seemed like 28 years Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,124 by bepatient 10/3/07 6:35:25 PM Reply	It will seem like alot longer, heaven forbid. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,099 by Silverlock 10/3/07 11:29:57 AM Reply	It's because of the pronoun Box has a bit of a problem with the whole "she" aspect. He's just a good ol' boy at heart. With all of the baggage that goes along with it. I think you already knew that though and are just getting frustrated at his constant harping. ----------------------------------------- Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Post #294,100 by boxley 10/3/07 11:32:08 AM Reply	bullcrap I would happily vote for paglia if she was running. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,126 by boxley 10/3/07 6:43:11 PM Reply	ms I dont know in charge of the gummint? whys is her thesis still sealed after all of these years? Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House. Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar. Bill Kennedy 116 Harold Ickes 148 Ricki Seidman 160 Bruce Lindsey 161 Bill Burton 191 Mark Gearan 221 Mack McLarty 233 Neil Egglseston 250 Hillary Clinton 250 John Podesta 264 Jennifer O'Connor 343 Dwight Holton 348 Patsy Thomasson 420 Jeff Eller 697 just politics as usual, thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,132 by Another Scott 10/3/07 7:59:11 PM Reply	Um, her senior thesis isn't sealed any more. [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis\|Your favorite source]. :-) Vote for the better candidate. Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,150 by CRConrad 10/4/07 5:38:10 AM Reply	Bravo! Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. That seems to be all the scurrilous Scaife-Mellon slanders conveniently bundled into one, yes. And that's exactly what I'm talking about: Do you really think anyone but a deluded wingnut from their Tin-Foil Hat Brigade could seriously believe that shit? That they've managed to amass such a heap of crimes -- and got away with every single one of them? If you really think that, then the Crazy one is right: You ARE a fucking idiot. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,154 by Ashton 10/4/07 7:32:40 AM Reply	Hey, back in the day - My Gramma used to get reams of those 'statistics' to 3-decimal-point precision, out of Human Events - they're still around too: recycling the same stuff -- and it's the mothers milk of 'ol Bill Kristol and fiends. (Most of the present crowd are too young to recognize that whole passages are lifted out of the 50 yo originals. I thought many of those originals sounded a lot like a poor translation of G\ufffdbbels in full throat, during those heady book-burning days.) Nobody could possibly vet 0.1% of the detailed BS arrayed in Times Roman - just as if it were real, and all. Me? I remain 98.34% convinced that there are NO stats on homo saps which come closer than \ufffd 30% as All Humans are Vague - but {ssshhh} don't spoil some folks' largest experience of Participation. Yet more proof that, Boolean or no - Logic just ain't enough when it comes all the way down to 3-digit 'proofs'. And those who Believe in them.
Post #294,156 by Another Scott 10/4/07 7:57:56 AM Reply	Reminds me of a passage in NDCC. In 1973 or so, a friend of mine in middle school gave me a copy of NDCC when he was toying with membership in the John Birch Society. [link\|http://www.amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Conspiracy-Allen/dp/0899666612\|None Dare Call it Conspiracy] by Gary Allen (p.8-9 of the paperback edition) - from 1971: Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the "conspiracy theory of history." Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history -- except those who have taken the time to study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the "accidental theory of history" preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department "stumble" from one Communist-aiding "blunder" to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an "intellectual" who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you're a kook! (Emphasis added.) Even as a young teenager I could see that this passage was a nonsensical rant - attaching a made-up number to it only makes it more clearly the case. (In case you're not familiar with the book - it gets worse. ;-) The more things change... Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,168 by boxley 10/4/07 9:48:34 AM Reply	funny, you seem ready to convict the current whitehouse occupants on much slimmer evidence, unindicted co-conspirator running for president does give me pause. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,175 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:12:59 AM Reply	When was she named an unindicted co-conspirator? Seamus
Post #294,183 by CRConrad 10/4/07 11:40:54 AM Reply	Uhh... "slim evidence" for the lies that got you into Iraq? Or the hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Che^H^H^Halliburton? There's "slim evidence" for all that... Compared to the "solid proof" you have for your lunatic-fringe ravings about Hillary The Murderess, or what? So, how's the weather over there in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,185 by boxley 10/4/07 11:51:13 AM Reply	you gargle yer koolaid this am? Kerry, Clinton (both) claimed the same lies and Brer Bill was looking at the same intel as shrub thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,186 by CRConrad 10/4/07 12:11:44 PM Reply	You're wrong AGAIN! It's pm here. :-) [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,187 by boxley 10/4/07 12:18:12 PM Reply	:-) Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,102 by crazy 10/3/07 1:06:23 PM Reply	As opposed to shrub's penchant for major revenge? Saddam threatened his daddy, so shrub manages to kill Saddam, his evil kids (yes, they all had it coming), and a huge chunk of the population of the country, combined with all the dead and wounded USians? (don't forget Poland! hehe). And yes, I attribute ALL of the deaths to him. And there will be many more. And you consider Clinton and Bush cut from the same cloth? I'm trying to resist name calling. .. .. .. .. eh, screw it. You're a fucking idiot. Sigh. You prefer Edwards? That's nice, I'm sure you also believe in the Easter bunny. Because both of them have the same chance of showing up at the White House. You think Hillary's lust for power means she will extend the Iraq war more than anyone else? WTF? Again, sigh, one name calling is enough. When I say throw the money around, I mean for medical and other social programs. If you are dumb enough to equate money for Doctors and shots to humvees and mililtary contractors, again, WTF? So next, you fall on Thompson? Screw that, he's a more polished Bush. With absolutely no plans. He talks in warm fuzzy generalities. So really he's the anti-candidate. He might be your anti-christ. You have not said one bit of anything other than you hate her, and will support anyone else, and only given absurd accusations. Look into the mirror and say hello to Philbot V2.
Post #294,103 by Another Scott 10/3/07 1:25:47 PM Reply	Fred still says Saddam had WMDs and a nuke program. [link\|http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/thompson_saddam_clearly_had_wmd_and_a_nuke_program.php\|TPM Election Central]. Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,104 by crazy 10/3/07 3:09:43 PM Reply	box doesn't care He's not Hillary.
Post #294,105 by Another Scott 10/3/07 3:14:59 PM Reply	Perhaps boxley is like me. I haven't voted for the winner yet. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,108 by imqwerky 10/3/07 3:16:44 PM Reply	I did, once :-) Say what you will, but Bill could still get elected today. Smile, Amy
Post #294,121 by boxley 10/3/07 6:18:48 PM Reply	exactly Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,127 by bepatient 10/3/07 6:50:26 PM Reply	Heck, alot of folks said that until it was politically expedient to forget they did. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. [link\|http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637\|An op-ed about the leftward drift]. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,131 by boxley 10/3/07 7:51:01 PM Reply	she's a whatever it takes kind of guy get that thumb into the air and listen for wind sheer, wait until after the election for payback central. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,133 by Another Scott 10/3/07 8:02:56 PM Reply	He said it two days ago. He hasn't been paying attention. She has. Did you read the TPM link? Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,134 by boxley 10/3/07 9:52:16 PM Reply	the same she who admits she didnt read the intel report? Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,135 by Another Scott 10/3/07 10:13:56 PM Reply	How many did? Too many people trusted the Bush administrations talking points and presentations and felt they didn't need to read the full report. Nobody can change the past. What matters now is the future. Thompson's comments are yet another illustration to me that he's a lightweight who's running on slogans. It's good to see that he's not very inspiring on the stump in Iowa: [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04thompson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin\|\ufffdCan I have a round of applause?\ufffd]: Still, Mr. Thompson at times seems to be looking for his sea legs. In an interview with Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa on Wednesday, in talking about Iran, he referred to the \ufffdSoviet Union and China.\ufffd (Ms. Henderson, at the end of her blog post on the exchange, wrote: \ufffdNo, I did not mistype. Thompson said Soviet Union rather than Russia.\ufffd) On the first day of his visit here, he attacked the Medicare prescription drug plan signed into law by Mr. Bush in 2003 as too costly. That bill was \ufffdwritten and championed by Iowa\ufffds popular Republican Senator Charles Grassley,\ufffd as was tartly noted in a front-page story in The Des Moines Register, referring to the senator who all the Republican presidential candidates are assiduously courting for an endorsement. See Fred Run! Run Fred Run! Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,169 by boxley 10/4/07 9:50:40 AM Reply	a lazy dimbulb is what we need gridlock, government of champions thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,172 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:01:51 AM Reply	Yeah look at what Reagan did for the country Huge deficits, Iran-Contra, Star Wars etc. Yep, a lazy dim bulb is exactly what we need. Seamus
Post #294,182 by boxley 10/4/07 11:23:14 AM Reply	dot com era, end of cold war yup all bad things Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,184 by CRConrad 10/4/07 11:46:29 AM Reply	Like the other Bill(Hmm,has anyone seen them both together?) ...you are perfectly correct on all points you make, except two: 1: Reagan had zippy-zilch-nada to do with the "dot com era", and 2: It wasn't his doing that it happened to be his watch when the sclerotic Soviet Empire finally ran out of wind. But, as I said, on all the other things you mentioned you are perfectly correct. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,197 by Seamus 10/4/07 4:36:27 PM Reply	Reagan had nothing to do with the dot com era Who sponsored the legislation that funded the creation of the internet? Oh yeah, Al Gore: [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991\|wikipedia] As to how much Reagan's military spending increases led to the fall of the Soviet Union and whether it could have accomplished with costing American taxpayers as much as it did, that's a whole different argument. Seamus
Post #294,209 by boxley 10/4/07 9:02:14 PM Reply	of course lowering taxes hurt the economy...right Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,221 by Seamus 10/4/07 9:52:35 PM Reply	Reading for comprehension - try it some time The issues being discussed are your mistaken impression that Reagan caused the dot com era and collapse of the Soviet Union. Lowering taxes wasn't mentioned. But then again, when has irrelevance keep you from posting. Seamus
Post #294,222 by bepatient 10/4/07 9:54:29 PM Reply	Macroeconomics - study it sometime. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,224 by Seamus 10/4/07 9:56:00 PM Reply	Wasn't the issue Seamus
Post #294,255 by boxley 10/5/07 9:12:41 AM Reply	reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the sovs right, it wasnt his insistance on star wars and defence spending that pushed the sov economy over the edge the nobel folks were wrong as well as all contemporary historians and you the mighty seamus was right. the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense. People tend to blame presidents for faltering economies, as Im sure you blame bush for the current one, so good economies should also be "blamed " on the presidents that caused them. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,259 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:28:35 AM Reply	Did you even read the paper by Yegor Gaidar? He was there and he has presented a strong case in his paper. What evidence do you have? On to Reagan: the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense. No, without the baby boomers, a strong dollar and the so-called peace dividend Reagan's tax-cuts would have looked like Bush's taxcuts are looking now. Seamus
Post #294,272 by bepatient 10/5/07 10:01:45 AM Reply	You must have something against full employment and increasing fed collections. The taxes don't look that bad. Its the SPENDING that is the problem. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,283 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:40:59 PM Reply	No, its believing that you can cut taxes, increase spending for an ill conceived war and get an economic expansion as happened in the 90s without the same flukes of history as point out by [link\|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm\|Linda Bilmes] Seamus
Post #294,287 by Seamus 10/5/07 1:05:44 PM Reply	HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION? (new thread) Created as new thread #294286 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=294286\|HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION?] Seamus
Post #294,230 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:21:15 PM Reply	The issue was did Reagan cause the collapse of the USSR According to [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar\|Yegor Gaidar] the main cause was Saudi Oil policy: In the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet leadership, however, was not intellectually prepared to heed lessons from the School of Salamanca. The shortest quotation about the intellectual capacity of the Soviet leadership came from the Politburo minutes: "Mr. Zasiadko has stopped binge drinking. Resolution: nominate Mr. Zasiadko as a minister to Ukraine." While intellectual capacity was not the strongest quality of the Soviet leadership, they still understood the need to manipulate the oil market. Excerpts from Politburo materials indicate that the head of the Committee for State Security (KGB), Yury Andropov, facilitated contacts between the KGB and the Arab terrorists, who sought assistance for terrorist attacks on oil fields in order to keep energy prices high.[5] The general resolution was that the Soviet Union should support the Arab terrorists in this battle.[6] Yet one of the Soviet leadership's biggest blunders was to spend a significant amount of additional oil revenues to start the war in Afghanistan. The war radically changed the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. In 1974, Saudi Arabia decided to impose an embargo on oil supplies to the United States. But in 1979 the Saudis became interested in American protection because they understood that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a first step toward--or at least an attempt to gain--control over the Middle Eastern oil fields. The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms. As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership. From [link\|http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp\|AEI] . If the Reagan administration hadn't tried to force the USSR to keep up with our military build up, maybe his deficits wouldn't have been so big. Seamus
Post #294,257 by boxley 10/5/07 9:17:38 AM Reply	can you say disinformatsya? probably not Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,261 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:36:19 AM Reply	I forgot the AEI is all about spreading Russian disinformation. The talk was about what the current Russian government is doing to keep from repeating past mistakes, so it has got to be disinformation. Couldn't possibly be anything else. Seamus
Post #294,263 by boxley 10/5/07 9:45:24 AM Reply	if they are trying not to repeat past mistakes they are hiding that activity very well while appearing to rebuild the apparachik machine the invasion of afghanistan had fuck all to do with the price of oil, if you had studies history you would know that. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,269 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:55:39 AM Reply	A fear of Soviet control of the middle east wasn't a big concern for the Saudis? And they certainly have never used oil prices as a political weapon. Get real. It makes more sense than the arms race made the USR collapse. The USSR had options in the arms race, it didn't when it came to the price of oil and a loss of market share. The power of the free market causing the collapse of the USR, I would have thought you would have appreciated the irony in that. Seamus
Post #294,271 by boxley 10/5/07 9:59:33 AM Reply	not for the saudis the oil options for the Sovs were wasted by refusing to invest in infrastructure and exploration until AFTER the collapse of the communist system. It was the arms race that broke them, not oil prices. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,276 by Seamus 10/5/07 10:44:45 AM Reply	Yeah the huge loss of oil revenue which they couldn't do anything about didn't cause the collapse, but spending on the arms race which they could choose how to respond to did cause the collapse. Boy, you sold me on that one. Seamus
Post #294,278 by boxley 10/5/07 10:48:01 AM Reply	hate to break it to you but in the 70's and 80's russia was a net importer of energy, not a producer, but hey, dont let facts bother your worldview thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,281 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:31:18 PM Reply	The idea is that the fall of oil prices and loss of market share cost them hard currency without which they couldn't buy grain, let alone guns or other forms of energy: The Search for Loans The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits. In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy. According to chairman of the State Planning Committee Yury Maslyukov: We understand that the only source of hard currency is, of course, the source of oil. . . . If we do not make all the necessary decisions now, next year may turn out to be beyond our worst nightmares. . . . As for the socialist countries, they may all end up in a most critical situation. All this will lead us to a veritable collapse, and not only us, but our whole system.[7] Ryzhkov commented at the same meeting: The Vneshekonombank's [Soviet Foreign Trade Bank] guarantees are needed, but it cannot provide them. . . . If there is no oil, there will be no national economy.[8] It is fascinating to hear now the opinion that Eduard Shevardnadze, then foreign minister, "betrayed" the interest of the Soviet Union--especially when documents that were prepared for him at the time are available. In reality, a number of Soviet agencies urged him to secure at any cost these "politically motivated credits."[9] In the meantime, the Soviet Union started to have severe food shortages, and grain deliveries were not being made to large cities. One of Gorbachev's closest associates, Anatoly Cherniayev, described the situation in Moscow in March 1991: If [the grain] cannot be obtained somewhere, famine may come by June. . . . Moscow has probably never seen anything like that throughout its history--even in its hungriest years.[10] From the Soviet Collapse article. Seamus
Post #294,231 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:40:54 PM Reply	The other issue was that Reagan caused the dot com era It has already been shown that Al Gore sponsored the legislation that created the funding that led to the creation of the internet. But, on the off chance that you mean to imply that Reagan's policies created the economic boom of the Clinton years, don't bother. [link\|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm\|The historical flukes that caused the Clinton era boom] . Seamus
Post #294,234 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:52:41 PM Reply	Maybe a more neutral source For one thing, the Reagan tax cuts were offset by a series of subsequent tax hikes, implemented by Congress in the early 1980s, by the first President Bush in the late 1980s and by President Clinton in the early 1990s. Contrary to the fears of supply-side economists, who have supported the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the economy grew despite these tax hikes, while spending discipline in the 1990s helped turn deficits into surpluses. And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s. "The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. [link\|http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/02/news/economy/budget/index.htm\|CNNMoney] Seamus
Post #294,250 by bepatient 10/5/07 7:32:41 AM Reply	Wow, a complete ignorance of globalization I'd expect better from Harvard. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,252 by CRConrad 10/5/07 7:58:11 AM Reply	So, what is it you're saying here? That President Reagan personally invented globalization and thereby ushered in an era of prosperity? And if that's not what you're saying, then what does (whatever it is you are saying about) globalization have to do with Seamus' point, namely (to remind you) that the American economic prosperity of the nineties was not necessarily Reagan's personal doing? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,270 by bepatient 10/5/07 9:59:06 AM Reply	Re: So, what is it you're saying here? Ok, here is the quote And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s. "The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. And this is being used to support a claim that the econ policies of the late 80s had nothing to do with the boom in the 90s. The only indicator mentioned is >private< capital formation on a domestic basis. It ignores the HUGE impact that the credit facility put in place invited unprecedented foreign investment in the US. During that time, all major asian auto manufacturers build facilities in the US, it ignores the influx of billions in foreign real estate investment etc. It also ignores, and I can't imagine it being anything but purposefully, PUBLIC capital formation, which is what deficit government spending gives you. More guns, more government jobs, more infrastructure etc. Was the prosperity the direct result of one act of cutting taxes? Absolutely not. Did Al Gore have something to do with it by helping fund tech? Sure...him and everyone who made sure it passed. Did the massive gov't spending programs make sure it happened. You bet. Does any of that have anything at all to do with private capital formation. No. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,274 by Seamus 10/5/07 10:40:47 AM Reply	The claim was that the Reagan deficits produced the dot com era. That is what I was refuting. Before you decide what the author ignores and what he is claiming you should read the [link\|http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/fiscalpolicy/friedman.pdf\|whole paper] Seamus
Post #294,256 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:16:46 AM Reply	A chaired professor and former Dept chairman is completely ignorant of globalization? Much easier to hand wave then to try to show that he was wrong. Seamus
Post #294,258 by boxley 10/5/07 9:23:57 AM Reply	dunno, alternate theories by walter williams are offered he is also a prof especial. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,264 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:47:12 AM Reply	Yes, a supply-sider. There the only ones left who argue the deficits don't matter. Seamus
Post #294,277 by boxley 10/5/07 10:45:49 AM Reply	well listening to hillary giving away money if she is elected she must be a supply sider as well. that 5k per kid has to come from somewhere. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,284 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:44:35 PM 10/5/07 1:24:23 PM Reply	A supply sider is someone who thinks stimulating the suppliers will somehow increase demand. She is not talking about giving to the supply side. Seamus Edited by Seamus Oct. 5, 2007, 01:24:23 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #294,136 by bepatient 10/3/07 10:17:54 PM Reply	Yes. I was busting your chops. Fred is Ronnie redux with a smoother accent. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,137 by Another Scott 10/3/07 10:20:25 PM Reply	Not hardly. Fred's an out of touch lightweight.
Post #294,163 by bepatient 10/4/07 9:04:45 AM Reply	We'll see if the party machinery can mold him into something more presentable. Right now they have Rudy as front runner...and I don't think the machinery thinks he can win. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,173 by Another Scott 10/4/07 10:04:10 AM Reply	I think the R machinery knows that none of them can win. ;-)
Post #294,174 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:04:16 AM Reply	They won't get a chance to mold him if he doesn't start climbing in the polls, which doesn't look likely. It is probably already down to Rudy and Mitt. Seamus
Post #294,227 by Simon_Jester 10/4/07 10:07:51 PM Reply	Apparently if he has to forget what he said 2 days ago.
Post #294,240 by CRConrad 10/5/07 2:41:34 AM Reply	In his defense, from all the transcripts I've seen, he... ...actually said "Saddam HAD HAD weapons of mass destruction". And that's true: As of the invasion, in 2003, Saddam probably didn't have any WMDs (and certainly no nuclear ones!). But it was known that he HAD, at some earlier point (like in the 1980s), HAD at least chemical WMDs: It was those he had used to massacre Kurds with. So I must say it looks to me as if the left hemiblogosphere was overreacting in this case. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,251 by Another Scott 10/5/07 7:50:35 AM Reply	Hmmm... [link\|http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/02/thompson-saddam-hussein-clearly-had-wmd/\|CNN] (the original source in the TPM link): "Saddam Hussein, today, had we not gone in, would be sitting on this [powder] keg and be in control of the whole thing," Thompson predicted. "He would have been the new dictator of that entire region in my estimation. He is\ufffdwas\ufffda dangerous irrational man who, by this time, would have been well on his way to having the nuclear capability himself." In remarks delivered earlier in a caf\ufffd, Thompson said Hussein "clearly" had weapons of mass destruction prior to the beginning of the war. "We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change." "By today," Thompson continued, "[Hussein] clearly would have had that rejuvenated; especially looking at what Iran says that it's doing." He's confusing March 2003 with January 1991. He's trying to argue that the evidence found after the 1990-1991 Gulf War described the capabilities of Iraq in 2003. He's ignoring the sanctions. He's ignoring the investigations. Saddam wouldn't be "controlling the whole thing" if we hadn't invaded. Intent isn't a WMD, and intent isn't a WMD or nuclear program. Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD programs under the sanctions. Even if the sanctions had been lifted later in 2003, he still wouldn't have been able to build WMDs by this point (there probably would have still been an embargo on precursors and nuclear materials). Fred's intent is clear in: "We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said. He wants to replant the seed in peoples' minds that the WMDs are there, we just need to look some more. A rusty 20 year old mustard gas shell buried in the desert, or a home-made chlorine gas truckbomb, isn't a WMD, though some have argued otherwise. We didn't go to war because there were some old, unusable, munitions from the Iran-Iraq war scattered about, or because people can blow up tankers filled with Clorox mixtures. We were told by Bush and Cheney that we had to go to war because Saddam was a deadly threat to us. He's trying to justify Bush's decision post hoc and ignoring everything we've learned since March 2003. He's just wrong. He's refusing to acknowledge that what Bush and Cheney said about Iraq in justifying the war was wrong. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,253 by CRConrad 10/5/07 8:11:27 AM Reply	Ok, yup, in that sense he was wrong. But then much of the left hemisphere is wrong in describing him as a totally senile old dodderer who claimed that "he HAD [one 'had'] WMDs so we had to invade!"; what he was actually doing was, as you point out, typical political double-speak. So he actually seems still to have most of his faculties; he's still as glib as any other politician. Come to think of it, he's really pretty slick -- or many of the left-wing indignerati must be rather thick -- since he either managed to give them the impression he said the easily-disproven single-'had' version, or they got hold of the wrong end of that stick all by themselves. That's all I was saying; that what he actually said wasn't quite the totally-braindead version some seemed to be arguuing against. (OK, I admit, he's so slick he even had me "defending" him there for a while, by dropping the context you have now so conveniently gathered together for us in one place. Sheesh! :-) [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,254 by Another Scott 10/5/07 8:53:46 AM Reply	I'm not willing to give him a break. You were right about the double-had. I missed that the first time around, and the reporter apparently did as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was just a typo. ;-) In cases like that I'd generally like to see what he said unedited, but Fred's said so many wacky things in the last month or so that I'm not willing to give him a break on this issue. He's not all that slick compared to [link\|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/27/document_shows_romneys_strategies/?page=full\|Slick Dancing Mitt] Romney. Mitt is a master, yet even he's finding it difficult to finesse his changing positions. Cheers, Scott.
Post #294,323 by a6l6e6x 10/6/07 4:17:37 PM Reply	Thank youm thank you, thank you! :) Thanks for your support. But, the Constitution requires the president to be native born. Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #294,330 by CRConrad 10/6/07 6:40:46 PM Reply	Are you sure it wouldn't be...? Or, IOW, (he realises, after thinking about it) aren't you? (Hey, BTW, this is very cool: "NOTE: This thread is getting very large (over 100 posts). Please consider branching your reply." Sorry I'm not going to do that [my little throwaway joke doesn't really merit a new thread]; let's hope the next person does. So, uh, Scott, is this new?) [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,333 by Another Scott 10/6/07 7:37:54 PM Reply	It's a legacy of the "Song Title Game". It's not recent.
Post #294,345 by a6l6e6x 10/6/07 10:52:05 PM Reply	I'm a native European. Or in grade school "You're a peon!" or more likely "You're a pee on!" Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #293,909 by bepatient 9/30/07 11:53:24 AM Reply	Main difference he's not singling anyone out. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,913 by Seamus 9/30/07 12:03:45 PM Reply	How much of a difference is this? Not much. Seamus
Post #293,924 by Simon_Jester 9/30/07 3:11:07 PM Reply	Actually, I don't believe that... The main difference is that it's from the right.
Post #293,932 by bepatient 9/30/07 7:31:59 PM Reply	You don't believe an easily recognizable fact? Not much point in going forward then, eh? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,952 by jb4 9/30/07 10:41:55 PM Reply	<man type=straw /> You're right, there is no point in continuing... jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #293,960 by Simon_Jester 9/30/07 11:35:31 PM Reply	Re: You don't believe an easily recognizable fact? "He's from the Right" isn't an easily recognizable fact? But your right...Moveon.org could've said that "our Generals are Betraying us".....and no one would've yelled. (Yeah, right)
Post #293,964 by bepatient 10/1/07 7:08:17 AM Reply	You know... if they'd done it in a non specific way AND in an op-ed, its quite likely there would have been no complaints. None at all. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #293,965 by hnick 10/1/07 7:43:10 AM Reply	And you determined that how? The Rep noise machine seems pretty predictable. My guess is that they would have spun a much milder criticism to the point that they could attack with it. But I'm just guessing; how did you get your data?
Post #293,970 by bepatient 10/1/07 9:34:39 AM Reply	Simple really Have you seen them attack op-eds? They'd be very busy. Additionally, without a specific name to defend and rally the flag around, they would be forced quickly into an "issue" debate which is NOT what they are looking to do. Thats not how they work. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,029 by Simon_Jester 10/2/07 9:01:01 AM Reply	I do think some of your analysis is correct (new thread) Created as new thread #294028 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=294028\|I do think some of your analysis is correct]

Welcome to IWETHEY!