f13.net

Help Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594675066/qid=1092423190/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7546885-3248966?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Lovely, they should subtitle it "People who don't think like me are bad."

Shit, people are rabid enough without being indoctrinated from age 6.  I can't wait until that generation starts voting.

Other than the allegedly witty title, and the comment that the two reviews for it seem to imply that it is directed at kids, do we have anything to ACTUALLY SUGGEST that this is a children's book? Did I miss something? I don't see any sample pages.

Are there a whole lot of kids going to Amazon to buy "Unfit for Command" along with this one?

Don't let the short page count fool you. "Who Moved My Cheese" is an excellent book, in large part because it's message is simple and brief. "Rhinocerous Success" is also one of those short little books that almost even LOOKS like a children's paperback, but certainly delivers a message for grown-up professionals.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

"Who Moved My Cheese" is a very good book. It is worth reading for just about anyone except this guy (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040813/ids_photos_en/r93583151.jpg&e=3&ncid=1756). "Who Moved My Razor" might be more helpful for him.

Yeah, I bet.  Is this because old people have trouble getting out of bed when accosted by liberals?

From the Xulon Press website.

It's a childrens book, I have no idea why Amazon stuck it in the political humor section.

Apparently the concept of tongue-in-cheek is lost on some people.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

One of the many areas I have no knowledge in is childrens books titles.

When I went to the page, Amazon recommended "W Ketchup", with the slogan "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?".

How fucking anti can you get? I mean, yes, Theresa Heinz Kerry is in that family, but... Argh. Also, a "real American" ketchup is probably made from tomatoes picked by mexican slave workers. So what's the big deal?

Did they boycott peanuts leading up to the Carter election or what?

I seem to recall there being a thread about "W" ketchup a few weeks ago.

It's a couple idiots with some ketchup, and a way to hock it as a novelty product. It's a symbolic gesture to basically give John Kerry and his wife the proverbial middle finger. It's on a level equivalent to the folks that started boycotting french wine and using the term "freedom fries".

Please, oh please, don't make it out to be anything other than "heh, that's kind of funny", because I don't think even the people selling it or buying it take it any more seriously than that.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

The amazon page to that children's book, through the incidious portals of "amazon recommends" and "customers who bought this book also bought", revealed enough greedy, loathesome ignorance festering in it's own paranoid delusion as to make my skin crawl.

But then, I think that about the entire Republican party, so I suppose that's only to be expected.

Geld, don't you watch the Godfather movies? Never hate your enemies...it affects your judgment.

In all honesty man, I'd have a metric fuckton more respect for your opinions on politics if they weren't based on the premise that every member of the GOP is either grossly incompetent, or evil incarnate. It's when people don't believe that someone can even POSSIBLY be acting with good and noble intent, and doing what they believe to be their best that I consider their opinions to be invalid and worthless.

The difference is, I don't hate Kerry. I find his tactics in politics to be transparent, although he is certainly ambitious. I find his proposed policies to be unrealistic and overly idealistic. I find his character to be lacking, and find that the very personal record he is touting so strongly is rife with self-contradiction.

But I don't hate him, and I don't even hate some of the things he stands for....I'm all for a clean environment, and jobs for everyone, I'm not a big fan of Patriot Act, and I'm not looking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage....fuck, I even agree with what he has said in some of his critique of Bush.

Ultimately, I just see the zealous hatred of the current administration by hardcore Dems, and a candidate who is promising the world to the middle class, democratic special interests, and the core constituency of his own party...and basically everyone else that the party hasn't made a concerted effort to demonize (primarly, the devout Chrisitans, corporations, the GOP, and the rich). His strategy for all these great social programs and expansion of the military is to get it by taxing the rich and the corporations even more than today....while still believing that he can get them to create new businesses, create new jobs, and make us eneregy-independent while simultaneously raising the minimum wage, and clamping down on overseas outsourcing.

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point.....I just hope at some point you learn to get past the simple partisan hatred, and start taking a deeper look at politics....disagreeing with the right, simply BECAUSE they are the right (or vice versa with the left), is a level of ignorance the depths of which I'd prefer not to even fathom.

Bring the noise
Cheers..............

Oh come on, DV! If you're going to post things that make sense and provoke thinking then we're going to have get Haemish or schild to lock this thread before it becoming too informative.

Impossible!  Oh wait, I'll let you finish.

Well, I'll change my opinion about the GOP when I see some evidence to the contrary.    

Y'know, Bush Jr. decided to appoint an Republican sided Ex-Spy as head of the CIA lately.     If his intent was innocent, it was because CIA must be inadequette to the task if they couldn't stop something like 9/11 from happening, and so major changes must be neccessary.   However, this appointee   is by his own admission badly qualified (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/moore.goss.reut/index.html).   I'm left wondering what motivation Bush Jr's administration would have behind putting a badly qualified new head of the CIA in place.    Since the new CIA head is a staunch Republican supporter, I can't help but think it's to cover their own tracks.

And then, there's the main focus behind Republican philosophy itself.   "Hey! The country needs to funnel power to the already powerful folks who know how to run it.  Everybody will benefit from the resulting trickle-down from rich folks who know how to manage these assets best."

The problem I have with this is that it doesn't seem to work.   Over the last four years, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been deported simply because those same rich folks are hoping to save money.    Insurance plans have been scrapped, and so people are being forced (on penalty of being fired) to work double shifts because it's cheaper than hiring two people to work a normal shift.   Taxes have been refunded to american tax payers everywhere, but in the same refund where your average joe made $300, somebody a few tax brackets up made millions, at the cost of a national surplus that could have been used for the good of the country.   The rich get richer, and they don't feel particularly motivated to help out the little guy.  The upper crust is demonstrating absolutely no interest in helping anyone but themselves.   The GOP's very focus seems to backfire into an obvious falsity where all they really want to do is exploit government proceedings to make money.    Is this really a way to run a country?

So, while perhaps you feel you would respect my opinions a bit more if I weren't so obviously biased, I find my bias appears to be justified.  I try to see the good in everything, but I'm having a very hard time seeing anything good about the GoP.   So please, enlighten me, and don't just tell me how their theories on how to improve the country is supposed to work: show me results.   Show me results besides that which anyone running the country wouldn't have done anyway, such as retaliating for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and enforcing better security.   Show me how they do anything productive for this country besides ask the best military in the world, wether it's under Republican or Democratic rule, to go kill some dangerous foreigners for them.

Or copays like mine have doubled. Remind me not to get sick.

So, someone finally told you who to vote for, then?

Only you told me who to vote for, Lum.

I haven't forgotten.

I remember when you said "Would that little girl want to live in a world that required the level of oppression you ask for?" in reply to more cameras being a good thing when talking about a young girl that was raped and murdered because they couldn't find the guy that snatched her fast enough.

Your bias is justified?

I am willing to post to this site again for the express purpose of tearing you apart you ignorant little weasel. You've gone from flat out expressing "I have no understanding of politics at all" to "My political opinion is backed up by facts" in under a year?

Two things you've said almost word for word.

I'd like to hear how THAT one came about.

You know, I actually anticipated you would show up, Boog.  What, do you hang around on #hate and whenever Lum has a conniption take it upon yourself to inform the offender that they're going to be gifted with an African necktie?   Listen, I've been unemployed for 9 months: I greet death at this point with a smile.

As to the topic at hand, it's time for a minor history revision.   For the offence that got me banned from Waterthread, I was saying nothing of the sort, but at the time all of #hate had rather negatively reflected in any little thing I said, and I wasn't terribly in the mood to correct you at the time.   (Well, I was banned, so I guess my mood had nothing to do with my inability to correct you at the time.)

Let me break it down for you how that worked out:

The subject: Little girl gruesomely murdered.
Line of thought on the message: Massive fascist measures to prevent such a thing from happening again should happen!
My suggestion: "In a world like that, I don't think a little girl would want to live."
You hear: "OMG! GELDONYETICH WANTS LITTLE GIRLS TO DIE!  WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF A LIFE!"
I meant: Think George Orwell's 1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/), the kind of world such massive fasciest measures may produce.

Talk about fucking bias.   Of course, I don't blame them really, I was looking really bad at the time.   I had attempted, in an earlier political thread, to ask, "How well do we know our candidates, really, besides what they post in their campaigns?"   That's all.  No political knowledge implied: No political knowledge required for such a question.  For this, I ended up on the end of a full fledged Boog tonguelashing.  I'll tell you right now, Boog, you can really do a good tonguelashing when you want to, especially with some fellow #hate denizens to back you up.   Any semblence of reasonable argument I had left in me was quickly removed in that thread.   You totally castrated me in public.   Bravo.

I haven't forgotten.

Now, if any of you #hate denizens would like to stop telling me how much you would like to murder me for speaking, I would like one of you to take the time to tell me what makes the GOP so great such a way that a rational human being would be expected to.

Thanks for the helpful link to 1984. None of us would have known what that was otherwise.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure none of the people you most dramatically "HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" are voting for Bush this goaround, myself included. But don't let that stop you, this is fun!

Sadly, I've been subjected to one too many "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers.  The Hate is Strong.   I seek answers.

And of course I haven't forgotten.   For some reason, that wasn't a particularly happy moment for me.   Do I get a "I'm sorry?"  No, it was fun!

Get with the times man.  Modern politics has moved beyond disagreeing with the opposing viewpoint and into disagreeing with the opposing viewpoint's existence.  Compromise is for the weak and hate sells better than understanding.

Does that mean Lum's voting or not voting for Bush? I'm confused.

More cameras. On say stop lights. Would have caught the van, would have saved the girl. You don't have the right, as it stands now, to not be filmed in public. You NEVER have. There are already plenty of cameras on stop lights NOW to catch speeders and the like.

It's a system already in place, that has been in place. People said if they just went no assed, rather than half assed, into it one more little girl would be in the world.

To which you said "OMG FACISM!!!". Had you left it there, you would have been fine. But then you asked if a little girl that was raped and murdered would want to live in a world that required that level of facism. Which is tantimount to saying "She would have rather been raped and murdered than have cameras at stop lights.".

And you feel bad that people jumped on you for it.

You also flat out said someone should tell you what politicians believe and inform you of what they stand for.

We keep logs, we save things like this.

And now you are saying the GOP is evil.

No shit.

Guess what?

The Democratic Party is too, just in different ways. It's as totally corrupt as the GOP. It'll do the exact same things to you the GOP will. We had stupid wars fighting brown people under Clinton, we had Haliburton making money on those wars, we had oil being involved in quite a few of them. Some of them against Muslims!

And yet the GOP is somehow special.

I'm not a Republican. Neither is most of #hate. Lum is one of the few that actually names himself a Republican, Soul used to. About it. Conservative, maybe, but a lot of Libertarian. A lot of indepedents.

What I want to hear is how John Kerry or the Democratic Party isn't going to continue, exactly, everything you don't like about Bush.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of what the original article was talking about.   They were having issues following a Van that could have been prevented if they had only filmed where the van was going?  Okay.

When it comes to 1984 angle, the question comes down to just where the line is drawn.  Cameras on stop lights - check.  Okay, lets say that's not stopping horrible things from happening.  Cameras on alleyways and all public locations - check.   Okay, some very bad things are still happening in the world.   Cameras in every room of everyone's houses - check.

Personally, I'd want to try an approach that tries to identify crimes before they happen.  A active, not reactive system.   Trying to set up a network of cameras to track traffic seems like a bandage for a bigger issue that such a dangerous sex offender was on the street to begin with.   Perhaps a higher level of community involvement would have been a better solution.   A level that would know if there's a wierd guy who has severe mental issues plotting things before they occur.   This is because the community is involved enough that this wierd guy has contact with a half-dozen people, and one of them gets worried and asks an investigation is done.  Ideally, that wierd guy gets mental help instead of going forth with an act that would end an innocent life and confine his own to jail for the rest of his.

As for the "The GOP is evil, eh who cares, the Democratic party is evil too.  They're all evil.  Who cares?" approach... well, that's the reason why political parties in a Democracy are voted into office.   Every politician had to start in office somewhere, and this means they are elected into office by folks like us.   When there's stuff we disagree about in our government, as a member of a democracy we do have some sway to do things about it.   When nasty stuff just slides, I'm left thinking that it's because enough of us simply didn't care.   Either that or the entire american citizen voting system is rigged.  Take your pick.

I suggested that maybe we, as american voters, should be given some better information to make informed decisions on who we vote for.   I don't have a fantastic solution as to how, because I don't know what unbiased party could possibly distribute that information.   You took this to mean I want to be told who to vote for, but this was again your choice of interpretation.   Wether or not you were aware of this, this is where I started enduring a severe tongue lashing.   It's really hard to make a coherant case when everybody in the room starts shouting at you out of a misunderstanding, you know?

Will John Kerry and the Democratic Party do a better or worse job than the Bush Jr. Administration?  Well, the Republicans had their turn at bat, and they thrashed the federal surplus and I've had a hard time finding the good that they have done.   Ive watched the Democratic National Party convention footage, and I like what their proposed goals are.   Time to change who's on the plate.   That's my vote, anyway.

The interesting thing is, to a great extent, the political parties at the top are influenced by the folks on the bottom.  They want to stay in power.   Lets say for example they start hearing, "Wow, the people really support that party because they LOOOVE butt kickin'!"   Now both parties say, "Okay, we want to get voted back into office - so we're going to have to make promises we're going to kill people."   It would appear that the evil at the top really reflects the ignorance on the bottom.   (All the more case that those on the bottom could use better educating.)

Sadly, I've been hearing the "butt kicking" sentiment a lot lately, especially from folks who are related to those who serve in the military.    I'm sure they're doing this because they want to be supportive of their loved ones in the armed forces.   However, I don't look at supporting a party in favor of needless wars as supporting our troops.   The reason is because it is better a soldier risk his or her life for a good cause than as politicial manuevering to get people to overlook mistakes.   I can't say that either party was particularly innocent of this, but it seems to me this is all the GOP did during the last four years.

None that wouldn't be more intrusive than a camera in your bedroom. You'll take a genetic test and a psychological report, but you find it scary that the government could put a camera in your shitter?

And guess what?

Everyone could have known he was creepy and that he could try something. And they still couldn't have done anything after he grabbed the girl and ran away. Or are they armed?

So you've traded a police state for cameras on everything.

How isn't this the 1984 world again? People going around informing on other people, yeah, nothing like the book.

And the fun part about sociopaths is they generally seem like regular people. Mostly because they can show whatever emotion they want in any given situation and are as a whole good at lying. Short of intensive medical testing or having caught him fucking his grandma's skinned corpse, you aren't going to know who is and isn't one.

Which, once again, is invasive. You have the possiblity of being a drunk and a wife beater, should you be removed from society?

So now it's Gattica and not 1984. Check.



Not at all. It's "They are both evil, they are both wrong, they are both bad.". And then you take a look and decide which evil you can live with. The so called lesser of two evils. Never pretend there is a good choice in this election.

John Kerry wants more military spending, he wants more international involvement in Iraq [not no involvement, not pull out], John Kerry will continue all the so called blunders George Bush started. Do you think he can do a better job with them is the question.



Nasty stuff is a requirement of life. It's what nasty stuff we allow that is point of contention. There aren't two choices.

Some people inform themselves of the choices and make which one they can live with. It has nothing to do with letting nasty stuff slide or not caring.

Politics is a nasty business, and there's no way to make it fair.

None at all.

Your suggestion of "inform me" was patently silly. All the information is out there. You can check, right now, every single vote John Kerry made in the Senate. Ever law George Bush passed or supported. Most of their major speeches are saved.

You were yelled at for being lazy and stupid. You want someone else to tell you what the facts are, and think things are broken because they don't.

YOU are the one that doesn't care.

If you did, you'd look for the information yourself.



John Kerry called for increased spending on everything.

Everything.

The military, social programs, funding for schools and space and innovation and this and that and the other thing.

And he's staying in Iraq.

And you expect him to spend LESS money than George Bush.

Yeah, that's not false hope at all.



Or your inability to grasp certain people need to be killed.



So why did John Kerry and a large portion of the Democratic Party vote the President the power to go to war on Iraq?

Good thing you are trading the one guy that went to war for....the other guy that went to war.

Wouldn't want to have 4 more years of the same thing.

The world in which you can call the police and ask them to investigate suspicious activity is already here.  

All I'm suggesting is the community gets to know their neighbors.   Your solution asks that people who you do not know spy on you whenever they want using devices they could, at worse, install in your own home.  

Again, you're reading what you want to read instead of what I am saying.  I didn't say anyone would automatically be removed from society.  I said people would get the psychiatric help they need if they are identified as needing.    Only in the most dangerous cases would it be neccessary to remove people from society.  Again, this is exactly as we already have going on.   (Except perhaps there are some people who would have be free and sane had they recieved psychiatric help prior to committing a crime.)

The only fault I see in this is that there simply are not enough facilities in place right now for that level of assistance to be offered to our society.   This, of course, would require government spending.

I wonder exactly what would you do with them once they are identified as being a criminal on cameras?   Shoot them dead with an installed gun?  Far less invasive than actually having somebody come there to evaluate them, isn't it?

Remember what I said about both parties supporting what the people seem to want?   Wether or not it was the right thing to invade Iraq, we're up to our knees in it now.   What's more, Iraq has some neighbors who would just love to take care of it's weakened condition.   Like it or not, we're in this mess now, and we can't gracefully pull out without throwing the entire Iraqi populace to the wolves.  

Taking out Saddam may have been the right thing to do considering he had litte love for us, but the fun thing about taking over another man's country is that his job becomes yours.   To hear Bush Jr. talk, it would seem he's not done yet.   Gotta love that little speech of his about "the enemies of America".   Next stop: North Vietnam!   I seem to recall a key point made by the Democratic Party Convention was to promote worldwide cooperation, not piss all over it.

False accuasation do not suit us.   Caring is an interesting thing, isn't it?

You don't know me.  You don't know how informed or uninformed I am now versus last year.   And you certainly don't know if the average american voter cares any more or less than I do.    Yet, you have every reason to care, since their vote can cancel out ya'lls.

Submitted to debate: It's every American citizen's responsibility to try to not only inform themselves of the issues, but try to assure other voters are informed as well.   It's called true political activism.

"My responsibility?  Hell no!  I'm not going to go out there and tell all those lazy bastards how to vote!   I've got better things to do."

Ah, so YOU are the one who doesn't care.

See, that argument works either way, for the person who does not inform himself, and the person who does not wish to inform others.

Of course, informing yourself only counts for one vote...

Good.

Government spending goes to the people.  Such as buying more psychiatric institutions, better health care, roads, ect.    Giving people a $300 bribe so you and your rich buddies can have a several million dollar supply of pina-coladas does not strike me as a better way to spend money.   But it boosted the economy?  No, a temporary $300 boost to the bottom level of economy is nothing compared to a sustained job market where many people are making $600 a week.

Not that the Republicans haven't done any government spending this term.   Heightened 9/11 security (which I suppose any party would do).   A couple of military campaigns (one of which was retalitory for 9/11).   They bought some nukes, I hear.   I am asking if anybody heard of anything better they bought into, but so far nobody's been forthcoming.

No, I expect him to spend that money in a better manner.

Really though, he couldn't have misspent money much worse than George W. Bush did.   Trillions of dollars should not just dissipear like that.  

Again, I'm not so easily baited by your false accusations.   My points read better if you don't make them up on the fly.
Remember what I said about both parties supporting what the people seem to want?  I hope so, I said it again a few paragraphs ago.

Granted, seeing how Kerry has actually seen military action, I wager he probably understands what it represents somewhat better than a draft dodger would.

When did cops become another species? Cousins, aunts, uncles, all of them cops. How are they less my family for it? How are cops suddenly not more informed than your neighbor when it comes to crime?



They are all the most dangerous cases. There isn't a person that can do something like this and be fixed. You are willing to beat your wife, you are always that type of person. It's always a possiblity. You are a sexual predator, you will ALWAYS want to rape. It never goes away, and it can't even be treated well. We've had people chemical castrated that went on to rape.

You don't seem to understand what's really required to get what you ask for. If you aren't taking them away from society or watching them 24/7 they simply will do it again. And it's your fault for not dealing with the threat. If you are watching them 24/7.....

....how is cameras on stoplights more invasive again?



But it's not false. You decry the laziness of one group when by definition your problem is laziness. You want another group to do work you should be doing yourself. Informing you. It's YOUR responsibility to find facts and understand the world, not someone elses.



Of course as I use things you've actually said, you make up things that I would say.

What I say is it's a crime if you vote. It's the equivilent of shooting someone in the head with your ignorance. I'm telling you who to vote for.

Nobody.



Only in Stupidville.



No, see, government spending COMES from the people. The more you spend, the more you take from the people.

And you can't buy more psychiatrict institutions without people to work them. "Better health care"? Everyone in this country has access to health care. Everyone. EVERYONE. What more do you want?

You know what doesn't boost the economy at all?

Taxing everyone.

You know how you get money for all the things you want without cutting some programs?

Taxing everyone.



See, that's what you don't get.

It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Republicans and the Democrats.

AND the Democrats you twit.



He's doing more with less?

That's never been the Democrats strong suit. And he's increasing military spending and making it cheap?

He called for a 50% increase in special forces. Flat out called for a 50% increase in special forces. Boggles my mind.



Why, because you say so?

Not only can he, he can misspend trillons of dollars more. You seem to have this fucking childlike fantasy that nobody can be worse than Bush.

I'm going to laugh when you find out otherwise. Mostly because it'll be your out of work ass effected, not mine. I sold out already, I'm fine.



What, you mean the action he bugged out of after a handful of months to come home and tell congress American soldiers were thugs and rapists?

Yeah, he's a fucking saint of the military.

Who are you talking about?

It's not John Kerry.

I said nothing of the sort.

Ask the Cops that try to form neighborhood watch programs.

We're going to have to disagree here.   While I do agree that there may be people in this world who are broken to the point of no repair, I also believe there are many who can be rehabilitated.   New treatments are always being developed for sex addicts, for example.   The trick is to catch them before the crime is committed.   That's where community involvement works better than a reactive system such as using cameras.

"When it comes to 1984 angle, the question comes down to just where the line is drawn. Cameras on stop lights - check. Okay, lets say that's not stopping horrible things from happening. Cameras on alleyways and all public locations - check. Okay, some very bad things are still happening in the world. Cameras in every room of everyone's houses - check. "

Of course, if they stay on stoplights, it probably isn't an issue (unless people are using them to look in windows).   Except, I'm not sure what good a reactive system like that would do.   By the time you catch the perp, it's could already too late.

I've never said that I wasn't informed.  This time.  However, I did prove that it is even more of an impact of lacking political activism to be unwilling to inform others.   I could run it through a logical formula to prove the validity of that argument if you like.   Pity, that, it is your responsibility after all.   At least if you give a damn about the outcome of the election.   If not, well, you've pleanty of company.

Population: Humanity.

The day all of humanity is born with inborn omniescence that tells them everything they need to know about the political situation is the day in which political activism is no longer neccessary.   No, I don't honestly expect mass omniescence to happen any more than I expect the majority of voters to develop enough responsibility to thoroughly research the candidates they vote for on their own.    Here I thought I was supposed to be playing the optimist in this conversation.

And then it GOES to people.  Or do you not like driving on roads?  Having police?  Recieving snail mail?

It's this line of thinking, "Taxes are bad!" that plays right into the Republican's money grubbing hands.   "Gee, you sure are right, Mr. Average Citizen.  Taxes are wrong - the government is stealing from the american people.  So, tell you what, I'm going to go take that several trillion dollar surplus and give it back to the American people.   We don't really need medicare or social security for the baby boomers anyway.   So, here's $300 for you, several million for me since I paid hella more taxes than you.   I'm sure glad you agree taxes are bad!   Now, because I'm your pal and gave you $300, you're going to vote for me next time around even if the country is in the somehow ends up in the crapper, right?"   And so the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker is applied.


That really depends on who voted for what.  Kerry, he says he voted to go to Iraq.  Did every Democrat?  Did every Republican?

Moot point, really - majority rules.   Of course, when the house majority is Republican, it's easy to blame them.   Perhaps not fair in select cases, but easy.


Blow an offhand comment out of proportion, why don't you?  

Obviously, I can't see the future, but I can reflect on the past and say that Bush Jr. sure blew through a hella lotta cash doing not much at all.  The law of averages alone would suggest that Kerry could do better.  Clinton's administration, also Democrat, managed to amass a federal surplus while commiting to government spending while having military engagements going on.

The point is, he didn't have to go.   He had just as much influence as Bush Jr. did.   That he went and found something very wrong with the way our own soldiers were acting on foriegn soil indicates he's willing to accept that our soldiers should be responsible for their actions.   That is an encouraging sign, particularly if you happen to live in Iraq.

Ask the neighborhood watch catching all those thieves, muggers, and rapists.

Oh wait, they don't. That's the police.



And the medical and psychiatric institutes you'd have take care of these people don't.

Wonder who I'm going to listen to?



There's no way to know who will be a rapist. None. Until they rape. And by then it's too late. What are you going to do that isn't as invasive as everything else suggested?

I forgot, your plan is dumb hope. There MUST be a way!



No, because if you have the system you can check THAT MINUTE where he went and catch him quickly. Before harm comes to say the young girl he picked up.

Are you beginning to understand here?



No, in democracy it's your responsibility to inform yourself to get the representation you deserve. Now we have a constiutional republic, but the theory is the same.

It's not MY responsiblity to inform YOU. It's my responsibility to try and get what I want. That's it. If you don't want to get what you want, you'll have to make due with what I want.

What system of governence you been looking at?



No, population you. Plenty of people understand and accept how the system works. Just not you.

That's not a flaw with humanity, it's a flaw with you.

Personal responsibility has always been a problem with you.



No it doesn't. It gets wasted and it goes nowhere.



Good, now where's the other trillion dollars going?

No?

Yeah, that's the government fucking up. Of course you don't pay taxes right now, so it's not an issue for you. I do, with my job at the snail mail company, and I'd rather not have John Kerry taking more of my money so I can get less of it back.



Taxes are good. Check.

We need to lose money to make money.

Only not, because I work for a living and don't require as many government hand outs as you.

So what you are asking for is me to pay for you. Because I don't need more government programs.

You do. Not roads, not police. This money is going to people like you who I want to die for being useless. It's going to make the military bigger, which it doesn't need to be. It needs reforms, not an orgasm of money. That's the tradition Democrat answer. Throw money at the problem.

So now you are taking ALL OF BUSH'S SPENDING AND A SO CALLED WEAK ECONOMY and you are adding INCREASED TAXES.

Yeah chief, that's going to solve the problem.



Let me make it easy for you.

Two that did?

John Kerry and Edwards the wonder dog. AKA who'd you elect.



And how many votes does it take?

Or don't you know?



You can also see that historically Democrats raise taxes and increase spending on social programs. They've been known to cut other programs to fund this, like say the military......

....only John Kerry has promised to grow the military.

So where is the money coming from?



And there was no cut in military spending under Clinton. And the current economy downswing didn't happen under Clinton.

Not at all.



And George Bush didn't have to serve in the Texas Air Nation Guard. Doesn't change the fact he didn't have to go to Vietnam.

Doesn't change the fact John Kerry is a lying fucking asshole that did more to shame the United States Navy than pretty much any other person in history.

Oh yeah, you know all his claims?

Not one was ever verified. Ever.

John Kerry lied before Congress, John Kerry has NEVER mentioned what he said after that point.

John Kerry is willing to sell out anyone and anything for power.

And yet he's the better choice?

No wonder you are unemployed.

Bush ASKED not to be sent. He ticked the box to say he did not want to be sent overseas.



Which claims are you talking about? His medels? They were writtin for and appoved for by other people, not him.

BTW, there are 3 retired Admirals and 7 Generals came out in Support (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=167-08122004) of Kerry over Bush today.

How about just clarifying whether or not he was in Cambodia in December 1968, or at any other time, and whether or not he was under orders to do so, and by whose orders?  But no, he won't even do that, because he'd have to admit he lied about half the shit he said but the other half was true.

Bruce

The candidates make thier comments.

First, John Marshell (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) provides something about GWB:


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

Now, Kebin Drum (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004505.php) on  Kerry and Cambodia. The speaker is Kerrs biographer Douglas Brinkley. Drum is at the bottem:

Yeah, that's a sterling source.

So, about all those rapes and slaughters he witnessed.

You of course have a link to back THEM up, right?

I don't really need to tell you how a Neighborhood watch works, and why it's advantagous for the police to have them, do I?

Show me where this happened.   I bet I could find a counterexample for each time.

Honestly, your approach is "Kill them all who are the least bit broken and get it over with."  It shows a certain lack of understanding.


It's a tad less self-defeating than your approach: outright nihilism.    I'm sure a little girl would like to hear that if she's the least bit broken she needs to die.


You sure are heavy on that, "lets turn this abstract argument into a particular problem with one of the arguers" angle.   It may make you feel better, but it proves nothing.   Even moreso when your accusations may be false.


Yeah Boog, the government taxes people to waste money.   Governments don't really need money.    They do everything through their people's overwhelming love for them.



It's handy when you answer your own questions for me.   It comes down to this: Increased spending does not neccessarily mean increased federal debt.  

Increased taxes won't influence us down here on the bottom nearly as much as it will the folks up top.   Overall, the folks that stand to benefit from taxing the most are the guys on the bottom, because the government spends it on things that benefit everyone within the country.   (Well, except for those $2000 toilet seats.  I gotta get me one of those.  I bet they give full buttock massages.)

So you're attempting to establish that things could, just maybe, stay the same under Kerry and Edwards as they would Bush and Cheney.   I fail to see how they makes them a worse choice.


I don't know, Boog.   Maybe two thirds?  No, wait, perhaps less than half has to vote in favor for something to pass.   Yes, majority does not actually establish itself!   Now I see your point.


Why, because you said so?    If the worst skeleton you can find in Kerry's closet is that it's hard to verify some of his claims, I'm not impressed.

That really didn't clarify anything.

First, it's a statement from the biographer, not from Kerry or the campaign.  In other words, he's telling what he thinks happens based on his earlier investigations of events, not based on what Kerry is saying right now.

Second, he admits Kerry lied about being there in December and he was really there in January or February, so he made a simple mistake.  Except for the fact Kerry claimed the memory was SEARED - SEARED - into his memory, that it was Christmas.  While it is certainly possible to make such a mistake, it is also very possible to have deliberately mislead in order to make the story better.  Heck, the author pretty much says he believes this, and yet it doesn't make any difference to him.  Ironic, since he probably blames Bush and company for doing the same thing; i.e. "tarting up" intelligence to go to war in Iraq.

I don't expect Kerry to say he intentionally lied, even if he did.  But he should at least admit he was mistaken.  So far, he hasn't done that.

Bruce

Yes. You do. Right now in fact.



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/11/MNGB57ILU41.DTL

The state of California decided to keep them under watch after they had served their time. Why?

Because you'd be amazed how hard it is to stop a sexual predator. I like the part where the courts order the release of someone when the head of the Department of Mental Health says "Not a good idea".

Ok, now tell me this case didn't happen. Of a real state, a real place, flat out instituting a program to monitor sexual predators because of the risk they pose.

And that's what I'M talking about. The serious risks to society that commit the worst crimes.



They aren't broken. That often implies they can be fixed. They just don't work like you, at all. You don't "fix" a dog for being a dog, do you? Much the same. They aren't human.

Stop thinking of them like they are.



Yeah, only we won't ever know will we?

Because she got raped and murdered because nobody was doing anything to watch her.

Of course lets keep asking ourselves what a dead little girl would think in this hypothetical world where a monster didn't kill her.

Because it'd be too fascist to do things like monitor sexual predators, and put up more cameras on stop lights, and you know. Actually try and get a handle on things.

Lets try psychiatry! That must work!

Why?

We don't understand sleep, you think sexually deviance is something we are close to solving? Throw money at it?



Everything is personal. YOUR thoughts and YOUR ideas are based on you, the person.

Often the flaw with a person's argument IS a flaw with them. You are naive and uninformed, your flaw leads to dumb hope solutions that lack understanding of how the world and humanity work.



And a lack of reading comprehension.

Ok, now where's the other trillion dollars? Any private company with the funding of the US government would get a lot more done. But the Senate votes itself a pay increase, key groups get kick backs, contracts for this and that shoot up in cost. Budget overrun this, unexpected funding problem that.

And your money is gone without doing ANYTHING.

The goverment doesn't need as much of your money as it takes. IF it was managed properly. Of course nearly 300 million people to keep track of, problems happen. What'll you do?



You really are stupid, aren't you?

To which I say

YOU CAN ONLY DO IT WITHOUT CUTTING SPENDING BY RAISING TAXES!

Guess what?

John Kerry has promised to RAISE spending in all the major areas that suck up money.

So it's pretty much a mathmatical impossibility for the debt to get lower in this case. And hey, we'll still be in Iraq.

Deploying troops is like, super cheap!



Oh no, that'd be fine. See, it's "He'll do everything Bush did" and THEN "He'll increase social spending by leaps and bounds".

Which leaves us with more money being spent.....and nothing being cut.

Which leads to debt. Or it leads to greatly increased taxes.

You don't have money, I could see how this won't matter to you.....

.....only wait, stupid, everywhere you buy things?

They've raised the price because now that they are paying more taxes, they need to charge a little more to get as much back as they used to.

Yeah.



Oh, let me make it simple.

The Democrats have to vote for some things for them to pass. Especially tiny things like "War".

Meaning that there is no such thing as the Republicans forcing a war through. The Democrats could have stood strong and it wouldn't have passed.

Only the people wanted it, so it went through.

Guess what? Support for the war hasn't dropped off that much.



John Kerry flat out called the soldiers he served with rapists and murders and in his four months dicking around in his boat saw rapes and murders than any given big city detective will in his entire life.

John Kerry said this under oath, before congress.

John Kerry threw someone elses medals away in a protest against the war.

John Kerry doesn't talk about these things anymore, because NOTHING John Kerry talked about has ever been verified. Ever. By anyone.

Beyond voting for war in Iraq to find WMDs and talking about the intelligence failure of Bush for thinking their were WMDs in Iraq, beyond cutting spending for troops after voting for a war, beyond any of the tiny shit?

John Kerry lying under oath to congress about war crimes the United States Armed Forces committed and having the gaul to call himself a vet friendly canidate is the worst skeleton in his closet.

But shit, you can't even read.

Why am I bothering with you?

Since when was it my job to educate you?

Oh sorry, that's your line.  

Here (http://www.nnwi.org/).
Or, I know, I'll make it even easier for you and post up a single image from that site.
(http://www.nnwi.org/images/Borissign.jpg)
Now then, Boog, because we're both such skilled debaters could you tell me how it is that the Police would be AGAINST community involvement?

Your interpretation of that article is wrong.  The push is for better methods of assuring treatment is actually done, not saying that we should stop treating them altogether.


Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.


Coming from a man who believes those with flaws are beyond rehabilitation, this is damning testimony indeed.

In my opinion, you have proven yourself as an example of those who are naive where it matters the most.   You could pile up all the knowledge of that world in that cranium of yours, and it won't matter because you regard all that is flawed as beyond rehibilitation.   I promise you, you will find everything to be flawed if you look at it in a certain way.   You're very easily the most dangerous man I know.   A mugger may murder me in an alley to steal my money, but he wouldn't because he believes all with flaws needs instant eradication.    

Substitute Sex Addict with Jew, and you would make Adolf Hitler very happy.   Granted, the first is a mental illness and the second is a choice of religion.

Unlike you, I don't believe you're beyond rehibilitation.

I've already indicated my stance on this.  If you're not going to read what I have to say, there's little need to repeat myself.

Yeah, particularly when you start skimping on their supplies.

However, Bush would disagree.   70,000 boys coming home (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/14/bush.troops.home.ap/index.html).   I wager that cost cutting had nothing to do with it?

Would Kerry have pulled back those troops?  I guess we'll never know.  [edit: unless perhaps I were to scroll down to the part of the article that read, "Democrat John Kerry has said he would try to begin withdrawing some troops from Iraq within his first six months in office."]

The feeling is mutual.   I sure hope all your arguments aren't so based on pointless accusation, inability to find the value in what the other person is saying, and otherwise empty sentiment.   It's sort of difficult to formulate a good reply when all you can give me is things I've already addressed one or two times before.

When you want something. Same as the canidates. They want to be elected, they have to state what they believe and why. They don't, they may not get support.

You said "I don't have to tell you why neighborhood watches are a good idea, do I" and I'm saying you do.

It seems like giving salt pills in medical trials. It may show improvements for some people, but it's mostly in their heads.



And I'm not talking about not treating them. I'm fine with it when it involves keeping them under watch. Constantly.

And a not inconsiderate number of people in that small, specially picked group of people relapsed.



Some flaws, yes. Reading comprehension can be fixed. Brain damage leading to mental retardation?

Probably not.

I'm not making a comment about anyone here.

Because you keep putting words in my mouth.

Because you are naive, and stupid, and can't look at the world as it is. I decry some people as broken, I must think all flaws are permanent and not want programs to help people.

Why?

I don't put words in your mouth to make you look stupid, you do that yourself.

Sexual predators, violent offenders, they don't fix. The best you get is a drugged monkey that goes around knowing he raped a 68 year old woman for the rest of his life. You can't fix that. It's a logical impossiblity. You are trying to reconcile two things:

A horrible act.

A sane mind.

The best case is that you create a person understanding just how wrong what they did was.

Then you ask them to live with it.

Brilliant.



Like most things, it doesn't matter what the fuck you say. You don't know what you are talking about.

You are unemployed, so you should have to count your money more. Do you understand how YOUR budget works?

The federal government, although more complex, is basically the same.

Money doesn't come from nowhere. If you are raising spending, you need more money. If you are RAISING it, period, you also have to raise taxes to bring in more money. John Kerry has yet to talk about cutting ANYTHING. So John Kerry is raising taxes. This comes from people like me and yo....people like me, that work jobs to pay taxes. John Kerry will be taking money from me to give to a bunch of shit I don't want.

I don't like this.



70k?

Good, that's only thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands more to go.



Six months....that's about a fourth of the time they'll have been in Iraq total by then. Yeah, cheap.

Here, let me give you a tip as to how this works.



Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Now you can say "Right back at you" but it doesn't change the fact nothing you've said is true, or based on fact. You don't even understand YOUR points, and you've flat out had to invent mine to argue with.

You should just kill yourself and save the trouble of understanding how the world works.

Is this some sort of contest about who can make the longest posts that say the least? Is that why the smartest comments in the last 10 posts or so are whitespace? You know, you guys don't HAVE to hit enter twice after every single period.

Why do people still talk to Boog anyway? Haven't you guys figured out he's a dumbass troll? May I remind you of the Martin Luther King Jr. thread, where Boog put words in his mouth, and then when given direct quotes to the contrary just kept on blathering without acknowledging that everything he said was 100% fabricated? There is no point in arguing with people who will just make shit up and when called on it just hope you have a short memory or can't read.

/golf clap for Margalis

But then you did it anyway.

Which of course is why I don't stop.

(http://spams-ukwildcatbasketball.com/capacity.mbe.jpg)

She's touring the talk radio circuit promoting the book to parents.  I simply searched on the pen name "Katharine Debrecht" and found several hits.  Possibly it was written as a tongue in cheek adult humor but it does seem to be taken seriously as lessons for children.  Imagine that.

My Goodness.  The original topic.

I wondered where that went to.

    Actually, back when Boog only did one or two line smart ass responses, I found him slightly amusing.  And when he wasn't, at least it was short.  Recently, he's been going on way too long about how he doesn't care about shit.

Enough people took the Freedom fries shit seriously that it was no longer funny, other than pointing at the terminally fucking retarded and laughing.

This book makes Baby Jesus weep from stupidity.

EDIT: I knew I should have read this thread before replying. Now I remember why political threads on Waterthread always went to FUCKING HELL.

That's warning enough for me.  I'm outta this thread.   If Boog was hoping to be the winner by pure tenacity, I give it to him willingly.

I got my kid an Ugly Doll (http://www.uglydolls.com/uglydoll.html).  He absolutely loves it.  That's all I wish to contribute at this time.

You better have a good reason why you got him one of those instead of one of these (http://www.trollandtoad.com/p98692.html).

Man, they're cool. Thanks for making this thread worth it.
To further the derailment, this (http://www.wowwee.com/robosapien/robo1/robomain.html) is my 3 year old daughters favourite toy right now. Daddys little geek... makes me proud.

Are you listening to yourself? Do you read the page before you hit submit?

You're arguing that the right is evil incarnate.

Blind hate backed up by facts != logical, rational thinking.



You do realize that his predecessor, George Tenet (the guy who was in charge up to and beyond 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq) was appointed by Clinton, right?

And I take it you read at least SOME of the 9/11 commission report, yes?



Here you don't know wtf you're talking about. The American Dream(TM) in the minds of some folks is being able to "build the better mousetrap". The notion that ideas, inventions, and the entrepreneurial spirit are a big part of what makes America great, and among one of the strongest economic forces in the world.

Those people tend to get a bit pissed off when they improve their gross earnings, but end up with less net income after taxes. It's not just the "uber-rich" either.

My dad ran his own company for aout 15 years. At one point, he was bringing in about $200,000 a year trying to support a family of 4. By many accounts, he is among the "rich" that Kerry would just as soon tax into oblivion. Nevermind that we had 2 mortgages and a federal government loan to repay, which we had used to start the business.....and that we had trouble making ends meet for most of my life, just so my sister and I would have the opportunity to go to college (which my dad never did).



Those same rich folks are trying to keep their companies afloat in the middle of a historic economic crisis. 9/11, accounting scandals, and the dotcom implosion all contributed to the economic climate that CAUSED this problem.

Newsflash: If the company has to outsource 1 of 5 jobs overseas to preserve the company, they are still providing 4 jobs. If the company doesn't have a viable alternative, they either downsize 1 job and work the fuck out of the other 4, or they go out of business, and provide ZERO jobs.

4>0



Excrement....you're using FUD to a large extent here.

It is cheaper to pay one person overtime than it is to pay two employees. Perhaps you've heard of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler? Here in Detroit, they are big time job providers. The UAW has laid-off employees making over 90% of their standard pay rates FOR NOT WORKING. Many of these folks not only take the overtime gladly, THEY PLAN ON IT AS A PART OF THEIR ANNUAL INCOME.



This is where we play the little game of "no fair, millionaires got a bigger refund". I see you're joining the discussion a bit late.....MILLIONAIRES PAY A HIGHER TAX RATE THAN YOU DO, AND THEY PAY IT ON A MUCH HIGHER DOLLAR FIGURE. The folks who paid the most, got the biggest refund....those who paid the least, got the least. Explain to me again how that's unfair?



This isn't Unicef, motherfucker. The upper class don't HAVE to dole out handouts to "the little guy". Some of them USED TO BE the little guy, and managed to get along just fine without begging for scraps like some whiny pussy.



There are two things you understand about the GOP....Jack and SHIT. A very large part of what the GOP wants is to prevent the government from exploiting them to fund a bunch of programs that are exploited by the underclass.



You're biased because you got yourself fired from a crappy job, and can't find a new one. Everything since then has been attempts at justifying your position.



Are you fucking retarded? Compare America 1979 to America 1988, see if you can find a fucking difference.

By the way, moron, you're lambasting the GOP based on your misinformed interpretation of what they stand for IN THEORETICAL TERMS, and then asking for a response that doesn't involve theory.

I see you haven't run out of your boundless supply of LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY yet.



Show me results besides that which anyone running the country wouldn't have done anyway, such as dodging scandal after scandal while the economy sits on cruise control, thanks to the internet boom.

Show me how they do anything productive for this country besides fucking up Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq....not to mention effectively gutting the intelligence community and the armed forces, while simultaneously committing perjury about committing adultery.

Or we can refer to Mr Kerry, who returned from his stint as "war hero" only to denounce the war, and testify that he and his fellow soldiers committed WAR CRIMES. This same Mr Kerry, whose foreign policy plan is "like Bush, but better"....whose economic plan is "like Bush, but better", and whose social programs read like a Xmas list for liberal special interest groups....al supposedly funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, and simultaneously cutting taxes for everyone else.

But you won't do that, you'll drone on and on about how much Bush sucks, the GOP is evil, and you'll spout more rhetoric you've gleaned from reading moveon.org and thumbing through a Michael Moore book.

Again...blind hatred of something you do not understand, and consequently fear. Why am I not surprised?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Actually, for historical reference, for the lower 80% of folks, taxes went up 1979-1988 (FICA taxes and state taxes rose significantly and the brunt of which is borne by working Americans), and standard of living declined. For the hard numbers, see Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democray or past volumes of The State of Working America.

And the historical record has illustrated that the U.S. economy performs better under Democrat control (http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=247), or at least when counting GDP growth, unemployment and inflation, and allotting for any "time lag" after administration turnover.  

Job growth/decline statistics are even more lopsided (http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v210/womanwriter/jobsbypresident.gif)

And as far as government expansion/spending goes, the biggest spending orgies have occurred under Republican watch - Reagan/Bush in the 80s and now GW Bush who's steward of a deficit mushrooming that may soon dwarf even that of Reagan's.

Christ all fucking mighty. The man doesn't even grasp why the Holocaust happened. Here's a hint, dipshit.....go look up the word GENOCIDE. Then ask yourself why Hitler is so commonly associated with White Power and the Aryans.

When you're done, consider retracting that idiotic statement I've quote above.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

From a percentage point of view, wouldn't the largest spending increases have occured under FDR?

My problem with both parties is that they have no sense of limits.  As some Democrats believe that government should do everything, there are members of the GOP who believe that government should to (next to) nothing.  Unfortunately it is that wing of the GOP that is in the White House at the moment.

I can appreciate the ideas behind a smaller government even though I don't agree with them; however I am dumbfounded by those who want to shrink government's influence back to what it was the 1800s.

(http://spams-ukwildcatbasketball.com/threadwontdie.mbe.jpg)

Hardly surprising, Arc.  This thread should have been locked at post 1.   Fearing Liberals under a bed, indeed.

Die in a Holocaust fire.

As for the rest of your commentary, thanks.   Unlike Boog, you back up your arguments with something other than insults or violence.  (Not that you're without insults insults entirely, you twat, which is why I've not even the spirit to read what you bothered to write on this occation).   As I said before, I'm done with this thread.   Note to you immature cockmongers amongst the readership, that does not mean I'm going to sit back and endure insults I find worthy of retort, so long as I still care.


Hint: I wasn't referring to the Republicans when I made that comment.

Reading comprehension is important.   I'll retract that comment when Boog shows me any color other than total bad ass.   Seriously, the same spirit in which he just finished arguing is one in which I halfway expect him to try to pass a bill to have all the kids in orphanages euthanized in the spirit of removing a burden from society.   If I cared a whit about my own miserable existance at this point, I'd probably be too busy cowering in fear of his logically induced homocidal nature to mention it.   I'd be willing to say his intelligence score is high enough, but he clearly flubbed his wisdom roll.

Actually, I like the Republicans on the grounds that they keep the Democrats honest in the exact same way the Democrats keep the Republicans honest.   Screw around too much, and the other guys end up in the oval office for the next term.   However, aside from these insane financial theories that don't seem to work (unless by "work" you mean "give you lots of money if you're in a very high tax bracket"), I don't see how the Republicans are getting much done this term aside from a lot of embezzling and killing.   Evil incarnate?  As close to it as politics allow, perhaps.    

Wake up DV, whatever the Republicans may have accomplished in the past, the ones in office right now are just greedy bastards, plain and simple.   One major catastrophe isn't enough - there would have to be twenty 9/11 disasters to explain all the crap they've been pulling.   They've funneled enough money to rebuild the world trade center hundreds of times over.   They've funneled enough money to OWN a significient portion of the world stock market.

Wow, this thread is still going? How many times did geldon say he was done, 2 or 3? It's hard to tell. At any rate, it's good to see quality political discourse is alive and well on message boards.

To continue: SPACE ELF NAZIS!



There, I won the Internet.

Thread was done prior to it being posted, IMHO.   As for the number of times I said, I was done: Just twice, but on the second time I qualified it with "But don't think I'm going to ignore insults."   Seriously, exactly when was it considered kosher to throw in a bunch of glib remarks hoping the other guy wouldn't come back and refute them?

Seconded.   Space Elf Nazis 4 teh win.

Holy shit, all this time I forgot the internet was a contest. I know I had the rules written down somewhere....

[sarcasm]
Fucking Americans and your incestuous little two party system.  I am so glad I live in Canada. At least you provide some amusing politics.
[/sarcasm

Lum,

The only assistance I need from you which i believe you would do for me are the following:

1. Assist me invest this money in your country
2. Assure me that you will not sit on my share when this fund gets to your country.

You will have 15% of the money for yourself as you guide me further to invest the remaining 80% in any valueble business venture while 5% is earmarked to cover expenses contingencies.
Most importantly, i will like to buy a personal house where i and my mother will reside.

Upon confirmation of your interest to help me as my foreign partner to invest this money, i will link you the details of this transaction to be scheduled in your favour by the security company. While thanking you for your anticipated understanding and cooperation, I look forward to your urgent response. please note that this transaction is strictly confidential and must be treated with utmost secrecy.

Best regards,
Mr Mbombo A. Fl.....errrr Schild

Then you're not done. Saying "I wash my hands of this thread" doesn't actually mean "I take the moral high ground and grandly announce I am too good to participate, but reserve the right to refute anything I see as an attack on my character in mind numbing detail".

Are you offering me C1al.is? Because, you know, I've been looking for some.

I have to respectfully disagree. (No, that is not sarcasm)

I don't believe that the current white house is in favor of smaller government. Where is the evidence of that? I don't think anyone in government really wants smaller government. They want it smaller in some places, but bigger in others.

The GOP will say they don't want cops in the bedroom, then LITERALLY argue a case in front of the Supreme Court involving cops in a bedroom. They deregulate some things, and regulate other things more. Just look at the FCC - they want to deregulate media ownership, but want to regulate media content further than it is now. The GOP is against things like the equal rights amendment, but for amendments against flag burning, gay marriages, etc. They want to regulate scientific research more, pollution less, etc etc etc.

I don't think they want smaller government, just different government. Under Bush the government hasn't shrunk at all. The government is as intrusive now as it ever has been, costs as much, etc etc. Generally speaking the President and other residing powers don't do much to change the size of government at all.

It's just a convenient fable. There is a lot to be gained by advocating smaller government, but not much to be gained by doing it. (Same for compaign finance reform) Smaller government, state's rights, etc, are just convenient excuses that can be deployed in select situations.

I have family members who did, you fucktard. That's why I felt the need to chastise you for not knowing what the Holocaust was really about.



Neither was I....I was referring to the item I quoted, where you made an ignorant statement about Jews, Hitler and religion. The Holocaust was GENOCIDE. Go look up the words Holocaust (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=holocaust) and genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide)....seriously, I'll wait.

When you get done, retract your fucking statement.



Yeah, you like the guys that "make your skin crawl". Right.


   



Here you go again....blind hatred. Your entire premise is that every thing they do is motivated by greed for money and power, and placing personal gain above the good of the country. THAT IS PRECISELY THE FLAWED THINKING I WAS TALKING ABOUT.



How about 3? The dotcom bubble put us into a recession, followed by 9/11 (which shut down Wall Street for a ***WEEK***), and then the corporate accounting scandals of Enron and Worldcom which sent stocks tumbling, and decimated investor confidence....oh yeah, and the aftermath of 9/11 had us sending troops into Afghanistan.

Three castastrophes combined to make for an UNPRECEDENTED period of uncertainty and economic difficulties. Explain to me how further taxing people would have helped, or even NOT HURT.



Care to back this up with some facts? Are you referring to the deficit? If so, you're talking out of both sides of your ass.

You can't decry the administration for leaving our boys poorly equipped, and simultaneously chastise them for running deficits. War is expensive, genius....and even the 87 billion that your wonderboy voted AGAINST isn't going to cover everything.

Or perhaps you're referring to the stock options owned by Cheney? Stock options that had a value of $0, even before 9/11. Take a look at this 5-year chart for Halliburton stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y). Look at where the price was when Bush was elected....look where it is today. It is worth less today than it was at the election in 2000. Oh wait...you don't grasp how OPTIONS work, do you? Well then let's look at where the stock was prior to his joining the Bush campaign (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=). Let's consider the following statement from this article (http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/), and bear in mind that HAL is currently at $27.95 per share.



This means that he has the option to buy up to 100,000 shares for $54.50 each, 33,333 shares for $28.125 each, and 300,000 shares at $39.50 each. In other words, by using his stock options to purchase HAL stock, he'd be paying more than the current stock value....this means they are currently worth NOTHING.

So where are they funnelling money, geld? I'm just kind of curious on that one.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

(http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/html/photogallery/TrainWreck.jpg)

This message edited at the request of the original poster, because he is a lame-ass who can't read.

Yeah, I had family members who died in WW-II as well.   Granted, mine at least had the oppertunity to have a rifle in his hands when taking nazi lead.

I'll retract my earlier Hitler related commentary on the grounds that WW-II was a fucked up event for everybody.   That, and I didn't really mean to imply racial genocide so much as reasoned extermination of a certain group of disadvantaged individuals.

Anyone have a good spokesman for logically induced mass homocide that does not rub Dark Vengence the wrong way?

Politicians.   What can I say?


Okay: Social Security, Medicare, Government provided insurance, Government employment, ect.

What would all this cost each one of us?  Apparently only the $300.00 we had recieved in our tax rebate.   No, it looks like Your Man Cheney (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0414-04.htm) was the one of the few who benefitted from these so called "tax cuts".  

In return, they've apparently moved a great deal of jobs overseas and performed a plethora of other cost-cutting measures which screwed the working man.   If the Republicans cared, they didn't do anything about it.

Yeah, those are some real cute tricks with the stock portfolio manipulation, but do you want to tell me how one man's stock investments are supposed to redeem a whole party's treatment of the working man these last four years?

You mentioned the 87 billion for the Afghanistan war effort.   We're down about 14 trillion dollars in the federal treasury alone.   Point to me on the number line where 1 billion is.

$1 Dollar <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> $1 Trillion Dollars

(If you guessed correctly, the 1 billion is on the far left side about where the first dash is.   87 billion would be before the 10th dash from the left.)

(http://www.dangerousbeauty.org/Shut%20the%20fuck%20up!!.jpg)

I hate to stick my nose in the blender like this but:



I love the informed politicians. Those who have researched there programs' pros and cons and have made an informed decision whether or not to proceed.  The kind of politicians that can make even staunch detractors say "Hmm, I hadn't thought that."  If I was given the chance to speak with George Bush, Dick Cheney, or some other member of the administration on policy I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion.  Smart well-informed useful discussion is necessary in a democracy.  The only people who make my skin crawl are the people who support bush in the fashion that you, boog, and almost all people who post on this board at one point or another are so fond of.  These penis waving matches do little to nothing in changing my opinion of the candidates.  Do you want an example of what I'm talking about?


Although there is one point which I agree with you wholeheartedly:



For future debates here are a couple ideas that will help all of us:

if the opposing poster doesn't offer proof of their point, post approval of your point instead of relying on what amounts to the same argument
 

Never confuse the ideas of opinion and in fact and while we're at it how about no one uses the phrase in my honest opinion because it means absolutely nothing in a political discussion.  We know damn well and good what you're opinion is, probably before you can say it.

If you said it in another post don't say it again.

Troll opinions don't count (I might have shot myself in the foot with that want, but it's still true)

If you're going to significantly derail a conversation make a new post.  Not that I think this stupid children's book post was going to go anywhere, it's just simple courtesy to take it outside so you don't knock over anybody's drinks.

If the opposing poster said it on another forum, argue with it there.  The exception being for ex-girlfriends, girlfriends, wives, and ex-wives, who are allowed to pull something up from a past life, if they can find the quote.

Walking away from a fight is acceptable, only if you actually walk away from it.

Finally and most importantly if your opposing poster is so ignorant that you require curse words to describe their stupidity then why exactly are you arguing with them?  If however you are attempting to have an honest political debate remember the McLaughlin group never had people screaming over the coffee table, "U ignorant fucktard!"

Thank you

PS.  To write this post I used the Dragon dictation program and was incredibly surprised to find the word fucktard is a recognized word.

All of a sudden they want rules.

they arent exactly hard and fast rules if i broke two of them just by posting them.

I agree with you 100%. You are right. The problem is...that's you, but not geldon.



For starters, don't lump me in with Boog just because we are both arguing with geldon. Or even if we happen to both argue for Bush or against Kerry. For the record, SirBruce is a Bush supporter, and I'd rather not be lumped in with him, either.

Secondly, it'd help if you had some history on the matter. He has vehemently attacked Bush, and defended Kerry at every turn...often using uninformed, or blatantly misinformed arguments, and then RE-USING them a few days later, even after conceding them as points in previous discussions.

I don't know how often I have to point out the recession, 9/11, and the accounting scandals to him as reasons for our economic difficulties, the increase in outsourcing, unemployment, etc. Yet he keeps trying to blame it on Bush, and bringing up the point that rich people got bigger tax rebates than poor people (meanwhile, he is collecting unemployment checks). Apparently quite a bit....because every time I diffuse his argument about this, he commends me for bringing valid points to the discussion....yet we go on to have the same argument again and again, because he brings it up as a means to bash Bush and the GOP and proclaim his undying loyalty to Kerry and the Dems at every opportunity. It gets a tad frustrating, and yes....I admit I tee off on geld's political knowledge (or lack thereof) regularly as a result.

Also, what he doesn't realize is that I don't have a party affiliation. I'm an independent, albeit one that doesn't agree with kerry on matters of policy, and hates seeing muckrakers make baseless accusations of corruption and incompetence against the President. I was against it with Clinton too...at least up until I discovered that he committed perjury (and even then, I was only after him for the perjury, not the BJ). I was actually a supporter of moveon.org at the time, until they dropped into pure partisan BS and started doing the exact same things they blasted GOP watchdogs for doing to Clinton.



If you're paying attention, this is one of the points I am trying to defend. The kid is stubborn, and insists on bringing up strawman after strawman as to why the GOP is evil incarnate. Every so often, he baits me into trying to knock one of those straw men down, in the hopes that it will get him to see the other side of the fence....at least enough to understand where they are coming from.



Hey, by doing it this long, we finally got him to Google for information to support his position every so often. He tends to cite some fairly flimsy sources, yet still tries to discredit sources like CNN and the Washington Post....but at least he's doing some research, even if he's not thinking about it critically.

The next step is to get him to look at both sides of an issue....and to get him to look at the issue instead of just the candidate or party affiliation. You break the issue down to the point where you understand both sides....even well enough to argue for or against either position. Then you decide which position you agree with the most....then you align yourself with the candidate that shares your views on the issues.

When he argues with me when I say that the GOP is not evil incarnate, he obviously isn't taking the route of logical, rational thinking.

But why bother? Easy...because we don't need another person going to the polls based on some ignorant hatred for one party or another. The goal is to get him to lose the hatred and look at the matter intelligently, not influence which party gets his vote.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Having gone toe to toe with DV, I can say generally he's somewhat more interesting to argue against. Granted it was about rape and I was taking a pretty off-beat viewpoint for the pure sake of argument, but he still held it together pretty well even though I'm a google-freak.

Geldon on the other hand seems to suddenly become an expert on everything he opens his mouth on, probably because he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It's the towels, really.  Get one of those Holiday Express Inn towels and you know everything.   Pure cotton-based nerdvana.

I'll admit Dark Vengence has his mitts on a great deal more facts than I can come across (or, at the very least, his presentation is better).   Where he's been citing specific examples which may or may not have an influence on the big picture, I've been doing most of my reasoning on a common sense standpoint.    I may not be able to tell you what a political science major would tell you, but I can tell you slightly more than the man on the street.   I (believe it or not) do have a working creative mind which I strive to keep open to new ideas at all times.   However, clearly my expertese is not here (is anyone here a poltical science major?)

Still, in this particular discussion, an expert probably is not required to argue this side.    You'd have to be trying really hard to foster delusion in order to avoid noticing that things have been less than jolly under the Republican regeim.   9/11 just isn't excuse enough - things were going sharply downhill prior to the disaster as well.   I'd go look up some charts for you, but I'm sure you've already seen them.   The Dotcom crash also isn't excuse enough, as it apparently occured half-way through Clinton's second term (depending on what source you cite) and didn't influence the vast majority of businesses that weren't trying to make a living off the internet.   Amazon's still up and running, by the way.  

I would suggest that the Republican fiscal plan just doesn't work to create a healthy country.  It hasn't worked during the application of Reganomics, and it doesn't work in the barely altered version they have now.   Watching them piss away 14 trillion dollars while riding a warhorse to cover their tracks just helped upgrade them from "clueless fossils" to "political equivilent to evil incarnate" in my book.     14 trillion - largest amount of federal debt change during a single presidential term in the history of the United States.   Most of it gone in the form of tax rebates that largely favored the rich, who (feigning sudden financial difficulties regardless) turned right around and sold our jobs overseas.   Dribble-down only works when folks up top give a damn, which is apparently less than common.    Republican equivilents to Boss Tweed, I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the whitehouse.  

Now, in DV's latest post, we're hearing him blame the results in themselves?  "There's a recession because things are in recession.   Outsourcing has been occuring because buisiness felt it would be cheaper to outsource."  Ect.   You might have more facts on your hands there, DV, but that's a very odd line of reasoning.   Usually when confronted with a problem, I like to try to find solutions, not reinforce the problem by suggesting it's neccessary to occur.   Sounds like you've bought into political smokescreen to me.   It's about as flimsy as the "everything wrong with these last four years was the last administration's fault!" pretense.  I sure didn't see Clinton whining in 1996 when his own administration in the previous term set him up for economic success.

Geldon, for the love of God just STOP. This crack:



is utterly offensive to anyone with a brain. Totally apart from the fact that I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here, you're dismissing the most catastrophic genocide in European history, WHICH HAS PERSONALLY AFFECTED PEOPLE YOU ARE TALKING TO, with the offhand comment that "WW2 was fucked up for everybody". Well, no, it wasn't. It was fucked up for THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ROUNDED UP IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND SLAUGHTERED.

The rest of your ramblings, as best I can tell, basically say "I don't really know what I'm talking about, but you should listen to me because I don't like conservatives after thinking about it really, really hard." That's fine. That's more effort than most people put into it and is coming perilously close to something that can actually almost be discussed. And then we get these left field diversions into Holocaust denial. To quote the philosophers: WTF, man?

It's really obvious that you have the same problem my stepson does: you refuse to ever let the fact that you have completely no idea what you're talking about stopping you from commenting. Most of the time this is somewhat amusing and endearing. This time, it's totally, unbeliveably, completely offensive on multiple levels. STOP.

Terribly sorry I offended your sensibilities there, Lum, but World War II was a frigging World War.   What happened to the jewish people in the nazi concentration camps were one of the worst travesties in humanity, I agree.   I've seen footage of the bulldozers pushing around bodies, and it's truly vile.

However, the death toll outside of the holocaust camp wasn't terribly enjoyable either.   Much of Europe was leveled under bombings.   Nearly the entire male population in the USSR was wiped out to support their war effort.   Apparently the only way we could get the killing to stop was to drop NUCLEAR BOMBS.   Do I need to make this any more clearer?

So I stick by my earlier statement, "World War 2 was fucked up for everyone."   Terribly sorry I didn't take the time, just this once, to amend onto that, "particularly if you were jewish an anywhere near Germany."   Deal with it.

Here's a new thing to research in your free time when you're done musing on your adventures in the political system:

Moral relativism.

Some of us find it offensive.

Yes, we do.

My comment that offended you so had less to do with morals and more to do with dismissing the whole ugly business from this thread.   That, like the rest of this thread, probably should have died by now.  

And yes, reasoned extermination of anyone is offencive to the brain, which is why I was offended enough to mention it where I detected it earlier in Boogs argument.   What you were arguing with was the extreme tail end of an entirely different subject, and taking it in an entirely wrong light by having no idea as to the background in which it was introduced.

And I know how/when to shut up, I just don't particularly enjoy having offhand comments taken for entirely different inflections than I meant to imply.   It's a nasty tendacy I especially notice from the #hate crowd, who have demonstrated a sickening habit of taking everything I say for the worse possible meaning.   I could send you a Hallmark greeting card that said "Get Well Soon" and you'd probably think I was suggesting kidnapping this Well guy.

Then you should try to think before you shove your foot in your mouth.

Case in point.  Perhaps there's some strange arguing style I can establish that wouldn't cause mass misinterpretation in what I've been saying.  However, considering certain members of the audience, I suspect what is reading largely is depending on the preconcieved notion of the reader.

You have 3 days to make your piss taste like champagne. If it doesn't, expect to hold it in.

Edit: Wait a minute, why bother locking it when I can just roll away the stupid? Re-railed.

This original statement from Boog was this:

"They aren't broken. That often implies they can be fixed. They just don't work like you, at all. You don't "fix" a dog for being a dog, do you? Much the same. They aren't human."

I agree with Geldon. Replace "they" with "Jews." Or any group you don't like.

Dehumanization is always the first step no? In this case the "they" are clearly human in every sense of the word, other than the "gee, it feels less guilty if I call them something else" sort of way.

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to compare being a Jew to being a sexual predator...deal. That wasn't the point of the analogy.

I compare being black and being gay all the time, and sometimes some black person will say "hey, I resent that." Tough shit. That's why it's called an analogy, not an equivalency.

"We can do whatever we want to these people, because they aren't like us or even human" is a pretty dangerous philosophy to espouse, regardless of who you are referring to. It's a purposeful innacuracy to obscure the issues. Let's just change our terminology around so we can behave like idiots without justification.

It was a poorly chosen analogy, but the basic point was good, and you guys have made it into a huge issue for no reason. (Unless I missed something in some later, rambling posts)
---

The sad part is, there are plenty of good reasons to hate the GOP, but nobody has brought them up. Too much Jew talk.


Edit: To clarify and annoy people further:

Boog said: We can do what we want to people, because they aren't like us and not even really human.

Geldon said: That same sort of logic has been used to justify things like the Holocaust.

A bunch of Jews said: @#$#$!

That's how I read this discussion. I agree with Geldon, I think you guys are reading into his comments what you want to read without thinking about what was, you know, actually written.

This is basically the exact same coversation as the following:

Some guy: We shouldn't allow gays to marry, that destroys families and is bad for society.

Geldon: That same logic was used against interracial marriage.

A bunch of interracial couples said: Hey, fuck you, don't call us gay.

---
Way to miss the point.

Thanks Margalis, I was thinking that perhaps there must have been something fatally wrong with my writing, but looks like what I was wrote was actually readable after all.   (Though a little practice establishing better post structure wouldn't hurt me.)

You're right I could have chosen a less offensive analogy to use.  Though it's a hard subject to find an unoffencive example of due to how harsh the subject was (reasoned extermination of human beings), I probably chose the worst case in human history.

You owe me $5. :)

Can it wait until after the recession? ;)

Wouldn't you have to get a job first?



But then it wouldn't be my argument. Jews are not an action. Sexual assault IS an action. Sexual predators, by and large [Skippy the linebacker may get drunk and fuck his date and be a sexual predator, but possibly not in the tradition sense of the word], aren't wired the same as you. Oh sure, 2 arms 2 legs. Most external things in the right place. You can breed with them, so I suppose you have to admit it's the same species.

They just don't act like people act. In some cases, they aren't even biologically similar in thought patterns.

Why pretend otherwise? A Jew and a genteel, basically the same cat at work. A normal man and a sociopath? There's every chance you are talking about a serious mental imbalance that would show up examining the two [every chance, some cases, and all other catch words are used because sometimes people are fucked up with no clear biological or psychological reason to suggest why]. You can pretend it's a "good point" and say "Well, it's like what Hitler did to the Jews" but a lot of things are like what Hitler did to the Jews.

Guess what? That doesn't make it bad. "Like" doesn't mean it's the same thing. If history was "Hitler rounded up the Jews locked them away in camps until the war was over and then deported them" it'd be like what actually happened.

It's that key "Slaughtered in a manner not befitting animals, let alone human beings" that kinda crosses the line. And all the other steps to it. And it wasn't just the Jews. It was Christians and gays and gypsies and so on and so on and so on. It was "Kill everyone we don't like".

Whereas I said sexual predators need to be watched at all times. Unless you are arguing that sexual predators are people too, and deserve to be treated with respect.

Like Hitler?

Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I could be wrong, of course, but I actually thought you said "We can't afford to watch them at all times, so let's just get rid of them."  It could certainly be read that way...

You could indeed be wrong. I have no problem with trying to treat them, throwing them in a pit and torturing them, or putting them on a fucking deserted island. I didn't say do any of these things. I said make sure you know where they are, because they have a disturbing tendency to try to rape/murder again. I said treatment is pretty meaningless. I didn't say don't TRY to treat them [even if it seemed I implied that] I just said it's going to be a waste of time in most cases. It's like trying to get someone off heroin. Sure, it may take sometimes but I don't like your odds. There are some crimes that are beyond the pale, there are some people that don't view life like you. You can try to treat them, I just think keeping them under guard should be done first. Between the rights of a criminal and the rights of a potential future victim, I don't even have to think.

I don't lack empathy. I just place common sense above empathy. And I made a point early to stress I wasn't talking about EVERY criminal, but the most extreme cases. I don't think you need to anally insert a tracker into little Jimmy because he took a joyride in his cousin's Firebird.

But hey, lets not actually pay attention to what I said because I'm the big bad yelling man and it's easier to not respond to points if you don't admit they exist.

Oh, and geld:

What lum meant about "moral relativism" is simple. You said "blank was like blank" as if the two things were even semi-related. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation and when that situation involves one of [It not being near the largest] the greatest acts of genocide in the 20th century you are going to piss people off. It's like saying Iraq is like Vietnam. All it means is you don't understand Iraq OR Vietnam and you cheapen the lives of the men who fought in both places.

Ignorance is no excuse for some things. Especially "Die in a Holocaust fire.". That's just callous and petty. Which is fine, I've done things worse, but I do them to be callous and petty.

Did you think you weren't being an asshole with that line?

And here's an idea:

Try responding to exactly what I say rather than reading shit into it like I want to....what was the line?....."to try to pass a bill to have all the kids in orphanages euthanized in the spirit of removing a burden from society".

I like children. Unlike most of you they haven't fucked up yet.

Why?

You know something's gone horribly wrong when even Boog reminds you that what you said was callous. The man who once told a poster he was happy that guy's mother was dead and that he would piss on her grave if he could.

We were in a recession after one of the largest bull markets in economic history, which was based on the false premise that internet advertising and e-commerce were going to revolutionize commerce. When they didn't, things tended to fall apart....mainly because many of these sites HAD NO VIABLE BUSINESS PLAN OUTSIDE OF AD DOLLARS.

Then we endured the worst terrorist attack this country has ever seen. They destroyed the WORLD TRADE CENTER, and it shut down Wall Street for a WEEK.....do you think that might have had an effect on our economy that would stick around for a little while? People were scared shitless.....stadium events like sports, or various award shows were areas of concern (it occurred to people that U-M home games put 100,000 Americans into a very small area, and such).....we had weeks worth of anthrax scares...oh, and btw, we were going to war in Afghanistan. Yeah, I'd say that it'd have a pretty significant impact.

Months later, we discover that Enron and Worldcom had cooked the books, and more companies followed, including notable pillars of industry like XEROX. That shook people, investors feared they couldn't even trust their research, because that data provided by the company could be completely fabricated....research is just about the only thing that separates Wall Street from the Vegas strip.



First of all, Amazon had been dumping millions into advertising their site through conventional media. Additionally, word of mouth on the internet helped establish them into one of the most recognizable names on the net. Plus they actually had a business plan....to hock books, movies, etc. Many other sites didn't have such a strong plan.

I also think you're naive to think that the dotcom implosion had no impact on businesses in different sectors. When the bubble burst, many investors ran for cover, wisely seeing that the bull market of the 90's was over.

People like ones on this forum lost money on their 401(k), particularly if they were in any sort of aggressive growth fund.....because at the time, diversification had been ignored by many folks in favor of trying to get in on the ground floor of this new online economy.

But go ahead and keep believeing it had no effect.



Reagan inherited a weak economy from Carter and made it substantially stronger. He also had some other concerns on his mind.....namely, the Cold War. International relations, and defense were a much bigger concern than the economy...and the economy recovered under Reagan. It didn't fall into a recession until after George Bush had completed the first Gulf War.



Cover their tracks for WHAT??? An economy devastated by coporate scandal, a bear market, and unprecedented terrorist attacks on our country? Time to open your eyes....the president is not God, some things are beyond his control.



Winning wars, rebuilding countries, and strengthening homeland defense are expensive, moron. Or would you prefer we do nothing to bolster our national security?



BACK IT UP. You're trying to tell me that US companies are FAKING economic difficulties??? Are you fucking serious??

By the way, take an economics course.....soon. Please.  



There was a recession because the dotcom's had shitty optimistic business plans that ignored the reality of financial risk. It was all based on a premise that advertising would be more effective than what it was, and that consumers would embrace e-commerce to a much greater degree than they actually did.

Outsourcing occurs because companies have to cut costs to stay afloat, you fuckwit. It's been going on for years. My employer has done domestic outsourcing for their clients for OVER A DECADE. When the economy went to shit, we had a mini-boom on our hands, because companies that had already trimmed themselves ultra-lean still had to cut more costs.....and believe me that the cost of employees is one of the few places where most companies could trim substantial overhead without losing much productivity.....so the question then becomes, do you want to dump it on the remaining employees, or would you prefer to outsource some of these unskilled or semi-skilled jobs so your remaining employees can focus on their core business, and maintain or improve overall company productivity????

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL YOU FUCKTARD!!



Yeah, must be....that's why your boy, and all of his supporters are pointing to the past, and second guessing what Bush did, instead of talking about what they are GOING TO DO FOR THE FUTURE. Saying that you're going to stay the course in Iraq with more international involvement doesn't get people excited....mainly because that's what Bush has insisted he would do all along. Saying that you're going to create more jobs isn't doing it...because Bush wants the same thing (and their plans aren't all that different).

OTOH, pointing at Bush and saying that you oppose the war, you hate the deficits he ran, and that you blame him for the state of the economy....all without exploring WHY these things happened....tends to get Democrats and their target demographics excited and fired up to denounce Bush.

You've still not realized it....you can attack Bush all day, but you can't provide me with any better reason to elect John Kerry than the "ABB" bullshit.

Kerry and Edwards haven't been hyping the goals they described at the DNC in the swing states, and they haven't been promoted in the national media. Do you know why? Because it was too liberal for most independent voters, but went over beautifully in front of a Dem audience.

Try telling me more about WHY YOU WANT KERRY, and less about WHY YOU DON'T WANT BUSH.



My god are you ignorant. The dotcom bubble burst prior to January 2001....this means that Bush inherited a recession already in progress. Then some assholes decided to fly planes into the Pentagon and the WORLD TRADE CENTER.....a military target and an ECONOMIC TARGET. Then we find out that some massive companies had been cooking the books for YEARS (i.e. even dating back into the Clinton administration). Everything since has been aftermath.

Clinton did his fair share of whining in 1992, citing the economy as Bush's greatest failing. Then he rode the tide of optimism about the internet and the bear market that went along with it....and proceeded to take all the credit for something he had very little to do with.

Meanwhile his foreign policy was a joke, and his approach to our military and our intelligence community are at least a contributing factor to what happened a mere 9 months after he left office. To top it off, the great economy he supposedly created fell apart before his term was over, and he left Bush holding the bag.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Why is Boog talking?

Anyone worth listening to want to voice their objections? "Blank is like blank" is fine, if you don't fill in the wrong blanks. (That's pretty much all I read of his response, so don't expect any more analysis)

You guys are filling in:

"Sexual predators" are like "Jews."

Whereas the correct answer is:

"Your attitude" [that human's aren't humans and therefore don't need to be treated as such] is like "Hitler's."
---

Missed the point agian. Yay for reading comprehension. It wasn't a point about sexual predators or Jews. It was a point about attitudes.

Maybe you guys should consider that you don't have to reach for your guns the second you see Jews used in a sentence other than "I love Jews." The point had nothing to do with Jews at all, get over it already.

What Boog said was far stupider. Geldon used a dumb analogy that was sure to cause trouble, but if you can read and interpret english what he was getting at was clear, and was a valid point. What Boog said can't be interpreted in any way that makes it not completely retarded. (Almost as retarded as that sentence structure...)


Edit: I'm not very interested in the uninformed political debating aspect of this thread, but I will say that Clinton's foreign policy was not a joke, and was not partially responsible for 9/11 other than in a generic "hey, he was president for a while" sort of way. If you want to look at what is motivating Bin Laden, the single biggest factor is probably the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Gulf War.

Although Bush 2 has handled 9/11 very poorly and with dishonorable intent, I don't think you can say it is his fault either. It really is mostly Bush 1. Bush 2 just loses points for reacting like a retard and exploiting it to advance loosely related agendas. We immediately pissed away the sympathy of most of the world without accomplishing anything on a global or national scale, other than "support America, buy more stuff." We had a moment to get out a message that everyone in the world would hear, and that was it: go shopping.

I had an issue with it because he was implying that the Holocaust was about destroying Jews for their choice of religion, when it was actually about wiping them out because of his belief in "blood purity" and the notion that they had corrupted Aryan race.

Wholesale slaughter based on ethnicity is a far cry from saying "hey we should probably keep tabs on these sexual predators, as they have an alarming rate of repeat offense".

I can appreciate that Boog has an indifference to the lives of rapists, murderers, and child molestors. I don't particularly blame him. But I think that it is naive to take the opposite extreme position and say that they should simply do their time, see a shrink a few times, and be labelled "normal". We have state registries for sex offenders RIGHT NOW, and there is debate over whether or not it should be made public knowledge when a sex offender moves into a community.

Even our current government acknowledges that rehabilitation in this instance has marginal results, at best.....so I don't see where Boog is entirely off base. I'm quite certain he didn't invent the concept of "an eye for an eye"...and I know he isn't the only guy even on this site that thinks rapists, murderers, and child molestors are the scum of the earth....and doesn't particularly give a fuck what happens to them, just so long as they aren't simply released back into our society.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Dark, do you know what the hell Margalis said?

I want to respond to it, I just....don't know what the hell point he put forth. Other than I'm a stupidiot.

You've been trying to be slightly more fair and evenhanded with your replies than me, so I'm willing to take your word about whatever the hell he meant to say.

There is one thing that I can respond to:



To which I said that it's meaningless the generalities that we have in common [that you can say my treatment of sexual predators is like Hitlers views on the Jews] because I was never talking about a general situation. I was talking about specific things and specific solutions, to which generalities are meaningless.

I never talked about concentration camps, or rounding up the criminals and taking out their gold fillings, or filling up trains with their corpses, or anything else that could put me from "Vaguely like Hitler, kinda, in this funny light" to "Boog's criminal holocaust of vengence".

You can say "Like Hitler' all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Hitler was "kill those in our way" Hitler was about the purity of the blood, Hitler was about this and that.

I said more cameras, more attention paid to people we KNOW are a risk.

That's it. I never went beyond that.

You took that idea and ran way the fuck beyond Thunderdome to a bunch of shit I never even thought of, let alone wrote.

For instance I can't think of one person that jumped on geldon for mentioning the Jews. The holocaust had a lot to do with them, sure, but it wasn't an entirely Jewish event. Millions and millions of non-Jews were killed in concentration camps.

If anyone is obsessed with the Jewish angle, it's you.

Keep talking shit, I have head cold and a better grasp of the English language than you.

The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabi after the first gulf war would be an extension of Clintons forgien policy wouldn't it?

I'm not advocating we should have pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia because it was pissing off the nutters.  I'm just pointing out that your attempts to exhonerate the holy Clinton are vague, transparent and causing you to contradict yourself.  If your stance is naturally that unbalanced you may want to consider why.

Clinton is responsible in many ways for the WTC/Pentagon attacks.  IMO the main factors of why the attacks occured was because of his entirely pathetic attempts at curtailing terrorism while he was in office.  He single handedly made America look like a paper tiger that would let the mullahs pull on its tail all they wanted and the worsst they would get would be a half hearted swat.  When you add in the gutting of military and intelligence budgets under Clintons watch you get a recipie for disaster.

I don't care for the way Bush handled many things but he came down with both feet on Afghanistan and the Taliban and I think he should get more credit for that.   It's not neccessarily a given that another different president would have done the same thing or commited to it as strongly as bush did or that the whole situation would have turned out as well.  In all the hoopla over Iraq most people are missing that Afghanistan is picking itself up and dusting itself off and turning into a reasonably responsible member of the world.

That's only half true, and it is a minor point.

Although Hitler was generally against non-Aryan's and a variety of other non-perfect beings (handicapped, for example) he put particular emphasis on Jews, in part because of their historical reputation. It's fair to say Hitler hated those who were not perfect Aryans, but it's also fair to say he hated some more than others.



That's true but that wasn't the point. The point was that "they aren't human" is a weak justification that has been thrown out at various points in history with mostly disastrous consequences. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that wholesale slaughter and keeping tabs on people is the same thing. That's not what I got out of the discussion though.

No, that was Bush 1's policy. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Clinton didn't pull out those troops and neither did Bush 2, which is why I placed the blame on Bush 1. It was his decision. Clinton and Bush 2 are just guiltly of not actively reversing that decision, which is a far lesser offense.

You don't get to have it both ways.  Either Clinton was in office and acting as Commander in Chief or he wasn't.  Since he was the the person who kept US troops in Saudi Arabia for 8 years of his watch and didn't do anything effective to curtail the actions or plans of Osama Bin Ladin then he bears the vast weight of the burden of responsiblity.

I'll admit that I jumped in geldon's shit for his assertion that the Holocaust was about Jews and "a choice of religion", when it was largely about ethnic cleansing....and many uninformed people are unaware that there are ethnic Jews as well as gentiles who believe in Judaism.

The "die in a Holocaust fire" line took it a tad deeper, as I am of german descent. I had extended family that died in the Holocaust, as well as faimly members on both sides that fought as part of the US forces. My great uncle on my dad's side fought in Europe, my grandfather on my mom's side fought in the Pacific.

As to what Margie was saying, I think he was trying to dress some of us down for what he considers an emotional reaction to use of Hitler in an analogy. Additionally, he is trying to say that the attitude of indifference and view of rapists, murderers, and child molestors and inhuman or subhuman is similar to the attitude Hitler exhibited toward the Jews and the others that opposed him. Which was geldon's point all along....and IMO is still one hell of a stretch.

There is a long way between keeping tabs on people, and actively rounding them up to be executed.

But it was a "slippery slope for teh win" argument, one which comes up quite frequently in geldon's debating tactics. It's like a golfer who tries to use his 5 iron on every single shot......in some cases, it can be an effective tool, but if you use it all the time you'll look ike an incompetent jackass. Meanwhile, here I am yet again saying "TRY THE SAND WEDGE, GELDON".

Bring the noise.
Cheers...........

Actually, e-commerce and the internet has indeed revolutionized commerce. Because a great number of startups failed or were based on faulty utopian economic dreaming, doesn't change the fact that there were successes (google, yahoo, neopets, ebay, ISPs, etc.) along with mainstream "brick and mortar" enterprises that went full tilt into the fray.



401K have displaced traditional pension plans and the net effect is not a good one for American workers. The coming days will illustrate further this truth.



Carter inherited a battered economy, one that was sunk by an orgy of Vietnam expenditures and the jolt in energy prices. Yes, inflation was at a ridiculous rate, and came into check under Reagan but standard of living fell for the average American and tax burden increased for the lower 80% of the economic ladder (FICA & state tax increases more than offset the reduction in federal taxes which were bumped up for many in subsequent tax code modifications…).



Yes, and it should be paid for by the current generation, not defrayed at the cost to our children and our national sovereigntry.



Outsourcing occurs because it increases profits. For most all firms entering into the offshoring model, profit margins in existence were already double digit percentages - moving work to offshore vendors has more to do with branding, "be like Jack", etc. than it does with "staying afloat".



The fundamental nature of work is changing. Even without outsourcing, the trend has been a reduction in jobs - look at employment figures for top 1000 companies - they have been in decline since the 80s. Automation, computing technology have enabled all to do more with less. Throw in migration to offshore locales where a worker in the states (or W. Europe) cannot possibly compete on price or where slave labor can be utilized, and there is a structural problem that needs to be addressed at some point, hopefully sooner than later.

One side refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists, instead keep humming the "Happy days are here again" melody, while the other side has at least begun a dialogue on the issue.



Because they're staying just a little to the left of GWB, and letting him cook his own self.



Incorrect. The recent recession started in March 2001, according to a consensus of economists, particulary the ones in government now. Bush took office in January 2001.



Many disagree with that assertion, including prominent voices in the intelligence community, the former FBI deputy director of counter-terrorism and many other influential voices, including many "on the right".

His belief was that the Jews were to blame for the state of Germany after WW1, and that they were te reason that they had lost at all. He blamed it on the entirety of the race based on traits that he felt were inherent in the Jewish ethnicity, and ingrained in their culture. Thus, he wanted them destroyed moreso than any other non-Aryans.

You'll have a much harder time making a case that Hitler persecuted Jews for their religious beliefs, as geldon implied. But it's a minor off-topic point, so I'd just as soon leave it as it is.



The point Boog was making is that he personally doesn't give a flying fuck what happens to murderers, rapists, and child molestors. He doesn't believe that rehabilitation is effective, because these folks don't work quite the same way most of us do.

Boog is essentially making the argument that pedophiles cannot help but be sexually attracted to children....it's the same argument that people use regarding homosexuality. They are born that way and cannot be changed. Same with folks who get off on raping people, or the folks who are violent by nature.

***I*** don't consider child molestors human. I think they are sub-human compost heaps that prey on children, and would love nothing more than to pull a Frank Castle and go Punisher on their asses if it meant that I could prevent even one kid from being raped and murdered, just as Carlie Brucia was. But that's me....I don't advocate that anyone actually DO that, or that we make that a national policy, but I think that it's pretty fucking common that people feel the sick fucks who rape children should be made to suffer.

In contrast, keeping state registries (which is already being done), announcing their presence to the community (which is already being done in some cases), and keeping close tabs on these folks (which Boog suggests) isn't so unreasonable. Matter of fact, I think that compared to what we'd like to do, this suggestion is a sterling example of self-restraint.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

So basically every time a terrorist group claims it kills because of US policy we should change the policy?

Actually, thats not what I said at all.  In fact I said exactly the opposite in the post previous to that one.

Good try though. No, I don't think we should bend an inch to accomidate terrorists but that doesn't mean ignore them while they spend years training  and preparing to carry out thier actions either.  Clinton didn't do very much to deter international terrorists and for Margalis to just shrug that off as "Not his fault, it was the guy before him" misses the entire meaning of the word responsible.

Note that I am not saying that either of the Bush presidents dont bear some of the weight but those 10 years from GW I to 9/11 were CRITICAL to what happened on that day and Clinton bears full weight for being the man in charge during the vast majority of that time.

But you must concede that it didn't do so to the extent that was expected by the investors, venture capitalists, or the folks writing up the business plans. Thus, the ones with the best business plans survived.



I agree, though with an increased focus on diversification, the amount of risk in investment can be minimized as much as possible. Still, there is an inherent risk not found in a traditional pension plan.



The lower 80% of the economic ladder is a bit misleading. My best friend, who is far from rich, fits into the top 20% as a member of the UAW. As does the example of my dad from earlier in the thread...he was bringing in $200k per year at one point, and we were struggling to make it because of the personal costs we incurred to start his company.



Taxing Americans to a level that would have balanced the budget would have further devastated the economy. Simply not going to war, not arming our troops, and not making an effort to do nation-building to create stable regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were not seen as viable options. Had the President sat on his hands after 9/11, and we endured another terrorist attack, he'd have had the entire Democratic party (not to mention independents, and even many Republicans) calling for his head.

Neither was cutting social programs a viable option to balance the budget. What would you have had him do? And before you push the issue on Iraq...consider what we knew AT THE TIME.



I think this is a naive overgeneralization, one that makes it sound like American business is an unshakable rock of profitiability. Companies need to show profits, even in a period of declining revenues.....cutting costs are the only means of doing so. Efficiency is the key there. If revenues are not growing, you had better show that you are growing profits or cutting costs, or watch the Street eat you alive.



That point means effectively instituting a world-wide minimum wage for all companies based in the US. Or providing substantial incentives for companies to keep workers here. I think that in any case, you'll have a hard time bridging the gap between a US worker who wants $40k plus benefits, and a foreign worker who is making $4k and is considered wealthy by local standards.

But yes, technology is driving this trend.....people ike to say how technology is designed to make life easier, when in fact it is designed to make us more efficient. In the workplace, maximizing efficiency is a never-ending battle....an employee can always produce just one more widget, or sell just one more deal. Hell, a major airline removed just one olive from the salads served on their flights, and it saved the company a ridiculous amount of money.



I disagree. I think one sees it as something that was a necessary evil to bring the economy back on track, while the other is pulling a Chicken Little routine. I will say that I believe the government will eventually need to step in, as capitalism naturally tends to get out of control in the pursuit of profit in such a way as to be harmful to the domestic economy and workforce. However, as to how they should react....I don't think there is an ideal solution. If you make the situation so dire that companies cannot find relief by outsourcing in time of economic difficulty, you're going to condemn many companies to failure in the next recession (or even sooner).



make no mistake about it naum, these guys are trying to play Iron Chef. They are playing the ABB angle, hyping Kerry's war record, and hoping that will take care of it.



Okay naum...explain to me what Bush did in January and February of 2001 to cause that recession. I can't believe you can say with a straight face that he didn't inherit a recession.



Because lord know the intelligence community enjoys being the scapegoat for 9/11 and WMD. I'm still curious as to what Bush did in his first 8 months that caused 9/11.....I would like you to enlighten me, as even the 9/11 commission seems to place the blame primarily on our intelligence community.

We can go back and do coulda/shoulda/woulda....I figure if we're doing it on Bush, why not go ahead and look back even further? Why didn't Clinton strengthen our military, regulations regarding immigration and airline travel, and beef up our intelligence community and the communication and cooperation between various intelligence agencies?

For that matter, why wasn't Clinton more assertive when Hussein kicked out inspectors? Why wasn't he more firm about our need to go after the camps in Afghanistan? Bosnia and Somalia were certainly less than ideal situations as well. There are plenty of questions regarding his foreign policy....just so long as we put him under the same microscope of hindsight that you folks are doing with Bush.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

EDIT: added a paragraph that I had deleted by accident.

Please stop trying to be purposefully dense.

Let's look at the timeline:

Bush 1: Did nothing about terrorism, installed troops in Saudi Arabia.
Clinton: Did something (not enough) about terrorism, kept troops in Saudi Arabia.
Bush 2: Did something (not enough, probably less than Clinton) about terrorism, kept troops in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton and Bush 2 both perpetuated what Bush 1 started. So, I place the majority of the blame for that decision on Bush 1. Or, maybe you could say that Clinton, Bush 1 & 2 are all to blame equally - you certainly CAN'T say that Clinton deserves the majority of the blame.

Bush 1 made an active bad decision. Bush 2 and Clinton failed to reverse that bad decision. Is it THAT difficult to grasp?

If you take what you wrote above, you can replace Clinton with Bush 2 and get the exact same reasoning.

This kind of black and white reasoning is a dumb road to go down. Maybe you should change the policy, maybe you shouldn't. It really depends on the policy. There is no every.

It's foolish to say you should alter policy because of a terrorist action, but it's also foolish to rule it out, or to create and maintain policies that may create/incite terrorism.
---

We've done a good job of pissing off a lot of Saudi Arabians, by supporting their non-democratic government that many of the common folk despise, by keeping troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, etc etc. At the time I thought it was a bad idea. In retrospect I think I was right. (Of course you can debate that) It ws a policy that created a lot of potential problems without being all that useful.

To Dark Vengeance:

Child molesters are human. To say anything else is just random hyperbole. Yeah, I don't love child molesters either. But, they are people. What that means exactly is a different discussion. I personally have no problem tracking such people. My objection was to the "they aren't people so whatever" rationalizing. That's just not a good reason for anything. It's a statement made for effect, it can't be used as a serious argument.

If you want to argue that we should track child molesters for life I would agree. But the logic is gain vs. loss and who is put at risk (the 'good' guys or the 'bad' guys), not a dumb overstatement. If you start buying into that you can go way too far. Hey, they aren't people, just throw them in a big pit.

Clinton had 8 years to deal with the problem. Bush the second had a handful of months. Bush the first about 2 years.

And of course there is the matter of the FIRST World Trade Center attack.

Remember that one?

It's not like there weren't plenty of smart people that didn't see what the problem was back in 93.

Clinton just chose not to listen to them.

And here we are.

And Reagan gave money to the Osama and his ilk in order to kick Soviet butt in Afghanistan, the invasion of which happened on his watch.

If you want to go back, you can probably find some event that happened on every president's watch that was a step on the path to 9-11.  The main reason it happened is because no one believed it could happen.  Pointing fingers might be fun for those who believe that Bush Jr. is the anti-christ or that Clinton should have been convicted in his impeachment trial, but all it really is is a way to score cheap political points during the current election cycle.

Failures like this are systemic, and it's the system that needs to be changed in order to prevent them from happening in the future.

And it was the right move for the time. They weren't a problem then. We had years afterwards to see them becoming a problem. It wasn't the fault of "The system" it was the fault of George Bush the first and Clinton. Bush the second didn't have enough time to really get much of the flak for 9/11, but he gets some. Mostly?

Clinton. World Trade Center gets attacked and he has 2 terms to fix the situation.

He does nothing.

"If you go back" is nice meaningless drivel that doesn't excuse the fact that there was a serious intelligence failure under Clinton. I can excuse a lot, but the fact the World Trade Center had to be attacked a SECOND time before we wised up?

No. Clinton should have handled this before it was a problem. That's what a good President would have done.

As for that "anti-Christ/Impeachment" shit, nobody mentioned that.

Now excuse Clinton not dealing with Osama after the first World Trade Center attack.

Please.

When you strip away all of the slippery slope arguments, we agree. Additionally, I believe it was a statement made for effect.

However, in all honesty, I'd be hard pressed to give a shit if any child molestors or rapists out there were to meet an untimely, grisly, brutal fate. Likewise, I'm not a big fan of "Life without parole" sentence....but that's an argument for a capital punishment thread, not this one.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

It wasn't. I truly don't feel certain types of sociopaths and predators are human in any fundamental way. The biology may be similar but they just do not function in the same fashion, with the same type of wants and needs and reactions to situations, as everyone else.

Treating them just like people is a serious mistake. It's pretending they are like normal humans that leads to so many problems. Call it hyperbole, it's still a more practical mindset for dealing with them than the alternative.

And I'm all about practicality.



As for that, we put people in cells with a hole in the floor to shit in now while calling them people.

You find a practical difference between accepted social practice today and what I think the world should be?

Let's go back in time to the period Jan 2001 to September 10, 2001. Before 9/11. After the administration transition, when the FBI deputy director of counter terrorism resigned in protest. John O'Neill had OBL in his crosshairs long before most Americans knew this man. He figured that things would get better under GWB for his anti-terrorism efforts, but it actually got worse and GWB and company were more interested in stamping out pornography.

And according to FBI whistle blowers, the "ball was dropped" (i.e., the Williams Phoenix memo, Coleen Rawley, etc...) under Bush's watch. And according to recent accounts, the situation has not improved.

From my reading of the 9/11 report, plenty of blame was heaped on both Clinton and Bush administrations.

Same here. It costs significantly less in time, trouble, and expenses to just set the bastards on fire rather then wasting it all away and taking chances trying to "rehabilitate", imprison, or monitor them around the clock. They're not even worth the price of bullets.

Where I disagree with Boog is that they are human. But so what? Does it make my verdict better or worse, seeing that I can still write them off, all the while still believing that they are "human"?

So tell me how that is in conflict with this:



Answer is that it's not....I didn't claim either administration was completely blameless, nor did I claim that either one was solely at fault.

The flipside is that many people would LOVE to try and blame 9/11 solely on Bush, just as they would LOVE to blame him competely for the recession.....but in both cases, the wheels were already in motion before he took office. It's much tougher to stop a rock from rolling downhill when it's already in motion.

In any event what I got from the 9/11 commission was that the finger was pointed primarily at the intel community (but you are correct that neither administration was completely spared). And I truly believe that guys like Tenet and Richard Clarke are keenly aware of their positions as it relates to history......if you are the terrorism czar or head of the CIA when 9/11 hits, you had better shift some of the blame to others, or you'll be the guy in the history books that catches the flack.

As another poster said, we could probably pick apart several administrations, and point out ways that little things they could have done to stop 9/11, as if this were some episode of Quantum Leap. My point isn't to absolve Bush of all responsibility.....but at the same time to put into perspective that he caught a trio of "wrong place, wrong time" issues during his administration that he could not have been reasonably expected to prevent or stop on his own.

This of course, brings us back to one of the key themes of the thread......dropping the easy, natural knee-jerk reaction that many folks have because they just plain don't like the guy. It's easy to blame him for all the problems we face right now....it's a lot tougher to say "hmm, if you really think about it, here's a guy facing some pretty tough challenges, even for a President...maybe he tried to do the best he could under some pretty tough circumstances".

I think that's a bit more logical, rational, and reasonable than some of the ridiculous theories floating around....including geldon's "evil incarnate" theory, or the "Dick Cheney = Evil Cyborg" theory in my avatar.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

How about we say it thusly?

George Bush and the people he brought with them into office, including such luminaries as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft, have done what I personally consider to be a terrible job with the opportunities and setbacks they've been handed. Their handling of said problems and opportunities has not benefitted the US now, nor in the future, and none of them seem willing to even admit the slightest bit of error, miscalculation or mis-administration of said problems and opportunities. While I may not feel that Kerry will be an absolute improvement, it is my opinion that Bush has had his chance and failed miserably. Therefore, I'd prefer to see new blood in these positions of power as opposed to four more years of mishandling.

It's so much more succint to just say "DICK CHENEY IS EVAL ROBAT!!1! BUSH STRANGLES PUPPIES!1!@@!" which is essentially the same thing.

I don't like Bush, his policies or his underlings.

Jebus criminey, I'm sorry about the flipping Hitler/Jew remark already.  I've already admitted it was a poor analogy.  Move on with your lives already.

Really, I don't know why I had to find an anology in the first place.  The argument started about methods to stop sexual predators from committing crimes, and somehow Boog steered it in the direction of "Well, Sexual predators aren't really human anyway."  This was his defence against my suggesting a higher level of community involvement would be a more effective method of stopping sexual predators than putting cameras on streets.    The issue was in regards to preventing crimes, and somehow it was steered in the direction of what to do once you've caught the perp.  Rediculously circuitous methods of argument used to stave off obvious incorrectness cause me to weep for humankind.

As for the terrorism - whose fault is it anyway - discussion: I'm keeping my distance here, primarily because I don't enjoy arguing with people who take the time to interject blistering and unneccessarily insults into every second paragraph.   However, I have to say I like the direction the discussion has been going.  Finally getting some real issues out in the open here.

On an entirely different note, I have to wonder what we did to tick off these terrorists in the first place.  I've heard it's simply a matter of them not wanting to move ahead with the rest of the world, but at times I wonder if there's more to it than that.   They hate America?  Fine.  Why?  Not to symapathyse with people who think it's okay to steal a couple of our jumbo jets full of innocents and plow it into towers also filled with innocents, but I've got to wonder what's gotten into their heads.   I hope they're not just doing it for the 72 white raisins.

Speaking of the GOP:


GWB: Wow, isn't it great about the Iraqi soccer team, they wouldn't be free if it wasn't for me.

Iraqi Soccer Team to Bush:  Get Bent (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/writers/08/19/iraq/index.html)

What's the problem here? If it were a liberal president, the lefties would be lining up saying 'omfg the iraqis who are now free because of my president now hate him, OH NOES.' Screw them and their soccer team. From a completely middle of the road view, these fuckers have no place being upset about that.

Israel, Oil, McDonald's, nightly episodes of Friends...Coupled with a poor standard of living which they feel America is a convenient enough target to take the blame for.

But, more importantly, what did they do?

Islam. Wait, I take that back. Shiite Islam.

From what I understand of the story, Geld, Osama was funded in the 80's by the CIA, trained and such to fight against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Osama believed that he was fighting to help found a radical Islamic state, while the US gave two shits about his reasons for fighting, and instead just wanted the Soviets out. When the Soviets left, the US funding and aid dried up, leaving Osama flapping in the breeze and Afghanistan a fucking minefield of mullahs and tribal warlords.

Then we invaded Iraq, which was somehow a bad thing because even though Osama hated the secularist Hussein and his Iraq because they weren't religious enough, it was an Islamic country and the US was the Great Satan for abandoning Afghanistan and invading Iraq. I'm sure there was more to it than that, but I think that's the kindergarden version of Osama's history.

As for why most Islamic fundies hate the US? We support Israel, which they believe has no right to exist and that all Jews should burn for being infidels. Oh yeah, they are on Islamic Holy Land too. Everything else feeds off of that.

Actually, mine would be the kindergarten version, Haemish :)

You know what? I'd have told W. to go fuck himself as well. That's some pretty tasteless advertising. All the Iraqi guy was saying was that he didn't want his appearance at the Olympics to be used as a campaign tool for some uptight redneck who bombed the fuck out of his country.

Better than their own leader eventually bombing the fuck outta their country. Casualties of war are much less.......evil than casualties of a viscious tyrant. Then again, they're both death. Death sucks.

To a large extent, people in the middle east don't / didn't like their governments.  They're oppressive and dictatorial.  The national economies are in shambles, and there are many educated but disenfranchised, young men.  Problem is, many of the leaders claim roots in Islam, which is a social shield against a fair amount of criticism and revolt.  People don't want to pick a fight with God.  They also strongly dislike Israel's existance.  On both of these hotbutton issues, they find without much difficulty that the US is largely responsible for proping up both Israel and their local governments.  We are a Christian society, so it's fair game to pitch the hate to us.

Their cultures don't distinguish between the secular and religious.  We have in fact been one of the major players propping up the dictatorships.  Theirs is a fair complaint.

I rarely find myself unequivocally supporting Bush on most his "big idea" pronouncements but I gave a mental standing ovation when he recently acknowledged and took responsibility for our historical role.