For your little GOP toddler who has everything...

[Murgos]

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.

[Dark Vengeance]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…).

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Margalis]

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.

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.

[Margalis]

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

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.

[Boogaleeboo]

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.

[daveNYC]

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.

[Boogaleeboo]

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.

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.

[Dark Vengeance]

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.

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..............

[Boogaleeboo]

Additionally, I believe it was a statement made for effect.

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.

Hey, they aren't people, just throw them in a big pit.

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?

[naum]

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?

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.

[stray]

And I'm all about practicality.

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"?

[Dark Vengeance]

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

So tell me how that is in conflict with this:

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.

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..............

[HaemishM]

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.

[geldonyetich]

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.

[Abagadro]

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

[schild]

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

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.

[stray]

I have to wonder what we did to tick off these terrorists in the first place.

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[stray]

I'm sure there was more to it than that, but I think that's the kindergarden version of Osama's history.

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

[HaemishM]

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

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.

But they also find it offensive that Bush is using Iraq for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

[schild]

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.

[Roac]

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.  

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.

[personman]

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.